Open thread

Neil Craig

".....6 - Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud or telling of obvious untruths. on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?...."

Answer - no, because scientists are only too willing to denounce fraud and the telling of obvious untruths. But the denialist side on the other hand.......

Let see if you have any integrity or credibility shall we?

Will you denounce Wegmann for plagiarism?

Will you denounce Watts for his lies over his surface station project, and his refusal to accept the findings of a study he himself supported?

Will you denounce Monckton over cherry picking, misquoting, lying and name calling?

That should do for a start. There are many more examples. But I guess you are probably just a drive-by denier with even less integrity than the usual idiots. Go back to worship at the feet of wattsupmybutt, there's a good chap.

Martin, tou demonstrate the total contempt for any sort of honesty to be found among alarmists. It is a deliberate lie to say that these questions have "been answered repeatedly on multiple scienceblogs".

No factual answers supportive of alarmism have been put up on any of the "scienceblogs" (or elsewherer). If they had been you would be able to repaste them here. The main response has been censorship which proves how contemptous of the basic principles of science the "scienceblog" is.

Mandas perhaps you could list the occasions when, prior ro Monckton getting a court to pronounce on the lies, prominent alarmist denounced Gore's film as the obvious pack of lies it is. If your claim that alarmists "are only too willing to denounce fraud and the telling of obvious untruths" represents the claims of anybody not at least 99.9% a lying fascist, you will be easily able to do so.

As for the rest of your claims - prove that they represent something that somebody, in some way honest, could make.

I note nobody here has been able to answer any of these questions. Obviously if it is not possible to answwer all 7 in a way that suports alarmism the scare story is false and if not possible to answer 3,4,6 & 7 it is a deliberate fraud.

Neil Craig: "
1 - Do you accept Professor Jones' acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?"

From the BBC interview:
"BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."

Also, 1995 was a particularly warm year (since surpassed). If the question had been 1994 or 1996, the answer would have been "Yes."

These questions were submitted to the BBC by climate denialists, for this interview. You have pasted this question before, and been answered. Are you ineducable, or just dishonest?

A Phil Jones update:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

(Just in case anyone is wondering what the questions Neil raised are, I'm reposting them here. Then you don't have to go to the older thread looking for them.)

These 7 questions seem to go to the heart of the warming scare since if any of them cannot be aswered in a way that supports alarmism then there is no case to answer. For some reason Mr Mann has declined to answer them privately (as indeed has every other warming alarmist asked:

1 - Do you accept Professor Jones' acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?

2 - Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth by around 10% & that the consequent influence on world hunger is more beneficial than any currently detectable destructive action of alleged global warming?

3 - Do you accept that the Hockey Stick, as originally presented by Mann and the IPCC contained calculations that were inconsistent with good science and that Mann's refusal to make calculations and algorithms available for checking were inconsistent with scientific principle?

4 - Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side, from Al Gore's claim that South Sea islands had already been abandoned due to rising sea levels and Pachauri's claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was "voodoo" were untrue and insupportable even at the time.

5 - Do you accept that there are a number of geoengineering solutions which arithmetically can be shown would work (including stratospheric dust, the geritol solution or even just replacing CO2 burning with nuclear power) which would work at a small fraction of the cost of the war against fire, or in the case of nuclear, at negative cost?

6 - Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud or telling of obvious untruths. on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?

7 - Of the alleged "consensus" - can you name 2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state, who support catastrophic warming & if not can you explain how something can be a consensus when no member of a subset of 60% of the alleged consenting, consent?

I think Kermit has addressed issue number 1.

For issue number 2, co2 and crop yields, I refer to a number of studies and articles, which I'll post here as I find them (feel free to use my secret research method too.

This one shows that increased co2 BY ITSELF can improve plant growth, but

Stanford University (2002, December 6). Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals. ScienceDaily. Retrieved June 27, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.comÂ/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm

See William Connelly's full answers to Craig's questions on his Stoat blog - post #14 here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/06/lindzen_goes_emeritus.php#comments

I don't know if WC counts as an alarmist though.

Ok then, the challenge is out, I will answer all of the 7 questions:

1 - No
2 - No
3 - No
4 - Yes
5 - No
6 - No
7 - Yes

Anything else?

Sorry, I got bored of refuting these half way through my first post on question 2.

And that is the most interesting question of the lot for me.

I went off and did some, you know, actual reading of actual research, and the position now seems to be that CO2 in isolation can promote plant growth between 5-15% (some reports on maize production in China, google it yourself.)

However, changes in moisture, heat and Nitrogen levels all counteract that effect, and since most models of AGW show changes in moisture, heat and Nitrogen levels, we're pretty much screwed.

No my answer to question 2 is that yes, some crops (specifically as I mentioned Maize in China for some reason) have improved somewhat under present conditions, but further warming and climate change will more than negate those improvements.

As for question 3, this looks more and more like a beat-up all the time. My answer is No.

And for question 4, my answer is Yes, some alarmists have been alarming (as they are by defition.) But most climate science is not alarmist, and therefore only vaguely unsettling.

Thanks for the question Dylan, makes it a lot easier to understand the posts :))

I will have a go at answering them.

1 - Yes, i say this because of two reasons. Firstly Jones stated it as fact and also the +0.12 trend is no diferent to any other recent trend (since 1860 or so).

2 - Neither, Cant vouch for the 10% figure however a small increase in CO2 does increase plant growth, i think you need more than just CO2 though to grow plants. Silly question really.

3 - Yes, but more importantly the HS was a NTH hemisphere reconstruction but was sold as a global reconstruction using trees whos growth can be influence by all sorts of things. This should have been "just another study" but unfortunately for Mann it was used to shove AGW down the throats of the world and Mann got caught up in all that. The real villians here is the IPCC and associates.

4 - Yes, also see above

5 - No, geo engineering is the stuff of mad scientists. Nuclear has its problems time to think a bit more broadly. Thorium reactors spring to mind.

6 - Yes, There are many people that give good science a bad name.

7 - Yes, Mandas and Ian Patrick Forrester (Not sure what is Ians field of expertise but he has told me more than once that he is a scientist).

crakar (and by extension, Neil Craig - although why a failed AFL coach is posting I can't understand!!)

The questions posted by NC are pointless and not really worth answering, because they are based on false premises which have been discredited repeatedly. They aren't really questions, just denialist memes dressed up in the Emperor's clothes.

1. Nonsense. Jones said nothing of the sort. He should read what he ACTUALLY said, not just the cherry pick this question is based on.

2. As you said, you need more than CO2 to grow plants, and study after study has shown the detrimental effects far outweigh any supposed benefit from increased carbon.

3. Mann's calculations were NOT inconsistent with good science, so once again the premise of the question is flawed. Some may argue that Mann's calculations could be improved upon, and people have subsequently done so. You know, just like in science everywhere. But the revised calculations did not significantly change the findings.

4. Politicians make grandious and unsupported claims all the time. So what? That doesn't affect the science.

5. Why would you need geoengineering if climate change is a hoax? This just shows how inconsistent the denialist approach is. They can't even agree whether climate change is happening or not (see answer to CO2 question above). And you are correct crakar - the unforseen consequences of geoengineering is too damn scarey for words. And I have a one word answer to the statement about the nuclear option - Fukushima.

6. A non question based on a false premise. Provide one example of scientists covering up or making up data that has not been exposed by other scientists. On the other hand, it is easy to provide dozens of examples of deniers making up data and covering up lies, while their unethical behaviour was actively supported and encouraged by other deniers.

7. Stupidist question ever. Really? Is that the best you can come up with.

I, too, accept the challenge:

Since 3/4 of the Earth's surface is water the idea that it is not of importance to the alleged catastrophic warming of the globe seems bizarre.

You assume an equilibrium state and balance the energy flux across the water surface and assume an increase in IR from the atmosphere and voilà, the surface temperature has to increase.

These 7 questions seem to go to the heart of the warming scare since if any of them cannot be aswered (sic) in a way that supports alarmism then there is no case to answer. For some reason Mr Mann has declined to answer them privately (as indeed has every other warming alarmist asked:

Ok, I suspect that Mann believes that no matter what he says everything will be used against him and he'd rather ignore the questions. My ex would somehow distort everything I said so I understand the feeling.

1 - Do you accept Professor Jones' acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?

What is statistically significant? Normal temperature variations are such that a few odd years are not enough to be "statistically significant" in a mathematical sense. You need a longer stretch than 15 years, or an even greater temperature rise. And, in fact, is is my understanding that if you look over a longer period of time, i.e., the past 30 years, the temperature rise is statistically significant.

Notwithstanding, the current temperature trend scares the bejeezes out of me. It is so close to being "statistically significant" and it parallels most climate models.

2 - Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth by around 10% & that the consequent influence on world hunger is more beneficial than any currently detectable destructive action of alleged global warming?

Nope. CO2 is not usually the limiting factor on crop growth. That said, for some crops under fairly ideal circumstance it has been shown that increasing CO2 can increase plant growth.

As for the "detectable destructive action of alleged global warming", to date, that too has been minimal. So, at present, it is a wash between CO2 increased growth and global warming destruction.

But this is a dangerous comparison because the positive effect of increasing CO2 on plant growth should decrease and the modeled "destructive action" of global warming should increase.

3 - Do you accept that the Hockey Stick, as originally presented by Mann and the IPCC contained calculations that were inconsistent with good science and that Mann's refusal to make calculations and algorithms available for checking were inconsistent with scientific principle?

No. I accept nothing on its face. Nevertheless, despite any lapse on Mann's part, it appears that the "Hockey Stick" is not too far off of reality.

4 - Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations (sic) on the alarmist side, from Al Gore's claim that South Sea islands had already been abandoned due to rising sea levels and Pachauri's claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was "voodoo" were untrue and insupportable even at the time.

I take no stock in Al Gore. His fear mongering has done science a disservice.

5 - Do you accept that there are a number of geoengineering solutions which arithmetically can be shown would work (including stratospheric dust, the geritol solution or even just replacing CO2 burning with nuclear power) which would work at a small fraction of the cost of the war against fire, or in the case of nuclear, at negative cost?

No. Why? I tend to believe in complexity and uncertainty. Geoengineering is only a short-term, last gasp, fix. The probability that it will itself will be ineffectual or cause more damage than it stops is just to high. Last resort only

However, I am a fan a nuclear power. I like geothermal even better.

6 - Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud or telling of obvious untruths. on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?

Don't confuse science with politics. Science always tries to improve accuracy. Sometimes mistakes are made, but they are usually done in good faith. Fraud is a rarity.

Politics is quite different. It seems to me to be more about agitating the electorate to rouse some votes to have a meaningful discussion.

7 - Of the alleged "consensus" - can you name 2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state, who support catastrophic warming & if not can you explain how something can be a consensus when no member of a subset of 60% of the alleged consenting, consent?

I'll be honest. I don't keep a close track of global warming. But I know a number of physicist, and they all agree that, of course, global warming will happen as a result of dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The question then becomes how dramatically will it affect climate. This is far more difficult to model because you have to deal with the feedback loops and large amount of computer resources.

My own view is that we, as a species, will likely adapt, but we will cause a large amount of damage to the global ecosystem and this damage represents an existential threat. So it would be prudent to avoid this threat. However, free market economics dictates that we will most likely burn all of the carbon in the ground. As a father I wish it were not so, but global warming is both unavoidable and dangerous.

On the last half of my answer to number 6, above, I meant to say:

Politics is quite different. It seems to me to be more about agitating the electorate to rouse some votes than to have a meaningful discussion.

Mandas,

He has only failed after he is sacked which won be too long now i suspect.

Denialist memes? i would not go that far Mandas.

1, This is an easy one and really there should be no dispute over. What Jones was saying was the trend since 1995 was nothing we have not seen for the past 120 years.

Now you can say 15 years is not a trend and all that stuff but Jones was only saying what everyone else already knew.

2, Less than 150ppm plants die, at 200ppm they survive above that they grow now how much above 200ppm can they tolerate?

Obviously they like higher CO2 levels but it would pepend on the circumstance which the question does not detail so it is a question that cannot be answered simply YES or NO.

3, As i said before it was a reconstruction of NTH Hemisphere temps and passed off by the IPCC as the holy grail of global temps, it was based on tree rings which are affected in many ways beyond temp so whilst the study may have served a purpose it was not or should not have been used as the smoking gun the IPCC and others claimed it was.

Was the study flawed? Maybe but as you said no study is perfect and they are improved upon as time goes by which serves to highlight the stupidity of the IPCC.

4, No it does not effect the science but what it does is it erodes the integrity of politicians and therefore science. For example we were told by warmbots that we would get no rain and the little rain we got would do no good because the drought would be so severe. When it flooded we were told the floods were caused by AGW.....and the list of hypocritical statements go on and on and on.

Now our illustrious PM and her predecessor claim the scientists told me so, so therefore people by logical extension perceive the scientists to be wrong but this is how it really works.

Gov. assembles a group of scientists to study the effects of agw on Australia and give them an endless bucket of money. The scientists dilligently carry out their research and come up with a result which states basically that we might get less rain but then again we might get more because we really dont know. They cover their arse with a bullet proof disclaimer.

The gov. not happy with this report as it does not contain a story, a story so scary they can get their repressive taxation regime through parliament they decide to embellish the report a little bit. So when the gov's scary story fails to unfold the gov's reputation goes down the tubes and they drag the reputation of science with it.

Here are some examples:

Bob Brown stated the coal companies should foot the bill for the QLD floods as it was caused by AGW.

Christine Milne claimed Cyclone Yasi was a direct result of AGW.

Tim (i get sponsored by Pansonic)Flannery has made many wild claims whilst employed by the gov whilst being chair of the climate committee, he claimed the drought would continue for ever due to AGW, then claimed the floods which broke the drought were caused by AGW.

Need i go on?

And yet after careful reading of the latest CSIRO report you will find along with the bullet proof disclaimer there is NO EVIDENCE that the cyclones, floods, droughts or any weather event can be attributed to AGW.

Aren't these the scientists our PM is getting all her information from? If so why does she and her associates continually lie to me MAndas?

So in the end the polliticians lies affect science because i know many people that see the polliticians as liers but none of them are aware of the CSIRO report.

I am astonished that a man in your position cannot see this.

5, A hoax? you are guilty of the same crimes you accuse the Adelaide coach of making.

But yes we agree on geo engineering and for our American friends forget Fukashima what about Fort Calhoun?

6, I think the original question is asking "why do you sit silent whilst Al Gore shows incorrect ice core data to substantiate his claims" You could also include the lies told by Brown, Gillard etc (answer 4 above)in this. This is way i stated previously

"Yes, There are many people that give good science a bad name." Maybe i should have said "There are many non scientists that give good science a bad name".

7, Stupidist question ever? Do not understand, but to answer the question Ian (self proclaimed scientist) and yourself are scientists that believe and are not on the gov payroll. Well Ian might be i suppose but i doubt a man of his nature would be employed by them for very long as he does not sound like a scientists boot lace.

crakar

".....1, This is an easy one and really there should be no dispute over. What Jones was saying was the trend since 1995 was nothing we have not seen for the past 120 years...."

No he wasn't - and we have been over this ad nauseum. Jones said - very very clearly at the time - that there HAD been warming since 1995, but the period was too short to show a statistically significant trend. He wasn't saying that the warming wasn't unusual, and he wasn't saying there had been no warming. Just that the time period was too short for the science of statistics to show signficance. Importantly, now that several years have passed, he has stated that the trend IS now statistically significant.

".... what it does is it erodes the integrity of politicians and therefore science...."

Eroding the integrity of politicians is impossible, since they have none. But I am astonished that you would imply a correlation between the lack of integrity of politicians and scientists. No such correlation exists. If politicians fail to properly heed the advice they are given (and I know that from personal experience), it is not the fault of the advisor.

".....I am astonished that a man in your position cannot see this...."

What? That politicians lie and embellish the truth for their own ends? Never!! (can you detect the sarcasm there?).

"...If so why does she and her associates continually lie to me MAndas?..."

She is a politician - they all lie.

".... there is NO EVIDENCE that the cyclones, floods, droughts or any weather event can be attributed to AGW...."

Only partially true. It IS impossible to attribute a single event to climate change. But it is possible to attribute an increased probability in the occurence of extreme events to climate change - exactly what is happening, and exactly as the CSIRO (and BOM) has stated.

"....why do you sit silent whilst Al Gore shows incorrect ice core data to substantiate his claims" You could also include the lies told by Brown, Gillard etc (answer 4 above)in this...."

Not me. You will be well aware from reading my posts over the years that I put absolutely no stock in anything a politician - past or present - has to say. That includes Gore, Brown, Gillard, Abbott, Fielding, Inhofe, etc. And you will have noted that I have always been critical of them for what they say. I have called Gore a 'failed politician' on may occasions. But crucially, as you have suggested, it is not the scientists who are giving science a bad name, it is (partly) politicians. But the people giving science and scientists a bad name is mostly denialist bloggers and industry shills who lie and misrepresent what scientists are really saying.

".....Maybe i should have said "There are many non scientists that give good science a bad name"....."

Thank you. That is the perfect statement which summarises this whole issue perfectly, and neatly encapsulates the whole climate change debate. Scientists on one side, and non-scientists throwing shit on the other.

Mandas here is a follow up to my previous post (answer 4).

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/an-inconvenient-fallacy-20110…

Now this is written by Bob Carter a geologist who rejects the IPCC view, what is significant is that it was published in The Age which as history shows has always been a refuge of the warmist.

But even Chubb who no doubt is a very intelligent, learned man states the science is in on climate change and it is all about consensus which is a shame.

The bottom line is the polliticians have hijacked the science to the point now where they are both indistinguishable and as Labor go down they will drag science with it. The moral public debate on AGW is lost the pollies cannot get the people to agree with it so now they will force it upon us and like all other laobor pollicies this will end in a farce aswell.

Now look at what is happening now Gillard claims 9/10 households will be compensated i hope i am not the 1/10 that has to pay the 12 billion tax. In response Abott claims if he wins gov he will remove the carbon tax but keep the rebates...WTF... he either keeps the tax or he does not. Do you see how stupid policy creates more stupid policy? We are fucked in this country Mandas, you and me both.

I say it is time for another debate one which has scientists debating the facts it can begin when all the pollies are run out of town and the prize for winning the debate..........you get to run the country cant do any worse than the fools we have now.

crakar

Bob Carter is a lying denier - and to give him more than 10 seconds attention is too much. In that article he lists 5 'facts', none of which are facts at all. The first 3 are out and out wrong. Bullshit. Crap. Incorrect.
And the second two are nothing more than opinion, unsubstantiated by any evidence.

And he has the gall to criticise the chief scientist - the man has no shame. The best way to deal with climate change would be to stop people like him from breathing.

Mandas in 15,

I think you missed the main thrust of my post so i will try again to explain myself.

Firstly to jones.....actually lets leave that one for now.

Brown/Gillard/Wong/Combet/Rudd to name but a few over the years have stood up and said "the science is settled" etc. Brown blames AGW for causing droughts and floods, Milne blames AGW for causing cyclones, Wong blamed AGW for causing fires, Flannery blames AGW for everything.

Now this is important Mandas so read carefully......where do all these people claim to get their advice from?.....................Thats right the CSIRO, BOM, and any other government employed scientist/department.

However if you read the reports issued from these people you will find these polliticians are full of shit. They make this stuff up, they make it up to try and convince you they are correct. Now you say this is not news pollies lie all the time and you are correct they do.

What you need to understand is that a majority of the general public do not read the reports but still think the pollies are lying so they therefore think the scientists are lying. Labor/Green lies will drag science into the gutter along with them.

In regards to Al Gore, i know what you think of him but once again you have missed the point. Again with Brown and Milne, they make statements about AGW that the CSIRO report shows to be bull shit but where is Steffan? Why does he not go on the record by saying he does not agree with them? Why does he allow them to make false statements?

remember question states

4 - Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side, from Al Gore's claim that South Sea islands had already been abandoned due to rising sea levels and Pachauri's claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was "voodoo" were untrue and insupportable even at the time.

Once again where is WIll Steffan?

Hence my statement ".....Maybe i should have said "There are many non scientists that give good science a bad name"....."

"and Pachauri's claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was "voodoo" were untrue and insupportable even at the time"

The 2025 typo and Raina's voodoo science are two separate issues. You know this crakar & yet you parrot it as if true. Much like this statement "he [Flannery] claimed the drought would continue for ever due to AGW"

So who is giving science a bad name?

Oh, and "...CSIRO report you will find along with the bullet proof disclaimer..." Seems that's another post in which I debunked your nonsense* that you were unable to handle.

*see post 136 here wherein I respond to crakar's assertion that the standard disclaimer found on the CSIRO report is "profoundly disturbing": http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/10/htttacs_open_thread.php

There seems to be a general and surprising amount of agreemenmt that Gore and co have lied & that scientists supporting warmism should have said so. "Resopectful Insolence" once pointed me the Realclimate post claiming "Gore got the science mostly right" as evidence of his accuracy while I take it as evidence of their inaccuracy. Scientists should, not only strive for accuracy themselves but seek to dissociate themselves from scientists and politicians, nominally on their side, who fabricate. Had this been done years ago & even moreso had scientists' professional bodies, not given support to Gore and co I think both science and humanity would have been better served.

On CO2 - here is something which shows the current increase has increased growth from 80% to 100% of the current http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm I erred on the side of caution by not claiming more than 10%. Granted that other factors may change, though not necessarily to the detriment of plant growth (more heat & more water in the air can improve growth further) but it seems to me to be bizarre for some here to deny that more CO2, taken alone, does not increase growth.

Whatever you think of Professor Jones' admission and his sunsequent assertion that it no longer applies the promised 0.2 C per decade increase Hansen originally promised has certainly not taken place. We may argue over Jones' use of "significant" in an arithmetical sense but in terms of catastrophic warming it is too small to be significant.

There are a number of geo-engineering solutions which, on paper, would work. When an engineer knows how to do something in several different ways at least one is almost certain to work. Personally I favour the most expensive - industrialisation of space, making it possible as a side effect, to build as many solar mirrors or parasols as we want. I think an ice age is a greater risk than catastrophic warming. Warming of under 4 degrees as we had during the Climate Optimum, would not, history shows, be catastrophic, in fact it would probably be beneficial). Thus any geoengineering solution that could ameliorate cooling (ie mirrors) would be best.

On #7 I note that several people refused to answer on the grounds that it is a stupid question, but did not explain why. On the contrary, with millions of scientists worldwide, for all the scientists supporting catastrophic warming to be government paid without the scare story being a deliberately government promoted one is, by many orders of magnitude, a statistical impossibility. If it is random there should be a million independent scientists pushing this, let alone 2. I don't know who Mr Forrester is or how he is paid. Mandas, being a small commune in Italy, is clearly not qualified to express a scientific opinion (I think I am entitled to that after his remark about me).

'"Gore got the science mostly right" as evidence of his accuracy while I take it as evidence of their inaccuracy.'... 'When an engineer knows how to do something in several different ways at least one is almost certain to work'

It would be nice to see logical consitency within the same post sometimes.

I've just clicked on the (one) link Neil Craig has given in support of his theories - "On CO2 - here is something which shows the current increase has increased growth from 80% to 100% of the current"

It's title? Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses.

Someone please page Liebig.

And marco on Stoat answering Q7. You may have missed this Neil, if you had your eyes closed:

"And regarding nr 7, with my own interpretation of what Neil actually meant, let's mention Gordon Bell (Microsoft), Winslow Briggs, Corey Goodman (venBio), William Rutter (Synergenics), and Mary Lou Zoback (RMS - Risk Management solutions). Four names I found on a letter from NAS members sent to Nature, who are not being paid by the government. They also happen to work at organisations that have no link to the climate field. That is, you can't even claim they might benefit from hyping AGW.

That's more than two. In fact, adding William, we're already up to five..."

Yet more from Neil Craig: "There seems to be a general and surprising amount of agreemenmt that Gore and co have lied..."

I have heard climatologists say that his movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' is generally correct, with no important or misleading mistakes. I have no idea nor any interest in what he has done since then. Do you understand that sciences such as climatology are not founded on public statements by celebrities? Your obsession with irrelevant pop culture substantiates my suspicions that you have no hard data to support your claims.

"On CO2 - here is something which shows the current increase has increased growth from 80% to 100% of the current http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm I erred on the side of caution by not claiming more than 10%. Granted that other factors may change, though not necessarily to the detriment of plant growth (more heat & more water in the air can improve growth further) but it seems to me to be bizarre for some here to deny that more CO2, taken alone, does not increase growth."

It does, to varying degrees for different species. Alas, the increased Co2 in the atmosphere are accompanied by other effects. Perhaps you've heard of Global Warming?

Increased temperatures also increase the crops' needs for water. GW leads to drought and floods - how well do they affect production, do you suppose? Last year Russia saw a 40% reduction in wheat; they stopped exporting. They have already announced this year that they will not be exporting - they need the food for themselves.

Global reserves of food - especially grains - are much smaller than thirty years ago. We are closer to the edge.

"Whatever you think of Professor Jones' admission and his sunsequent assertion that it no longer applies the promised 0.2 C per decade increase Hansen originally promised has certainly not taken place. We may argue over Jones' use of "significant" in an arithmetical sense but in terms of catastrophic warming it is too small to be significant."

95% is standard for statistical significance. If the question had been asked about the year before, it would have been significant. With the *continued rise in temperatures* it is of course significant now. Jones used the word correctly, in a standard usage. That's why the denialists who carefully crafted that question chose those terms and that year. As I explained in my last response to you (re-posted above).

We are on track for a 7-10°F rise by the end of the century. The *rate of change is increasing, as predicted. It's true most of the models don't match observations. Only the most pessimistic of them do.

"There are a number of geo-engineering solutions which, on paper, would work. When an engineer knows how to do something in several different ways at least one is almost certain to work."

And if all of them address only one issue (like increasing temperature), then it will not address the other issues (like runaway processes which may have already started such as methane clathrate melting and thawing tundra, nor the acidification of the oceans.

There *are simple engineering solutions: replace the burning of fossil fuels with non-carbon renewable energy sources. The real problems are social: solar and wind energy and dispersed, and cannot be controlled from a central source. It is difficult for sociopaths like the Koch brothers to make (even more) money off of these. But using technology we have now, we can move our energy to safe sources in a generation, and spend far less doing so than it would cost to do nothing.

"I think an ice age is a greater risk than catastrophic warming."

What other sciences are you more knowledgeable than 97% of the scientists in the field?

"Warming of under 4 degrees as we had during the Climate Optimum, would not, history shows, be catastrophic, in fact it would probably be beneficial)."
History does not show it changing as fast as it is now - at least two orders of magnitude faster than 55 MYA - a time of great extinctions. Do you understand the difference between a shove and a punch?

"Thus any geoengineering solution that could ameliorate cooling (ie mirrors) would be best."
The problem is not too much light; the problem is releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at rates and to levels much higher than historically.

"On #7 I note that several people refused to answer on the grounds that it is a stupid question, but did not explain why. On the contrary, with millions of scientists worldwide, for all the scientists supporting catastrophic warming to be government paid without the scare story being a deliberately government promoted one is, by many orders of magnitude, a statistical impossibility. If it is random there should be a million independent scientists pushing this, let alone 2. I don't know who Mr Forrester is or how he is paid. Mandas, being a small commune in Italy, is clearly not qualified to express a scientific opinion (I think I am entitled to that after his remark about me)."

Please show cites indicating that this makes a difference - how does it address the evidence? Scientists are not generally listed by employer. where would most climatologists work except for the state or private universities?

In none of these "questions" of yours do you offer any data suggesting problems with mainstream science. You gossip, misrepresent scientists' statements, and assert there is a vast global and multicultural conspiracy that would pay scientists to lie about this. Did they lie about the floods in Australia, the superstorm in Chicago, the heatwaves in Russia, the melting glaciers in Greenland, the thawing permafrost, the dying forests in Colorado, the wildfires in Arizona?

"....Mandas, being a small commune in Italy, is clearly not qualified to express a scientific opinion (I think I am entitled to that after his remark about me)...."

I think you are on to something here Neil. If someone is not a scientist, then they should not express a scientific opinion.

So - could you tell us your qualifications please?

In relation to the question I posed to Mr Craig in my last post, I thought I would find out myself by visiting his blog. Talk about a journey into the surreal. I thought I was Alice and I had somehow been transported to Wonderland or Looking-Glass Land. The guy is a certifiable nutjob, who believes that Sarah Palin is intelligent; AIDS is a conspiracy; windmills are more dangerous than nuclear reactors; the airship industry collapsed because of a government conspiracy to hide the truth; there is only one âwarmistâ scientist in the whole world who is not on the government payroll (where have we heard that before?); Vitamin D is not a vitamin; and â wait for this one â that former British PM Tony Blair has set a fake charity (to fight malaria in Africa), and that he is guilty of genocide, child rape war crimes and dissecting people while alive to steal their body organs. There are others, but my brain was exploding from this much idiocy.

Here are just a few selected quotes for your reading pleasure â all from his website and blog (click on the hyperlink below his post, and you can then go to his second blog by clicking on the hyperlink under the âIndex of Previous Articlesâ

â....I came out for McCain when he proposed an X-Prize for developing a new battery. I think he is honourable & moderate (arguably over moderate). His choice of Palin showed bravery. She appears to be the real deal - somebody who is not a career politician but has intelligence, integrity & a willingness to take the tough decision....â

â....If AIDS was an infectious disease rather than the body reacting to injection of foreign substances as Peter Duesberg has been saying for 30 years then it would be infecting people. He has said that HIV is unrelated to AIDS & in fact harmless but because it was widespread in the gay & drug communities it was blamed & used a s marker. WHO have thus, by a back door method, admitted he was largely or entirely right. I would like to think the very brave Professor Duesberg's contribution & those of others ( see Virusmyth )who spoke the truth will be justly rewarded but I suspect the scammers are too deeply embedded....â

â....Windmills kill far more than nuclear plants....â

â....And that is why we don't have an airship industry today. Not because it was uncompetitive, not even because the state could not produce a vessel matching the free enterprise one but because government found it to their own political advantage to destroy it and thus hide their own failure...â

â....On a previous occasion I suggested, sarcastically, that when he retired he would set up "The Blair Institute for International Niceness & Big Eyed Children, HQ a luxurious castle in Tuscany, funded by George Soros & the Morgan Foundation.(Jn 20-11.59)" That is not quite the name but pretty close. Pass the sick bag. Meanwhile he remains guilty of genocide, child rape war crimes & as we now know dissecting people, while alive, to steal their body organs. And as the MP's expenses scandal continues the iceberg under the water of this scandal is the amount MPs & top civil servants pick up from people they helped after they retire. Blair quit his seat so that he would no longer have to declare members interests & has since trousered millions, probably 10s of millions....â

And I thought Dick was a loon. Congrats coby, you sure can attract em!!!

crakar (sorry to everyone else for so many posts in a row)

It seems on this issue that we are largely in agreement, despite there seemingly being some confusion.

A agree with you that politicians lie, and some of their lies have the potential to tarnish the good reputation of scientists. But what is important as that it doesn't matter what they say, that does not change the science or the facts one iota.

A also disagree that the public gets their information from, and trusts, politicians. I think that they get most of it from the media. And that is the big problem - the media sensationalises this issue far more than any politician; presents biased and ideological views rather than facts (think Fox and Newscorp); and fails to properly analyse and understand science.

The science IS settled by and large. Climate change is happening, and we are responsible. That much IS settled. But... if you want to argue about what the extent will be over the next century or so - then fine, that's a perfectly reasonable and appropriate scientific debate to have. If you want to debate the effects of climate change on the environment or on human society, that is also a perfectly sensible and appropriate debate. Also, if you want to debate the best (if any) mitigation strategy, that is also a reasonable debate (but an economic, not a scientific one).

You appear to have mellowed somewhat during your absence over the past couple of weeks. What happened (I am not being critical by the way!)?

What is an IPCC "convening lead author"?
(from WP, other types of authors:
"A chapter typically has two Coordinating Lead Authors, ten to fifteen Lead Authors, and a somewhat larger number of Contributing Authors")

Chris S in 19, FFS Chris question 4 uses examples to illustrate how pollies etc embellish what scientists say to promote their own causes, in Australia the cause is to push through a carbon dioxide tax. The examples themselves are not up for debate but the question is.

I believe i have given a good example of this in my posts, please read my posts to try gain an insight into the point i am trying to convey.

As for Flannery, here are some quotes from him.

In March, Flannery said: âThe water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.â

In fact, Adelaideâs reservoirs are now 75 per cent full, just weeks from 2009.

In June last year, Flannery warned Brisbaneâs âwater supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 monthsâ.

In fact, 18 months later, its dams are 46 per cent full after Brisbaneâs wettest spring in 27 years.

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".

Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane's dam levels: 100 per cent full.

In 2004, Flannery said global warming would cause such droughts that âthere is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st centuryâs first ghost metropolisâ.

In fact, Perth now has the lowest water restrictions of any state capital, thanks to its desalination plant and dams that are 40 per cent full after the cityâs wettest November in 17 years.

In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster.

As he put it: "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming ...

The man is a fool when it comes to AGW but not when it comes to making cash and lots of it!!!!!!!!

In 2007, he warned that "the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally" by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff.

We should switch to "green" power instead, said Flannery, who recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam.

"There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia's economy for the best part of a century," he said.

"The technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward."

Flannery repeatedly promoted this "straightforward" technology, and in 2009, the Rudd government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin, the very area Flannery recommended. Coincidentally, Flannery has for years been a Geodynamics shareholder, a vested interest he sometimes declares.

Mandas post 27,

Thats my point...........people get most info from the media (TV and papers) in which i read Wong blaming AGW for Victorian bush fires, Brown blaming AGW for floods etc, etc , etc and where do these lying pollies claim to get their info from? Scientists and apparently the science is settled.

Now no one with the capacity to fog up a mirror would honestly believe such bull shit but if the pollies got their info from scientists then the scientists must be full of shit as well, you see what is happening here?

As for the CSIRO report, i read it and could not find anything in it to support the pollies statements which showed the pollies were lying, you want to know where else i read that the pollies were lying? On Nova and Bolt blogs.

Now i know you dont like thses sites but my point is these people pointed out what the CSIRO report actually said and compared it to what the pollies said as i had already done and had come to the same conclusion as me.

What i read in the papers and saw on TV was a big scare story by the pollies which was backed up by the latest CSIRO report inferring this is what the scientists said.

Therefore can you blame someone who gets their news from the lame stream media to associate what pollies say to what scientists say?

Steffan should have stood up upon hearing the lying Brown/Milne/Gillard and said hang on a second the report says no such thing but he did not and the question is why?

So as i said the longer a scientist or scientific body remain quiet the more tarnished science will become and if a scientist that does not agree with the consensus tries to make corrections to the lies he is labelled a DENIER. What a pathetic world we live in.

Oh and as for being mellow, this is the way i would usually post but over the years posting here had become more cynical as we all have i suspect) to the point where it was a waste of time. Thought i would give it one more shot, must admit Ian and WOW's posts do tend to irratate me so i completely ignore them. Its working so far i think.

Crakar

As I said to you before on multiple occasions, and as I have restated in the last few posts, I do not nor have I ever trusted politicians to tell the truth. Further, I do not trust the media to tell the truth. And do you know what I do about it? I try to track down the source of their statements to see for myself what the REAL story is.

It is a point I have gone on and on and on about, and it is a point I have belaboured to you on many occasions. Do not trust what you read in newspapers, hear from politicians, or read on blog sites. Unfortunately, although you may well have mellowed in your approach, I still do not think you have learned the lesson. This is especially evident by the fact that you have quoted from Nova and Bolt as supposedly reputable sources of information.

I can tell you without any shadow of a doubt, that people like that are NOT reputable in any way, shape or form. Andrew Bolt in particular is a lying ideologue with absolutely no credibility. I would not trust him if he told be the sky was blue, and neither should you. But then, you should not think that I am singling him out for any special criticism, even though it may appear that I am. You should check EVERYTHING you read in the media.

You say you read on Nova and Bolt that politicians were lying about the CSIRO report. That doesnât come as much of a surprise. But it is also patently clear that Bolt and Nova were themselves lying about the CSIRO report. I mean, what else could you conclude when these two â and others like Alan Jones and his two lapdogs, Carter and Plimer â keep saying that humans are not causing the climate to change. The CSIRO (and every single scientific organisation in the world) seems to think otherwise, because in their latest report they state that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are more than 90 per cent likely to have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century, and that this will result in a long term drying, coupled with shorter and more intensive rainfall events â you know, exactly like we have observed (and like Flannery has said).

So come on crakar, if you want to criticise our pollies for telling lies thatâs fine â and I will agree with you. But show a bit of balance and integrity and provide the same criticism for other liars like Bolt and Nova. This is exactly why I was so critical of you (and remain so) over the Wegmann plagiarism incident. You were highly critical of Hansen for supposedly being a plagiarist, but when it was someone from your side of the debate, your criticism evaporated like the water from the surface of the ocean. If you want to engage in a rational debate, you must at least be consistent, and the moment you make excuses or ignore bad behaviour on your own side, you lose the right to be critical of the other side. So how about it â when will you criticise Wegmann for plagiarism?

Scientists who donât agree with the consensus are not labelled deniers. People who refuse to accept the evidence and who take an ideological position contrary to the evidence are called deniers. True sceptics and true scientists are critical of ALL points of view. They want to see the evidence, but accept it when they do. Holding on to an ideological position when all the evidence says you are wrong is not scepticism. Try being sceptical of Monckton and the SPPI for a change â you will quickly see their arguments do not stack up to scrutiny.

Science moves on by people challenging the status quo, and by building on existing knowledge with new findings. Occasionally â very occasionally â the orthodoxy is overturned by a dramatic new finding (think - plate tectonics). Anthropogenic climate change is based on very well established physical laws, and it would take an overturning of numerous fields of science for it to be found not to be true. No-one has even come close to doing that, despite all the mud that the denialist community wishes to fling. It will take more than a few hacked emails or a mad weatherman with a fetish for weather station sitings to refute multiple lines of evidence.
We will all be better off if people didnât trust their politicians and didnât trust the media to tell them the truth, and checked the facts for themselves. Why donât you give it a go as well?

Mandas,

Once again you miss the point, Nova and Bolt highlighted the flat out lies by the pollies but the lame stream media simply regurgitated them.

Let me give you an example of what i am trying to say here, my wife could be considered as a scientific illiterate, she yawns when i tell here Io has volcanos and Tritan has an atmosphere, here eyes glaze over when i tell her there are no sunspots, she does not read any science blogs, she flicks through the newspaper, watches the 15 minutes of sound bites on the TV news endures the 14.5 minutes about the crows so she does not miss the 30 second weather report, but when Bob Brown stood up and stated the recent QLD floods where caused by AGW the first two words out of her mouth were "Bull Shit".

And she was right it was bull shit and the people of Australia know it was bull shit, Will Steffan knew it was bull shit but said nothing. In fact when the report was released you had Gillard flanked on one side by Flannery and on the other by Steffan. Gillard then launched into a series of bull shit lies about AGW and pretended it was all disclosed in the report and Steffan stood by and said nothing and i have asked before...........WHY?

The longer people like Steffan stand back and say nothing the more tarnished Labor make them look. In regards to Nova and Bolt they reported the bull shit so people will and have started to look at them and many other people like them for the truth because the pollies and the MSM tell nothing but lies. Now Bolt and Nova may have their faults in fact i do not agree with everything they say but you must understand Mandas people are turning away from the MSM in droves because they are sick of the lies, they then turn to other sources of info. Sources that dont just regurgitate lies like lapdogs, this is happening whether you like it or not.

So dont get stuck into me about Bolt etc Mandas blame the pollies and the MSM as their lies are finally catching up to them whilst the CSIRO stands around with its thumb up its arse.

The longer scientists like Steffan stand back and say nothing the worse they will look. This is all relevant Craig's question 4.

This is not about Hansen, i was talking about Tremberth and his plagiarism is this related to Wegmann and his report?

I do not agree with your views about sceptical scientists there are many scientists that do not agree with the consensus most of them have a differing of opinions relating to the sensitivity and have shown why, most put a doubling of CO2 at 0.5C to 1.3C approx. Apparently according to pollies and government shills these are deniers would you agree Mandas? Do you think Dr Spencer is a denier? Dr Willie Soon? Lindzen (apart from an ID nut job)to name but a few. You have already told me Plimer and Carter are what? deniers? Why Mandas because they disagree with you? I have read Plimers book and i can tell you he is not a denier.

When was the last time these type of scientists were given a chance to speak freely? The government control what gets said and the people have woken up to their bullshit, look at the poll numbers for evidence of that.

By the way your latest post had a hint of "thy is mightier than thou" tone i suggest you dial it back a bit.

crakar

Thank you for explaining what is wrong with the whole climate change debate:

"....she does not read any science blogs, she flicks through the newspaper, watches the 15 minutes of sound bites on the TV news endures the 14.5 minutes about the crows so she does not miss the 30 second weather report, but when Bob Brown stood up and stated the recent QLD floods where caused by AGW the first two words out of her mouth were "Bull Shit"....'.

So your wife is a denier too? On what basis did she determine it was bullshit? She has no science training, she appears (from your statement) to know little about what is happening in the world, yet she makes a declaration that something is wrong based on a complete lack of knowledge. In other words, her whole view on the subject is ideological rather than based on evidence. If she had said - 'hmmm - that doesn't sound right, I must find out more...', then fine. But she didn't. She made a statement as if she knew what she was talking about, and as if she knew more about the subject than the person making the statement. She has zero credibility and to use her as example just highlights what is wrong with this debate. It is people who have no idea what they are talking about making declarations as if they do. It is people with no science training thinking they know more about the subject than scientists who have a real education, and who have worked in the field for decades and who really DO know what they are talking about.

"....Apparently according to pollies and government shills these are deniers would you agree Mandas? Do you think Dr Spencer is a denier? Dr Willie Soon? Lindzen (apart from an ID nut job)to name but a few. You have already told me Plimer and Carter are what? deniers? Why Mandas because they disagree with you? I have read Plimers book and i can tell you he is not a denier....."

Spencer is not a denier - he raises legitimate points for discussion. Soon is a denier, a liar and an idiot. Lindzen is just a denier. And you are flat out wrong about Plimer - he is a denier, and every climate scientist in the world say so.

"....When was the last time these type of scientists were given a chance to speak freely? The government control what gets said..."

Crap. The Government does NOT control science. If anyone has a legitimate scientific point to make, let them publish it. The fact is, these people do not have legitimate points and whatever they say is quickly dissembled by other scientists. And don't give me crap about the peer review process being broken. That is just a meme spuked by people who produce pseudo-scientific crap that does not stand scrutiny.

You say my last post had a hint of 'mightier than thou'. Well, its because I am continually frustrated by situations like I described in reference to your wife. Why is it that people with no clue think they know more than experts? Why should I continue to try and educate people who refuse to be educated? Who refuse to accept facts that are staring them in the face?

Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.

"Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade."

Depends. I just change the subject when it's my 86 yr old mum pontificating on such things. When it's people my age or younger, that's different.

Chris 23 I regret that Stoat decided, for whatever reason, to censor my questions about these people otherwise it would have been possible to tell if they were genuinely not government paid and genuinely supportive of catastrophic warming. Perhaps you would care to produce supporting evidence.

Kermit 24 any "scientist" who said that of Gore's film is, of course, wholly and completley corrupt and in no way whatsoever a respecter of science. I thought there was a general agreement those who really support science should dissociate themselves from such scum. I assume you can name and shame.

With your unquestioning assertion that warming causes drought perhaps you would care to explain how the Climate Optimum saw a wet and fertile Sahara - doubtless this will be easy for somebody with such a flexible mind. Perhaps you would care to acknowledge that when you promise "acidification of the oceans" you don't actually mean acidification but neutralisation.

Mandas 25 - you are as wrong to say I, as a non-scientist, should not express an opinion as your were, all those times, to publicly tell Gore that he shouldn't express an opiniin. I assume, not being a total hypocrit, you have done so and would enjoy a link showing your integrity. What a non-scientists should not do is claim to be a scientitst & I have not done so. The Oregon petition got 31,000 scientists without my participation.

On 26 - I thank you for your diligent reading & note that you make no attempt to dispute any of them factually. You were clearly unaware of the fact that Vitamin D actually IS a hormone - I am pleased to have contributed to your ongoing education. It might have been more courteous to provide links but anybody who finds any of these opinions novel can use the search facility and your quotes to see the case for themselves.

I note that no serious attempt has been made to answer the questions. If any of them cannot be answered warming cannot be a threat. If 3,4,6 or 7 cannot we are clearly dealing with deliberate fraud.

Neil:

What is your favorite scientific paper that you have read?

Neil @35: "Kermit 24 any "scientist" who said that of Gore's film is, of course, wholly and completley corrupt and in no way whatsoever a respecter of science. I thought there was a general agreement those who really support science should dissociate themselves from such scum. I assume you can name and shame."

I really don't give a damn about Gore's movie; I've never seen it, and the science doesn't depend on it. Your attacking personalities and particularly non-science celebrities reinforces the impression folks get that you have no grasp of science. If you are especially interested in Gore's movie, perhaps you could provide a link to a complete transcript, and then point out one or two quibbles you have with it. I might agree, or not. I am not going to support a particular scientist's claim that it's basically sound without watching it or reading actual quotes, and I'm not interested in doing that. And frankly I don't trust your descriptions of it; your misrepresentation of Jones and the "significant warming" nonsense is profoundly dishonest, displays a complete failure to understand simple English, or both.

"With your unquestioning assertion that warming causes drought perhaps you would care to explain how the Climate Optimum saw a wet and fertile Sahara - doubtless this will be easy for somebody with such a flexible mind."

If you are talking about the "Holocene climatic optimum" of 9000-13000 YA, I answered that yesterday. It was *not globally warmer than it is now. Also, increased droughts and increased flooding are both predictions of global warming models. Higher temperatures mean that water evaporates faster, the air can hold more moisture, and the temperature differentials are greater. These combine to produce stronger wind storms and heavier rains, but not necessarily more often. As indeed we have been seeing in global news for the last few years.

It is also what the climate change models had predicted.

"Perhaps you would care to acknowledge that when you promise "acidification of the oceans" you don't actually mean acidification but neutralisation."
You have got to be kidding me. If the temperature is 20°F outside, and then *warms up* to 25°, everybody agrees that it is warming up, although few would claim that it's now warm. If the pH is dropping, it is acidifying, no matter how basic it may still be.

" note that no serious attempt has been made to answer the questions. If any of them cannot be answered warming cannot be a threat. If 3,4,6 or 7 cannot we are clearly dealing with deliberate fraud."

On the contrary, I have answered several, and others have answered at greater length and with more eloquence - and more importantly, with more cites. I have responded to the first question in this dishonest list which you have been cutting and pasting on numerous blogs and newsgroups.
Here are some points on that first one:
1. Dr. Jones said "No, but..." The warming was real and measurable, but not quite 95%, which is the default level of confidence for statistically significant changes. If I ask you if your 12 year-old son has significantly grown since last month, the correct answer would be "No, the measurements are not precise enough for that short period to be highly confident of them, but..." ...that doesn't mean that he hasn't grown, nor has he stopped growing, nor would any sane and informed person have any reason to think otherwise.
2. If the question had been from 1994 instead of 1995 - a particularly warm year, since surpassed - then the answer would have been yes. Why did the GW denialist who wrote that question choose that particular year? Dishonesty comes to mind as a possible explanation.
3. Climate change is best measured over a 30 year or more range. Just as we don't measure a child's height from day to day, but rather month to month or year to year.
4. The change from 1995 to now is definitely significant (i.e., the measurements can be accepted with more than 95% confidence).

Here is the complete exchange:
BBC: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"
Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance (confidence) level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

The warming was actually significant to a 93% confidence level.

If you can't respond to these simple points, but simply repeat your assertions from thread to thread, and blog to blog, why should anyone take you seriously? Why should anyone doubt mainstream science seriously, if you are the best dissent that is offered?

Simple points indeed kermit.

To denounce me for not being prepared to criticise scientists, only Gore, in a post which specifically & strongly criticised the scientists you claimed had told you how accurate Gore was is clearly either stupid or deliberately dishonest.

Since you defend Gore while admitting knowing nothing about what he said that you defend we can generously assume the former.

The Climate Optimum was about 5,000 to 9,000 BP (what is 4,000 years between friends even if those years were ice ages).

You will be surprised to learn I agree with you that warming will cause the air to hold more water and release it as rain. Indeed if you had read what I said you would have realised that I was saying that in response to a post asserying that what GW would cause was droughts. You may read the post I was replying to on #24 written by ... well would you believe it ... kermit.

Bloody Hell there must be two of them.

On Jones - actually if the questioner had been cherry picking he would have mentioned 1998 which was warmer and from which Jones, had he actually answered such a question, would have gad to admit there has been cooling.

However since you have gone on record to say that anything less than a 30 year trend I look forward to you supplting the numerous links where you have denounced Hones, Hansen U.T. Cobley for actively not picking a 30 year period when they first produced thia false scare in the late 80s. In the late 1950s we were still on the cooling trend which led to ecofascists predicting an ice age. If you have done that, while still hoping to keep your ecofascist friends tou would have proven yourself honest - though still stupid.

However since you have gone on record to say that anything less than a 30 year trend I look forward to you supplting [sic] the numerous links where you have denounced Hones [sic], Hansen U.T. Cobley for actively not picking a 30 year period when they first produced thia false scare in the late 80s.

Oh Dear God . . . Completely refuted, Neil switces the subject from what Jones said, as elucidated by Kermit (and probably a hundred before)--to a whole new extraneous rant about how somebody *else* (supposedly) did not use a 30-year trend, none of which is documented.

Please . . . Coby: He's *nuts*. Please cancel this guy.

skip

Some people say that I am a slow learner - and they may be correct. But on this occasion I have learned the lesson from Dick's unfortunately too long a stay.

I have seen the inside of Neil's mind, and it is beyond a shadow of doubt that he is a certifiable crank. I pointed out some of his lunacy at post #26 (there is lots more), and I shall waste no more of my time on him.

Craig: "can you name 2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state, who support catastrophic warming"

Marco: "Gordon Bell (Microsoft), Winslow Briggs, Corey Goodman (venBio), William Rutter (Synergenics), and Mary Lou Zoback (RMS - Risk Management solutions). Four names I found on a letter from NAS members sent to Nature*, who are not being paid by the government. They also happen to work at organisations that have no link to the climate field."

Craig: "... my questions about these people ... would have [made it] possible to tell if they were genuinely not government paid and genuinely supportive of catastrophic warming. Perhaps you would care to produce supporting evidence."

Perhaps you would care to provide evidence that they ARE government paid & do not support AGW? Or would you like everything spoon-fed to you as you are unable to find it yourself?

I agree with skip.

*It was actually a letter to Science and can be found here: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:DmTJ8QSa7WkJ:www.pacinst.org/…

Mandas you said

""....she does not read any science blogs, she flicks through the newspaper, watches the 15 minutes of sound bites on the TV news endures the 14.5 minutes about the crows so she does not miss the 30 second weather report, but when Bob Brown stood up and stated the recent QLD floods where caused by AGW the first two words out of her mouth were "Bull Shit"....'.

So your wife is a denier too? On what basis did she determine it was bullshit? She has no science training, she appears (from your statement) to know little about what is happening in the world, yet she makes a declaration that something is wrong based on a complete lack of knowledge. In other words, her whole view on the subject is ideological rather than based on evidence. If she had said - 'hmmm - that doesn't sound right, I must find out more...', then fine. But she didn't. She made a statement as if she knew what she was talking about, and as if she knew more about the subject than the person making the statement. She has zero credibility and to use her as example just highlights what is wrong with this debate. It is people who have no idea what they are talking about making declarations as if they do. It is people with no science training thinking they know more about the subject than scientists who have a real education, and who have worked in the field for decades and who really DO know what they are talking about."

and

"You say my last post had a hint of 'mightier than thou'. Well, its because I am continually frustrated by situations like I described in reference to your wife. Why is it that people with no clue think they know more than experts? Why should I continue to try and educate people who refuse to be educated? Who refuse to accept facts that are staring them in the face?

Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade."

Answer these questions for me please.

Was the QLD floods caused by AGW?

Was Cyclone Yasi caused by AGW?

Was the Victorian bush fires caused by AGW?

Was the last drought caused by AGW?

You will note that all these statements were made by non experts who have been called on their lies by other non experts.

Now before you answer these questions remember the latest CSIRO report claims there is no evidence to link AGW to any of these weather events.

Your problem Mandas is that in your little bubble of reality you dont see the real world around you. You falsely assume that because you went to uni and got a dodgy 3 year science degree you know more about the world around you than many others. You dont have to be a Rhodes Scholar to know when pollies lie through their teeth even Will Steffen agrees with my wife the pollies are lying when they make these statements. The only difference is my wife has the guts to call it as it is whereas Will Steffen hides, cowering in the corner and says nothing, maybe its because the gravy train is travelling too fast for him to jump off?

The bottom line is the answer to question 4 YES, scientists sit idly by whilst pollies drag their good name through the mud.

Oh and my wife is not a denier like your pompous big fat arse muther fuckin alter ego seems to think, she is just resogned to the fact that we are going to get another TAX that will serve no purpose but line the pockets of pollies and scientists that hide and cower in the corner.

Adelaidy,

How are you long time no read, did you watch the documentary on SBS last night called Gasland? How about you Mandas?

I hope you both did because whilst you sit here pontificating, postulating, preening (thats for snowman), berating, belching, burping, farting, fiddling, lambasting, verbally abusing on the pretence of "saving the planet" the planet is being destroyed all around you and by the time you figure out whether the planet actually needs saving from a miniscule increase in a trace gas accompanied by a very small rise in temp backed up by absolutely no evidence at all there will be nothing left to save.

Idiots..............

crakar

Looks like your 'mellowness' and reasonable posts didn't last did they? But like I said - your wife is a denier, just like you. Anyone who has no education and no knowledge on a subject (ie is ignorant), and thinks they know more than the experts is not only a denier, they are an arrogant arsehole. Mr and Mrs Crakar - by your own admission - appear to fit this definition perfectly.

"....You falsely assume that because you went to uni and got a dodgy 3 year science degree you know more about the world around you than many others...."

A couple of things wrong with that statement. Firstly, you don't even know what my degree is in, nor what university I attended, so to suggest that my degree is 'dodgy' is simply you doing what you do best. Making an ideological statement which has no supporting evidence. Secondly, the reason I know more about the world than many others (not - falsely assume as you suggest), is because I DO know more about the world than many others - you included. But then, your average 1st grader knows more about the world than you. Oh, and I have more than one undergraduate degree and I also have a post-graduate degree, all from different universities. But if you had attempted to get the facts before making your usual pronouncements, you might have been able to comment from a rational position. Oh well, ops normal I guess.

It would also appear that you either are incapable of reading my posts, or do so and are so illiterate that you fail to understand them. Take these questions of yours from #42:

"....Answer these questions for me please.
Was the QLD floods caused by AGW?
Was Cyclone Yasi caused by AGW?
Was the Victorian bush fires caused by AGW?
Was the last drought caused by AGW?...."

Apart from your appalling grammar (try WERE the bushfires caused by AGW - you know, plural), I have already answered these questions on multiple occasions. But then, it wouldn't suit your ideological point to actually acknowledge someone else's point would it?

And tell me, when are you going to demonstrate a modicum of integrity and condemn Wegmann for plagiarism?

Do you know my wife Mandas? Of course not but from a one paragraph from me you have all the info you need to now smear her like you smear me. I dont mind you smearing me because i am here to defend myself but your smearing of my wife is typical of a pathetic loser like yourself.

Mandas your degree is the one everyone gets when they fail academically in the real stuff, its like some people i know who have a 3 year computer degree and call them selves an engineer (LOL), you probably had a choice between enviroment or the Arts.

I dare say you get your piece of paper, now taking pride of place on the mantle piece (complete with plastic frame from KMART) from some UNI here in SA.........enough said about that.

Mandas get out of your bubble reality in the basement of that SA UNI and try to get this through your thick head, you are an ignorant and arrogant man. One can only be mellow with an ignoramous like you for so long. For example your wife has a real degree (and i know she has) and all you have is a dodgy piece of paper then that must piss you off. Imagine the great Mandas being more stupid than his wife, i can imagine the embarrassment you must feel when your wife gets invited to all the faculty wine and cheese nights and you tag along as her other half, how does it feel to live in the shadow of your smarter, higher educated, more successful wife Mandas?

In regards to Wegmann, please provide evidence which you claim requires me to condem the man.

'....For example your wife has a real degree (and i know she has)...."

You know do you? And what is her degree in, and where did she get it?

I'm going to bet my next year's wages against one week's wages from you, that you have no idea. You are just - once again - making an ideological claim unsuported by evidence.

Oh, and I never went to university in South Australia. Try again (as usual - crakar making a statement lacking in evidence).

You never told me what UNI your wife went to but i believe it was marine biology (or something very similar).

Making statements lacking evidence is your domain Mandas or have you found that graph i have been asking for? Of course because it does not exist, my the hypocrisy

Marine biology huh? Not even close. Want another guess, or will you possess enough integrity to admit you have no idea and you just made up your claim at #45?

I could have sworn you told me it was marine biology or something similar, maybe my memory is fading. If not what is your wife's field of study?

Integrity? A bit rich coming from you Mandas, you smear my wife based on what? A hunch, a gut feeling? and besides you should be spending all your time searching for that graph you claim exists

crakar

Nope - you can keep guessing if you want, but why bother? You are just - once again - making pronouncements based on a complete lack of evidence. But that is the denier screed isn't it? You don't know, you don't have any evidence, but you still make outrageous claims. Why don't you man up and just admit you don't know, and your claim at post #45 was wrong?

And smear your wife? In what way? You are the one who said she didn't read papers, didn't watch the news other than to see what the crows are doing, and has no education in science. And yet she still has the temerity to say that Bob Brown was incorrect about climate change. And on what basis did she make that claim, because sure as shit from your statements, she knows even less about climate change than you do. So - she is not qualified to comment on what Bob Brown said. As I pointed out to you, a rational person would have said something along the lines of: "that doesn't sound right, but since I don't know the facts I should do some checking". But neither you nor she did that. She just said it was bullshit. I didn't smear her - she IS a denier, just like you. But I will say one thing in her favour - she has more of an excuse than you, because you have been told over and over again what the facts really are, yet you deny the facst and choose to remain ignorant. And that is far worse than someone who just sits around and remains ignorant because they simply couldn't be bothered becoming educated.

And the bullshit you are spruking about paleoclimatology is just that - bullshit. If seamus on the other thread really wanted to know about CO2 vs temperature in the past, he could have done 5 minutes research and found dozens of papers on the subject. But he is like you - research and the reading of science appears too damn difficult. Both of you (all deniers really), would much rather listen to Monckton or Alan Jones, or read opinion pieces by Bob Carter or Andrew Bolt, or read pseudo-scientific garbage from people like the SPPI. And the only reason you do that is to have your preconceived, ideological worldviews confirmed by other deluded fools. Seamus wasn't interested in an answer to his question - he was just trying to post a 'gotcha' moment to all us true believers.

But it won't work, because I (and people like skip, Ian, Chris, coby, wow, etc) read ACTUAL science, and not the crap that you try to pass off. You want to read some paleoclimatology - here you go. Read these two papers, do a proper analysis of what they say. Check the references cited. Do a literature review. You know - the sort of things that I learned about when I did my dodgy degree from the shonky university.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/pdf/ngeo.2007.29.pdf

http://www.atmosedu.com/Geol390/articles/RoyeretalCO2GSAToday'04Phanero…

Enjoy!

Mandas,

What the fuck is your problem? Your 2nd paragraph is just mindless drivel, why do you do such things? Is it on purpose, is this what you consider to be a debate? Is this how you live your life?

Lets go through the 2nd paragraph to show where you went wrong.

"And smear your wife? In what way? You are the one who said she didn't read papers, didn't watch the news other than to see what the crows are doing, and has no education in science"

On the above selected quote you now claim my wife is a denier and as such you now feel the need to smear her.

Firstly i said she flicks through the paper (which in a sane world means she does not read all the stupid predictions about AGW), secondly i said she watches the first 15 minutes of sound bites (which here is SA is considered news), THEN SHE ENDURES THE NEXT 14.5 MINUTES OF SPORT. Now i know you can read and comprehend so the only conclusion to be drawn must be in order for you to try and piss me off you have to make up shit about my wife that is how pathetic you are Mandas.

Then you said this

"And yet she still has the temerity to say that Bob Brown was incorrect about climate change. And on what basis did she make that claim, because sure as shit from your statements, she knows even less about climate change than you do. So - she is not qualified to comment on what Bob Brown said. As I pointed out to you, a rational person would have said something along the lines of: "that doesn't sound right, but since I don't know the facts I should do some checking".

Firstly what are Bob Browns qualifications? Is Bob qualified to make such a ludicrous statement, no he is not. So we have Bob talking shit, Will Steffen's report shows he is talking shit, the BOM reports say he is talking shit and my wife says he is talking shit but my wife is a denier.

Dont tell me Mandas you actually believe Bob? My God man you are a bigger fool than i thought.

A rational person would not blame AGW on floods, on bush fires, on cyclones, on droughts, on lack of snow that never arrived, on more snow, on more ice but yet these are the people you defend so i guess that makes you irrational which actually fits you quite well.

Now i just want to make this point crystal clear, Bob Brown makes a false statement about AGW causing the QLD floods and my wife rejects that notion and you smear her with the lable DENIER even though every scientific report that has been tabled on the matter states clearly that there is no evidence to link AGW with the QLD floods, but wife is a DENIER because she denies AGW were the cause of said floods?

Have i got your thoughts on this correct Mandas?

Now we move onto a topic on another thread (The old Mandas soft shoe shuffle)

"And the bullshit you are spruking about paleoclimatology is just that - bullshit. If seamus on the other thread really wanted to know about CO2 vs temperature in the past, he could have done 5 minutes research and found dozens of papers on the subject. But he is like you - research and the reading of science appears too damn difficult. Both of you (all deniers really), would much rather listen to Monckton or Alan Jones, or read opinion pieces by Bob Carter or Andrew Bolt, or read pseudo-scientific garbage from people like the SPPI. And the only reason you do that is to have your preconceived, ideological worldviews confirmed by other deluded fools. Seamus wasn't interested in an answer to his question - he was just trying to post a 'gotcha' moment to all us true believers."

And if you cannot refute his assumption Mandas? Is it then a gotcha moment? Your refusal to defend your position seems very much like what you accuse me of "And the only reason you do that is to have your preconceived, ideological worldviews confirmed by other deluded fools"

No this requires much more than a face palm Mandas, SM provided a graph which showed CO2 and temp levels since Precambrian times and asked the question "where is the correlation". Now you responded by claiming there is a correlation but only after you remove all the other drivers, OK lets assume you are correct, show SM the a graph of the correlation you claim to exist.

So i get Mandas, you claim to have all the answers but staedfastly refuse to provide one (sounds like some else) instead of simply showing SM where he has gone wrong you challenge him (and me i suppose) to go find them ourselves, i suspect you have no idea what you are talking about Mandas i see it this way.

SM has made a claim there is no correlation in the CO2 V temp record and the first two words out of your mouth were "Bull shit" you said this based on nothing more than your opinion, you did not think to stop and ponder "that doesn't sound right, but since I don't know the facts I should do some checking". In other words Mandas you are nothing more than a DENIER.

Hypocrisy sucks doesnt it.

"....Now i just want to make this point crystal clear, Bob Brown makes a false statement about AGW causing the QLD floods and my wife rejects that notion and you smear her with the lable DENIER even though every scientific report that has been tabled on the matter states clearly that there is no evidence to link AGW with the QLD floods, but wife is a DENIER because she denies AGW were the cause of said floods? Have i got your thoughts on this correct Mandas?..."

No crakar - you have not. Because, and wait for this, Bob Brown DID NOT blame the Queensland floods on AGW.

Your wife is exactly like you - you believe what you want to believe. You fail to check facts. And how many times have I told you not to believe what you read or hear in the media. Check!!

Why don't you - instead of blindly accepting things because that's what you want to accept - actually check to see what people REALLY say. But no - crakar and his wife are both deniers and both blindly vote for the coalition no matter what, and are both so anti the Greens that they are happy to believe anything bad about them, no matter how incredible it may seem.

Here is the transcript of what Bob Brown REALLY said:

"....The full tax on excess profits by the coal mining industry, as recommended by Treasury, should be imposed with half set aside for future natural catastrophes in Australia, Greens Leader Bob Brown said in Hobart today. One of the ways Senator Brown proposed the mining companies could help fund the clean-up efforts for the Queensland Floods was through implementing the minerals resource rent tax (MRRT) at the originally planned rate of 40 per cent. "It is costing billions of dollars, besides the pain, the anguish, the loss of life, the destruction and it should not be left to ordinary taxpayers to bear the full brunt of that. Senator Brown said. "Burning coal is a major cause of global warming. This industry, which is 75% owned outside Australia, should help pay the cost of the predicted more severe and more frequent floods, droughts and bushfires in coming decades. As well, 700,000 seaside properties in Australia face rising sea levels."

Get that crakar? He did NOT blame the floods on coal mining. He said - very clearly - that the mining tax should be used to help fund the clean-up, and that part of it should be set aside for future clean-ups. It was the media that twisted his words to suit their own agenda (you know - Murdoch hating the Greens as much as you). And given your distaste for the media - which you have stated on numerous occasions - why would you believe them? I know the answer for that of course - in this case they said something that you wanted to believe and which agreed with your own prejudices, so you never questioned it. But that's typical for a denier like yourself.

I know you won't apologise for your idiotic errors - you will NEVER admit you made a mistake, because you would be doing nothing else. How about you just crawl back under your rock.

Mandas you forced me to do a google search, i hope you are happy.

http://www.azomining.com/News.aspx?newsID=2555

Selected quotes

"In Hobart Sunday Mr Brown said that burning coal was the single biggest cause of climate change and the coal mining industry should take responsibility for the weather events that we are seeing unfolding now. He did not want the billions of dollars of cost to be left for the ordinary tax payer to bear the brunt of."

This is the relevant one

"He refused suggestions that he was politicizing the crisis in Queensland by saying that burning of fossil fuels was responsible for the hottest oceans that weâve seen off Australia. Scientists are saying very clearly that this is responsible for the quite extraordinary and harrowing floods that were seen."

So Mandas is the above statement by Brown bullshit or not? Refer to the latest CSIRO report for your answer.

And another

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/coal-miners-to-blame-for-queenslan…

So now that you have been shot down in flames for the second time today what subject are you going to switch to next?

Oh my, crakar has actually done some research! Baby steps I know.

Wonder when he'll get around to reading the papers mandas linked to...

No Chris not research i already stated the above as fact only to be forced to prove my point by an arrogant and ignorant Mandas.

I expect him to now agree that the statement by Bob Brown was bullshit, also when one hears this type of thing one can immediately claim it to be bull shit without feeling the wrath of DENIER, DENIER PANTS ON FIRE squeal from somewhere in the basement of a SA UNI.

In the end my wife was quite correct when she said BULL SHIT because it was BULLSHIT, i can therefore see no evidence which supports Mandas's claims that my wife is indeed a denier.

So now that we have established that my wife is not a denier and Bob Brown is a liar can we please return to the original reason why we are debating this?

Ok remember question stated

"4 - Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side, from Al Gore's claim that South Sea islands had already been abandoned due to rising sea levels and Pachauri's claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was "voodoo" were untrue and insupportable even at the time."

Now Chris just for the record i am going to substitute Al Gore with Bob Brown.

Bob Brown made a false statement, he claimed the QLD floods were caused by coal miners IE AGW he also claimed the scientists had told him very clearly that AGW via burning of fossil fuels was responsible.

Which scientists is he referring to? The CSIRO and the BOM give scientific advice to the pollies but neither of them made any such claims so not only was Bob talking shit but he knew he was talking shit.

Now when bob said AGW caused the floods most people in this country said bull shit, when bob told them this is what the scientists are telling him then people think the scientists are full of shit as well (and rightly so).

So the question asks why do the scientists stand idly by whilst pollies tarnish their reputation, to put it another way why did Steffen or any other gov. scientist not go on the record by stating Bob Brown is wrong?

Fair question that needs answering.

Crakar, your problem here is relying on media paraphrases instead of Brown's own statements, although your culpability in this regard is sharply mitigated, in my view (see below). But don't worry, my contempt for you is fully intact.

Bob Brown's press release in full from his own website:

http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/category/issues/energy/economy/enviro…

Coal barons should help pay for catastrophes - Brown
Media Release | Spokesperson Bob Brown
Sunday 16th January 2011, 1:25pm:

The full tax on excess profits by the coal mining industry, as recommended by Treasury, should be imposed with half set aside for future natural catastrophes in Australia, Greens Leader Bob Brown said in Hobart today.

"It is unfair that the cost is put on all taxpayers, not the culprits," Senator Brown said.

"Burning coal is a major cause of global warming. This industry, which is 75% owned outside Australia, should help pay the cost of the predicted more severe and more frequent floods, droughts and bushfires in coming decades. As well, 700,000 seaside properties in Australia face rising sea levels."

"A Goldman Sachs study found that the reduction in the mining super tax agreed by the current Labor government (the coalition opposes the mining tax) would cost Australians $35 billion in forgone revenue to 2019-20."

"Scientists agree that current floods come from record-high temperatures of Australian oceans this season."

"We also ask insurers to show some compassion to Queensland's flood victims, and to others who face loss as wild weather besets the country. Many people believe they have flood cover and, if not, the fine print should have been disclosed to them."

Mandas is *technically* correct that Brown never directly says that AGW caused the flooding, but it was worded as an ass-covering, not a genuinely skeptical and guarded statement. Brown knew he couldn't responsibly say that AGW "caused" the flooding, but he wouldn't have complained if his green constituents concluded that from his statement.

Its a dilemma for politicians: being technically factual while still being poignant and newsworthy. A preface such as, "While the science of something such as climate is full of uncertainties . . . ." loses momentum, the headline, and most important, the audience.

The problem of course is that the encoded suggestion in his statement as rendered is picked up by the Crakars of the world, who will go ballistic.

But all that being said, I finally went back and read all of Crakar's comments in full.

My God. Its like reading a raving, illiterate climate denial Hitler's *Mein Kampf*. The morphing of Mandas's comment regarding Crakar's wife's lackadaisical approach to climate science into an affront against her honor was a mind boggling display of insanity.

A few gems did come out of the gibberish, such as this one for Mandas, apparently intended as as a barb:

. . . pompous big fat arse muther fuckin alter ego . . .

Why "*alter* ego"?

But in any event, the verbiage is classic, and worthy of its own thread title just on elegance alone.

See you folks at the Pompous Big Fat Arse Muther Fucking Alter Ego (PBFAMFAE) thread; Mandas is hosting.

cracker-ass, answer these questions for me please.
Were the QLD floods affected by AGW?
Was Cyclone Yasi affected by AGW?
Were the Victorian bush fires affected by AGW?
Was the last drought affected by AGW?

Or are all of them completely unaffected by temperature?

"Spencer is not a denier - he raises legitimate points for discussion."

Spencer is, however, an idealogue. If his ideology comes into conflict with his science, his ideology WILL win.

E.g. his continued faith in some lensing effect as being our saviour, despite nothing to work with on it.

He just misses being a denier by the fact that he is at least somewhat willing to accept evidence against him. E.g. he's moved his climate sensitivity from less than 1C per doubling up to (IIRC) 2C per doubling as more data comes in showing 1C impossible (not just statistically so).

His ideology still works to make him believe it's no problem.

While recognising that the claim by "skip" 39 that all 7 questions I raised had been completely "refuted" as representing the normal standard of honesty of ecofascists it is, of course, a lie. You can't refute a question moron you can only answer it or not. In this case no attemopt has been made to answer most of them. I note you do not dispute kermit's obvious hypocrisy (neither it seems does he.

Chris 41 your link appears to be broken. I suspect that if those you quoted were willing to go online to say they do belive in catastrophic global warming and that they do receive no state cash at least one of them would have done so by now. However I am open to evidence that, out of the millions of scientists worldide, there are actually 4 independent ones who support alarmism.

I note the amusing dissing of Mandas boasts about his degree. I guess that excludes him form his self inclusion on the list of such "scientists" then.

And still no serious answers to the 7 questions which, if any of them cannot be answered show alarmism to be unjustified and if 3,4,6 or 7 can't , a deliberate fraud.

"You can't refute a question moron you can only answer it or not."

OK, twonk, answer this:

What is the difference between a duck's legs?

And your queries HAVE been categorically answered. E.g Mandas at post 7.

Neil - try this one: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/05/climate_change_and_the_in…

Now, go prove they are government-supported.

The fact you can't accept your questions as being answered here and in other forums speaks more to your wingnut conspiracy-theory-addled brain than it does to any deliberate fraud.

...and reading the comments in that thread I see I was calling crakar out back then May 2010 for running away from posts in the Falsifying Theories thread, a thread that later saw snowman making (another) farewell rather than answer direct questions.

Nothing ever changes does it crakar?

Unbelievable.

Neal, youâre plummeting off the pscyhic cliff. (I canât accuse you of âlyingâ since that would require a level of self-awareness and cunning of which you are clearly incapable.)

While recognising that the claim by "skip" 39 that all 7 questions I raised had been completely "refuted"

You are so, utterly, pathetically, tragically lost. What I really said:

Completely refuted, Neil switces the subject from what Jones said . . .

I was referencing Question 1 only, *moron* (to employ your choice of words).

âYou can't refute a question moron you can only answer it or not.â

Only in your twisted, delusional mind, did I claim to ârefute a questionâ.

Repeat: Neil, your versions of my statements are fantastical reconstructions. They exist only in your tortured mind. I wonder if you are capable of grasping this.

Dude, youâre just embarrassing yourself and Iâd rather not see it, but Cobyâs open access policy is almost absolute. Go ahead and make another Richard Wakefield of yourself. No doubt Snowman will call you the Mohammad Ali of climate denial.

Mandas is right, Coby. You draw these freaks like a BBQ draws flies. This is the cost of the no-censorship policy.

Skip,

I knew it would not be long before you responded to the call to arms signified by the rattling of sabres.

As usual you feel compelled to support Mandas regardless of the situation, i like the way i make a statement or in this case my wife based on something Brown said and back this up by producing the actual statement (dont forget i watched/heard him say this on the TV) but Mandas and yourself can produce an entirely different statement via Google to show that i am wrong. This shows that you are both dillusional and we are obviously arguing about something much greater here.

I am now assuming that you also agree with Mandas that my wife is a DENIER with all the jewish holocaust connotations that comes with it.

I notice that you could not refrain from diverging even further from the original debate (question 4 if you did not know) by complaining about my grammar.

This is standard Mandas of course, he first smears me by claiming i owe him some sort of appology re Wegmann but when asked to provide evidence an appology is required he mysteriously falls silent.

Then we have his smearing of my wife even though he has not met nor spoken to her, i provide evidence that Brown is full of shit, a lie so large that only a moron that lacks the higher brain function of common sense would believe. He responds with his own version of reality to maintain steadfastly that he is correct albeit "technically" in your unwanted and pathetic opinion states. He will now fall silent again.

We started discussing question 4, a discussion where Mandas gets his arse handed to him but rather than conceding defeat he moves the argument on and on and on and on until the argument has fallen so low it is absurd.

Skip i suggest you STFU unless your opinions are asked for in future.

but Mandas and yourself can produce an entirely different statement via Google to show that i am wrong. This shows that you are both dillusional. . . --Crakar, above

Actually I directly quoted the source for which you relied on a paraphrase.

Mandas you forced me to do a google search, i hope you are happy. Crakar, 54

By your own logic this makes you âdelusionalâ.

How does that brain/spine generate enough signals to keep vital functions such as heart and lungs active?

crakar

Why do you never read anything? So what is your issue about question 4 - the one where you say I got my arse handed to me? Because sure as shit I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you disagree with my 'yes' response, is that it?

And either you are the stupidest person in the world, or a deliberate liar (I am going for a little bit of both). Because you well know from the extensive discussion why I have been having a go at you about Wegmann. His paper was withdrawn from publication because of plagiarism - and you know that. You had a go at skip and myself because we supposedly didn't condemn Trenberth for plagiarism - even though he was exonerated and at the time I DID condemn all plagiarism.

So stop being a lying hypocrite and start acting with integrity. And condemn Wegmann for plagiarism, exactly like you demanded of skip and I.

And as far as your wife and Bob Brown goes. She is a denier, just like you. And that is not a smear - it is based on the statements YOU made. You can twist and distort it all you like, but the simple fact is she does not know what she is talking about, and anyone who shouts 'bullshit' about something they know nothing about is being disengenuous. Brown did NOT blame the Queensland floods on AGW - and providing cut and pastes from a Newscorp newspaper and from an on-lining mining lobbyist site, just shows how deluded you truly are. I mean - are you so completely ignorant that you would rather blindly accept paraphrased spin rather than do the hard yards and find the actual words and an actual transcript? Get off your "pompous big fat muther fuckin arse" and do some real research, not the crap that you alluded to in post #54.

But then, that wouldn't suit your deluded little mind would it? The truth has no place in your world if it doesn't agree with your ideology.

Have a look at you two, reminds me of two preening peacocks.

Who do i respond to first? Whos hand is up whos arse?

Skip,

I understand your pain, you got two kids you never wanted and whining bitch of a wife, drinking does not take the pain away so you sit here venting your anger.

Mandas,

So your NEW definition of a denier is one who denies a false statement, OK i will keep that in mind.

Re Wegmann, produce posts made by me which requires me to make an apology.

re Trenberth, produce evidence that shows he did not commit plagiarism.

Your problem Mandas is that you demand from others that you yourself are not willing to accept.

So climb back down those stairs to that shitty little office of yours in the basement of that no name uni you haunt.

crakar

Your ignorance knows no bounds does it? You know we had an ongoing and prolonged discussion about Wegmann, and I produced quotes from you at the time of your demands on skip and I, as well as the information on Wegmann's plagiarism. You tried to avoid the issue at the time, and it looks as though nothing has changed.

And you don't read anything do you? Not only do you not know what my wife's degree is in (despite being told), you don't know what my degrees are (despite being told), you don't know where I got my degrees (despite being told), and you can't even remember where I work (despite being told).

I guess that's why you couldn't get past LAC isn't it - you were too stupid to pass your exams for corporal.

And for someone who arcs up when someone correctly identifies your wife as a denier - just like you - you make some some pretty despicable remarks about other people's wives don't you? What justification could you possibly have for calling skip's wife "a whining bitch of a wife", or for suggesting that skip never wanted his kids?

I guess that just goes along with your racism and complete lack of integrity. You are beneath contempt.

. . . you got two kids you never wanted and whining bitch of a wife, drinking does not take the pain away so you sit here venting your anger.

LOL.

Heads up, Crakar: My children are certainly part aboriginal from their mother's side (Shawnee) and likely mine as well (Lakota Sioux). You've already made it clear how you feel about such people so now your attempt at insult can be both complete and impassioned.

If this is projection I genuinely pity you, Crakar.

When the bitchy-wife-unwanted-kid-comments follow "pompous big fat arse muther fuckin alter ego", is this the part where I'm supposed to concede the debate?

Mandas? Coby? Jesus . . . .?

Snowman: No gentle chastising that Crakar not "diminish" himself or lament that he's being "immoderate"? LOL.

I'll be futilely trying to drink away the miseries of marriage and parenthood, plotting my next embittered, cathartic post, awaiting your response . . . .

"And you don't read anything do you?"

For a faith as firm and unshakeable as cracker's, you don't NEED to read anything. Just make stuff up.

It's the denialist MO.

'course this ALSO means you don't have to read anything you're criticising either, since cracker's type can just KNOW what it says. Even if it doesn't say it.

Skip 64 I can accuse you of lying. The post I referred to #39 had you saying that my questions had been "completely refuted" as anybody can se. Not 1/7th refuted but completely. Ignoring the ignorance of realising that a question cannot be refuted but it can be answered you are clearly lying about what you claimed. If you wish to apologise and acknowledge that you meant to say 1/7th refuted I will explain why you are still wrong.

You demonstrate well how totally devoid of any respect for truth most alarmistts are.

Chris S - no you are asserting that I am lying and that there are at least 2 scientists, out of millions, who are independent and believe in catastrophic warming. It is up to you to provide the evidence that as many as the 4 given, out of a letter signed by many dozens actually don't receive any money from the state and actually do accept that warming is "catastrophic". In any case you have largely given the farm away by accepting that, with 60% of the world's scientists being indepedent of the state, nothing remotely approaching 60% can even be hoped for from that list.

"Ignoring the ignorance of realising that a question cannot be refuted but it can be answered"

But a question needs to be asked before it can be answered and that question MUST BE A QUESTION.

A statement with a question mark o the end is not a question?

See?

And you failed to read all the answers to your putative questions. mandas did so in post number 7.

Yet you insisted that nobody has answered them even as late as post 72.

The answers were:

1 - No
2 - No
3 - No
4 - Yes
5 - No
6 - No
7 - Yes

Answers.

To every single one.

"In any case you have largely given the farm away by accepting that, with 60% of the world's scientists being indepedent of the state, nothing remotely approaching 60% can even be hoped for from that list."

No, I don't think the independent 60% (do you have a cite for that figure by the way?) will have acheived your narrow definition of support in that I doubt (m)any of them feel the need to declare their position online at all, in much the same way as I suspect you won't find many coming out in support of gravitational theory or evolution.

In addition, I doubt you can find more than a handful of "independent" scientists prepared to declare their rejection of the thesis. And I bet that out of that handful you will find very few that aren't paid to have that view.

Wow, no matter how many people answer the questions and how in-depth those answers are Craig will never accept they have been answered.

They are not really questions, they are a rhetorical device to promulgate his wingnuttery.

However I'd like to know if he agrees with Anthony Watts when he says he's paid by the Koch brothers, Chris.

Skip 64 I can accuse you of lying. --Neil

And I cannot reciprocate the accusation only because an intended lie requires a level of cognition foreign to someone as irretrievably stupid as yourself.

The post I referred to #39 had you saying that my questions had been "completely refuted" as anybody can see . . .

NO. It didn't. You are simply too stupid to understand the simple point that I was responding to your response to kermit re: Question 1.

I don't expect you to comprehend this. I just want to set the record straight. To paraphrase you:

You demonstrate well how totally devoid of any capacity for advanced cognition climate change deniers are.

Well, Skip, as you invite my reply I will say that as an English gentleman I cannot of course condone the bandying of a lady's name. Therefore, I cannot associate myself with comments made about Mrs Skip who, I am sure, is a lady of grace and charm (unlike her husband, some might say, although I will ignore such observations).

However, I never fail to be amazed at Crakar's patience. Time after time he endures gratuitous insults and abuse, and only when provoked beyond reason does he offer a criticism in reply. We can see from the above that he did not initiate this chain of remarks.

When the history of the Great Climate Wars comes to be written, the heroes will be people like Crakar - people of courage and principle who simply refuse to be browbeaten or to go along with the unthinking herd. The villains will be...well, we all know who they will be.

You misspelt "gratuitous insults" as "criticism", there, snowjob.

I also note that you haven't actually asserted that cracker-ass's posts have any accuracy in them whatsoever.

When the history of the Great Climate Wars comes to be written, the heroes will be people like Crakar . . .

This goes in the archive for all time. An illiterate schizophrenic/manic-depressive off his Thorazine is a your hero--that and agenda setter Anthony Watts.

. . . people of courage and principle . . .

Really?

. . . who simply refuse to be browbeaten or to go along with the unthinking herd.

I can document that he is such an unthinking imbecile, so utterly devoid of independent thought, that he plagiarized rank stupidity and blindly presented it as an argument. You should know, Snowman; you with great indignation subsequently demanded that said argument be answered.

The villains will be...well, we all know who they will be.

They will be who the villains always are in a good morality play: The sniveling, evasive, dishonest cowards.

Are you ready to answer direct questions yet?

I didn't think so. Prepare for your place in history, Joseph Goebbels.

Oh thank you snowman, I haven't laughed so hard in a long time!!

'patience'....'courage and principle'...'heroes will be people like crakar'.

OMG. ROFLMFO. That's just too funny for words snowman. Well done!

Perhaps you've noticed, Crakar, the growing mood of desperation among the warmists here. Although they have always preferred personal abuse to rational discussion, their hysterical attacks are becoming positively demented.

Why should this be? I think we all know the answer: nature is simply refusing to co-operate with their fantasies, and it is driving them nuts.

They are all too aware that there has been no warming for thirteen years; that sea levels are now declining; that antarctic ice is growing and arctic ice appears to be stabilizing; that the coral reefs have shown no appreciable change for decades; that the northern hemisphere has been experiencing winters of unprecedented severity (and goodness only knows what this winter will bring). Looming over it all, of course, is the presence of the sun, which could very well be entering a Maunder minimum.

Should the sun indeed do so, they know that their case will be over, finished, kaput. Can you imagine their rage and humiliation? Spare a thought for the likes of Mandas and Skip, a goat herder and a lecturer at an obscure third rate 'college', whose dreary lives have been given purpose and excitement by the coming apocalypse. And now, to their profound dismay, there is no apocalypse. One struggles to think of a suitable analogy: perhaps their agony is similar to that of those evangelical Christians who keep predicting the Rapture, only to see the world carry on untroubled.

So, what I am saying, Crak, is that they are to be pitied, not condemned. Remember what Churchill said: 'In victory, magnanimity'. That is how I am trying to look upon it. Given the outpouring of bile from our defeated opponents, it is not always easy. But then, we must always try to do the right thing, however difficult it may be.

Well, snowjob certainly loves the taste of crackers in the morning.

Note too that neither have yet managed to say why they believe CLOUD will prove AGW wrong even before it's run.

Snowman: You sure have a roundabout way of of admitting you're beaten.

You sit there and compose fourth rate rhetoric all night and proudly click "Post" but in the end you're stuck with one simple problem:

You're a dishonorable coward who cannot answer direct questions and you know it.

I can document that you:

1. Have admitted this is not a factual debate for you.
2. Are scientifically illiterate and incompetent.
3. Have a prolific track record of backing losers simply because they take your "side".
4. Lie.

Which of these statements do you dispute?

You will dispute none of them, because you can't. You will not answer. The coward's silence is your permanent repose.

Wow 73 the questions were questions and in continuing to deny that you are proving that you possess not the slightest trace of personal honesty or integirty you disgusting child murdering Nazi animal.

I specifically asked for answers which were truthful and supportive of alarmism. You produce no evidence that any of yours are infinitely more honest than you aspire to and in proving you can give no fact using answer it is clearly not supportive of the fraud, merely proving that you cannot give a fact based answer.

Chris 74 you lose your bet. Google the Oregon Petition and you will find 31,000 scientists who reject the fraud. Some "handful". Amazing that you are so ignorant as to walk into that. It shows the degree of media censorship and spin.

Skip 79 says of my saying of him "The post I referred to #39 had you saying that my questions had been "completely refuted" as anybody can see "

replied "NO. It didn't"

Anybody looking at post 39 can see you said "Completely refuted, Neil switces the subject" and that consequently yopu are a wholly corrupt lying piece of filth with less human decency than my toenail clippings. No offence to the said clippings.

If even one of these liying supporters of the warming fraud could actually answer any of the questions without proving it an obvious fraud they would do so instead of these playground antics.

The questions were not questions. They were "begging the questions".

And they were all answered by mandas as merely one example as questions. Your continuing to deny they've been answered is proving that you have no intention other than insinuation to ask those questions.

I also note you didn't answer my question. This also proves that you possess not the slightest trace of personal honesty or integrity.

"Google the Oregon Petition and you will find 31,000 scientists"

Including the famous Dr Doom, Dr Evil and Dr Gerri "Ginger" Spice.

And most of the non-fiction names are for dental hygenist and so forth.

Hardly 31000 scientists. There are barely a few hundred.

97% of publishing scientists in climate studies agree with the IPCC and all of over 100 countries' scientific institutions agree with the IPCC conclusions.

I'm afraid your few hundred crackpots in the OP are very small potatoes.

You're just a crybaby Neil. Nobody believes you.

Snowman:

Please come out and say it--is Mr. Craig here your new Champion of Climate Denial!

LOL.

Neil. You simply cannot read. I will explain this again. Look at the part of your statement I quoted. I was referencing kermit regarding *Question 1*.

But now you've committed yourself to stupidity and like Snowman, Crakar, and the rest you will never relent.

And your use of the Oregon Petition is a testament to your stupidity.

Tell me, Mr Craig:

Have you ever taken or been recommended for medication or therapy for emotional/mental problems? I don't expect you to answer publicly, but if it is yes, really rethink if you want to be spending your time on the internet humiliating yourself this way.

Snowman is just evil and ugly and deserves to be raked over the coals. Crakar is a lost cause. There might be hope for you.

Oh my goodness, he's actually brought out the Orgone peteition. Is it 31,000 non-scientists now? Wow, don't forget Alan Titchmarsh and Nigel Marven are also on the list (google them Craig)

When Craig asked for independent scientists I was thinking of, for example, the large Agribusinesses like Monsanto & Syngenta.

Unfortunately for Craig Jerry Steiner, Monsanto vice president, is on record as stating "The world is facing complex agricultural challenges combined with population growth, limited arable land, and climate changeâ

Whilst Syngenta, in combination with the European Landowners Organisation (another independent group) stated in a press release last year:

"Global challenges of food security, climate change and environmental degradation must be met. Failure to act has detrimental effects on food production, environment and climate" and "called on European leaders to urgently tackle the food security and climate change challenges â two great geo-political threats of our time."

Dr John Atkin, Chief Operating Officer for Syngenta is quoted has said "Agriculture is part of the climate
change solution"

The ELO statement on climate change at their website states: "For land managers and landowners, the impacts of climate change are mixed ... but mostly negative, such as higher CO2 concentration, increase of droughts, floods and storms, often accompanied by an increased spread of plant and animal diseases, the combination of factors hence leading to greater volatility to manage."

We can look at some other independent institutions too:

The Plymouth Marine Laboratory is a non-government organisation which undertakes fundamental and strategic research in the marine sciences. They say "Public awareness of climate change effects has largely been centred on changing sea-levels and global warming, but it is increasingly evident that, as atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean, it will become more acidic with potentially serious consequences for marine life."

The Royal Society is the independent scientific academy of the UK dedicated to promoting excellence in science. They have produced a summary report on climate change which I urge everyone to read*: Among other things it states: "There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial."

The Committee on Climate Change is an independent body established under the Climate Change Act to advise the UK Government on setting and meeting carbon budgets and on preparing for the impacts of climate change. They state: "Without efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there is a high risk of much greater change, with significant consequences for human welfare and ecological systems over the course of this century and beyond."

So, there's several independent organisations each staffed by many independent scientists. And Neil Craig has the Orgone petition. "Amazing that you are so ignorant."

*http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

Skip, I was a little disappointed to see you pleading with Coby to ban Neil. Could this be the same Skip who - displaying some integrity for once - argued with those on this site who wished to ban that new Canadian TV network before it had even started? I am sure you remember that disgraceful episode. The climate gang decided that a broadcaster that did not intend to promote the left/liberal consensus could not be heard. It was a shameful moment. Had I ever entertained doubts about the worldview of the warmists, they would have been removed by that incident.

However, I am straying from my subject. Just for the avoidance of doubt, Skip, could you confirm that it is your position that someone whose opinions clash with your own must be silenced? If I have misunderstood you, I will be glad to be corrected. (Incidentally, I hope I can count on you not to take refuge in a claim that Neil is mad. Despots throughout history, as you know, have always justified their actions by insisting that their opponents deserved to be removed from the debate).

Despots throughout history, as you know, have always justified their actions by insisting that their opponents deserved to be removed from the debate.

How would you compare Coby's policy of "censorship" with that of Anthony Watts?

When I caught AW giving away his ignorance on a subject he "snipped me" from his forum. By your logic Anthony--your "agenda setter"--is a despot. Nice work, Snowman.

Its another direct question, Snowman. But you're a coward and won't answer.

Neil might or might not be mad, and perhaps you are right; I should not have so hastily requested his removal.

Yours would be justified on other grounds. You're not mad; you're just a fiend.

Are you ready to answer direct questions yet or will you still recoil in cowardice and dishonor?

Snowman

".....They are all too aware that there has been no warming for thirteen years; that sea levels are now declining; that antarctic ice is growing and arctic ice appears to be stabilizing; that the coral reefs have shown no appreciable change for decades; that the northern hemisphere has been experiencing winters of unprecedented severity (and goodness only knows what this winter will bring). Looming over it all, of course, is the presence of the sun, which could very well be entering a Maunder minimum. Should the sun indeed do so, they know that their case will be over, finished, kaput....."

Wow snowman, so many assertions - so many errors. Let's just check shall we:

"No warming for thirteen years" - ok, don't tell me. What year was it 13 years ago? Oh that's right, the favourite of the denialist - 1998. And you continue to spruke this idiotic meme even though the latest decade was the hottest on record, and contained the two hottest years on record. Good job there! But unfortunately, wrong as usual.
www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

"Sea levels are declining" - oh oh - no!
www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/downloads/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.pdf.

"Antarctic ice is growing" - wrong again.
Rignot E, Velicogna I, van den Broeke MR, Monaghan A and Lenaerts J (2011). Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise. Geophys. Res. Lett 38, L05503, doi:10.1029/2011GL046583

'Arctic ice appears to be stabilising" - oh dear - incorrect!
nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110606_Figure3.png

"coral reefs have shown no appreciable change for decades" - couldn't be more wrong.
www.grdl.noaa.gov/pub/coral/Climate_Change_Resources/Baker_ECSS08.pdf

"the northern hemisphere has been experiencing winters of unprecedented severity" - yeah, so?
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.170.4209&rep=rep1&type=pdf

"the sun, which could very well be entering a Maunder minimum" - yeah, we know. so?
www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042710.shtml

So snowman - great job. Did Anthony tell you to say that, or did you come up with the idiocy all by yourself? Or did you get it from one of your other heroes? Was it the Mike Tyson of climate change, Dick Wakefield? That paragon of patience and principle, crakar? Or was it your new idol, the coach of the Adelaide Crows, Neil Craig?

I tell you one thing though. If I made so many mistakes in such a short post, and mistakes that can so easily be shown to be wrong, and which are so obviously based on ideology and not fact, then I would give back my degrees. But I guess that isn't a problem for you is it snowman - you know nothing about science and have no qualifications so it's not an issue for you to be a denialist is it? You fit right in.

I just wanted to add a little more to my last post on the sheer ideological delusions possessed by idiots like snowman. In his post #82, he made this statement:

"....that the coral reefs have shown no appreciable change for decades..."

That is not only a lie - it is such an obvious lie that anyone spruking it should be held up before the hold world as a despicable denialist. An asshole. This is not something that should be taken lightly - it has the very distinct potential to be an absolute unmitigated disaster for our civilisation, and for the whole ecosystem of the earth.

Let's have a look at some evidence shall we? Apart from the paper I linked to above, there is this conference held in the UK earlier this year, attended by marine scientists from around the world. Their conclusion:

"...The 27 participants from 18 organisations in 6 countries produced a grave assessment of current threats â and a stark conclusion about future risks to marine and human life if the current trajectory of damage continues: that the world's ocean is at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history...."

And on coral reefs - you know, the things that snowman asserts have not undergone any appreciable changes for decades -

"...The workshop brought together the latest research on coral reefs, revealing that corals across the surface are in rapid decline, with crucial ecosystem processes such as calcification in freefall.....Rapidly heating sea temperatures are driving mass coral bleaching events, where the corals which build coral reefs and provide the homes of thousands of other species get sick and die. At the same time, rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been changing the chemistry of the ocean to the point where corals and many other creatures are having trouble forming their limestone like skeletons..."

Watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3WH_6PgNIQI#at=37

Now snowman - are you going to deny that, or will you act with some integrity and admit that you made a mistake?

skip
Let's have a wager. I bet that snowman will either not respond, or will try and turn this into a personal attack on me. Want to bet against me?

Heads you win tails I lose? Nice try.

How about you give me odds --1000 to 1 might be fair--that Snowman comes out and delineates and admits his dishonesty and cynical evasiveness on this forum.

skip

Sounds fair. The latest odds:

1,000 - 1 snowman demonstrates some integity
999 - 1 snowman answers previously asked questions
1 - 100 snowman ignores the information
1 - 1,000 snowman turns it into a personal attack

Well, where do I start? Perhaps with Mandas, who predicted that I would resort to personal attacks, a few lines after describing me as a despicable denialist asshole. Still, perhaps that wasn't intended as personal. I really must learn not to be so sensitive.

Putting that aside, I note Mandas's reference to the conference held in the UK by 'marine scientists from around the world'. You know, Mandas, you really should have looked at this a little more sceptically (if I may use the word). Who were these scientists? Why, it can only be the International Programme on the State of the Ocean, whose recent pronouncements caused a brief flurry of interest.

What was it all about? Well, it seems that nearly three months ago a tiny, self-selected group of eco campaigners, PR hacks and, yes, a couple of marine biologists gathered for a jolly weekend in Oxford. Much later they got around to issuing a press release predicting imminent mass extinction. Naturally, the credulous press lapped it up. But even the sainted Guardian lasped into embarrassed silence when it was pointed out that this group contained more eco warriors and public relations types than scientists.

There was no report, no mention of who said what, no evidence, merely a declaration by a group of pals. It was as if Crakar and I had met up for a couple of beers and later put out statement revealing the folly of climate alarmism. If anybody wanted evidence of the preposterousness of their 'findings', they needed only look at the names at the end of the statement. Who were they? Grave men of science? Distinguished experts on the world's oceans? No, they were Charlotte Smith and Luke Malcher, two PR execs who work for Communications Inc, an outfit that specializes in eco campaigners and lists WWF and Greenpeace among its clients.

Now, where were we? Ah yes, Skip, who was complaining about being excluded from the Anthony Watts blog. For some reason, Skip, you seem to have got it into your head that I am some sort of representative or spokesman for Anthony. True, I am an admirer and I think his work in bringing sanity to this issue is genuinely heroic. But Anthony is not infallible and, like anyone else, can make errors of fact or judgment. I don't know why he booted you off and, although I don't approve, Anthony isn't in the habit of consulting me before deciding these things. I am not really sure why you are challenging me with this story.

However, I cannot end this post without complimenting you on your admission that you may have been too hasty in calling for Neil's banning. I believe I have reminded you before, Skip, that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.

Wow 86 is once again proving how devoid of any trace of honesty he is by asserting that the questions weren't questions. Yes they are questions.

Please either provide evidence that "Dr Doom" etc are currently listed among the 31,000 scweptical scientists or admit that you are a wholly disho9nerst piece of filth that any alkarmist who possesses the remotest trace of personal honesty would have to denouce. I confidently predict you will not be able to support your lie because it is a lie and that there will prove to be not one single alarmist anywhere in the world who is not a wholly corrup liyng Nazi parasite like yourself. No offence.

Skip remains skip.

Chris 88 lets look at your list of "sientists who support cattstrophic warming"

Firstly anybody who has met other human beings will have noticed that these are polite acknowledgement of the official pravda, no more serious that saying "merry Christmas" proves you literally believe in the Bible.

Secondly these are all organisation spokesmen speaking rather than scientists speaking in their own right.

3rdly of the "independent" organisations you mention "
Committee on Climate Change is an independent body established under the Climate Change Act to advise the UK Government" so set up and funded by government; the Royal Society gets £45 million a year from government; the Plymouth Marine Lab is funded by NERC, a British government quango which gets £450 million to promote warming and other "environmental" scares; the ELO does not say where its considerable money comes from but it is structured as a confederation of national bodies at least some of whom and probably all get government funding; Monsanto and XSyngenta are heavily involved in improving 3rd world crops, a business for wich substantial amounts are available from Aid budgets. So none of the "independent" organisations you promote as "independent" individauls are actually independent.

4thly look at what, even while being paid by government, they have said. The do not speak of catatrophic global warming, or even global warming but of "climate change" a deliberately anodyne term and place this at the end of their lists of probelms. Whatt sort of global catastrophe is kept to the end of the list.

So even while being paid to promoter the scare these, the very best "independent" you cann come up with, are downplaying the alleged catastrophic warming you parasites want to be given trillions to ameliorate.

Snowman 89 - in calling for me to be censored skip is calling for solidarity with other "sciencebloggers". Censoring discussion on scientific matters is clearly incompatible with any respect for scientific principles and the 7 sites here which have censored ne are shown up us enemies of science every time I am not censored by one of the others.

There was no report, no mention of who said what, no evidence, merely a declaration by a group of pals. --Snowman.

Bullshit. Its online. A more detailed report is forthcoming. A cursory examination of its conclusions shows it is heavily cited. It doesn't matter whose name is at the bottom. The science is either validated or it isn't. You as usual don't know but just pontificate from a shit heap of dogma.

Neil, you are simply too crazy to understand how wrong you are.

The "goofball" names from the Oregon Petition, such as "Donald Duck" and so forth have been expunged by the organization of course but only after it led to their embarrassment. The National Academy of Sciences has censured the OIM for misrepresenting its survey as being connected with the NAS. Numerous scientists whose names appear have disavowed it. The vast, vast majority of the signatories have nothing to do with science at all, let alone climate science.

If you had vetted your source carefully, which you obviously did not do, you would be aware of this.

As I said, Skip, all we have had is a press release. Surely that can't be what you meant by 'it's all online'. As your side has so often rebuked us for relying on anything other than peer reviewed research, I am sure you wouldn't be guilty of taking an unsubstantiated press release as gospel. Would you?

A detailed report is forthcoming, is it? We shall see.

"the Royal Society gets £45 million a year from government"

Which is at least one order of magnitude less than, say, the petroleum industry. By this logic there are no independent scientists, let alone 60% (a number I note you still have not provided a source for) as, if you look at revenue streams you will see government funding all down the line. I note you skirt around the Monsanto & Syngenta examples, unsurprisingly.

And the winner in the 'What Will Snowman Do?" competition is.....

Ignore the evidence!!!! Yayyyy!!!

All those punters who invested at the generous odds of 1 - 100 may collect their winnings at the cashier. Thank you and good night!

As your side has so often rebuked us for relying on anything other than peer reviewed research,

As this one does.

Skip, we don't seem to getting to the bottom of this. I am suggesting that that the so-called research predicting catastrophe for the world's oceans is nothing more than a press release put out by a PR company that makes its living out of this guff. You declare it is more than that and that it is a proper piece of science. Very well. Kindly produce it here. If you can, I will withdraw my remarks and admit you were right. If you are unable to do so, perhaps you will do the same. Is that fair?

http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf

Please pay special attention to:

(1) Pages 4-7 on "Scientific Conclusions from the Workshop" and the citations used.
(2) Over five pages of references starting on page 15.
(3) How totally wrong you are--yet again.

Come on, Skip, this is just a press release listing a number of papers that have been around for ages and may vaguely have something to do with the alleged reason for their weekend love-in. I can't seriously believe you are offering this in evidence. Note the last line: for further info contact a PR Company. It is what I said it is: a press handout. It is not science. It barely even pretends to be science. I could produce a dozen papers like this in half an hour with a bit of googling.

But look, you are obviously not going to admit I am right, so let's forget it. I would like to turn to something that is slightly off topic, but perhaps Coby will indulge me as this is an open thread.

I happened to read this morning about the SKA (Square Kilometre Array), a project that will link some 3,000 radio telescopes to be built in the southern hemisphere, all programmed in such a fashion that they will operate as one giant instrument. It will provide unparalleled insights into the early universe and the formation of galaxies. It is, moreover, an international project. Scientists from about twenty countries are meeting in Banff, Canada, to discuss the plans in detail.

Why am I mentioning this? I do so because I felt a sense of excitement as I read. How glorious, how liberating, real science can be. How wonderful to think of these talented and profoundly clever people advancing human knowledge. And how different from the shabby deceptions of those at the heart of climate 'science'.

I wonder how many of these astronomers and physicists ever thought it was a good idea to put pressure on journal editors not to publish dissenting work, or pledged to do everything possible to keep certain papers out of assessment reports. I wonder how often they sent urgent messages to their friends urging them to delete every email on their system relating to certain discussions. I wonder how often they fought tooth and nail to resist FOI requests and keep their data secret.

That is what I thought, Skip. It almost felt cleansing - if that is not too emotional a word - to read about real scientists. It also made me realize that I have been spending too much time here. It has been depressing being in close proximity to intelligent people whose capacity for rational and independent thought, not to mention their ability to engage in courteous debate, has been destroyed by this toxic subject.

I guess I have cried wolf before, but this is definitely my last ever post. I just don't want to be associated with this place any more. And Skip, my final piece of advice to you is to do the same.

I am sure you wouldn't be guilty of taking an unsubstantiated press release as gospel. Would you?--Snowman

No. Would you?

Thatâs another direct question I know you wonât answer, because the honest answer would negate every post youâve ever made.

There was no report, no mention of who said what, no evidence, merely a declaration by a group of pals.

I just linked it to you. This was not a lie on your part, but an outgrowth of your ignorance and lazinessâand a zombieâs reliance on Anthony Watts (see below).

As I said, Skip, all we have had is a press release. Surely that can't be what you meant by 'it's all online'. As your side has so often rebuked us for relying on anything other than peer reviewed research, --Snowman

Your label of it is irrelevant. It is 20 pages long and backs up every assertion with documentation and yes, dumbass, peer reviewed research.

this is just a press release listing a number of papers that have been around for ages and may vaguely have something to do with the alleged reason for their weekend love-in.

Bullshit. The oldest paper cited was 2001. Most were in the past five years.

So, where did Snowman get his opinion spoon fed to him?

You guessed it: Anthony âThe Agenda-Setter Wattsâ:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/21/saving-the-world-and-the-ocean-on…

How about a textual analysis:

Compare this . . .

Call me a cynic, but I no longer take claims about âexpert panel of scientistsâ at face value. Sadly, Richard Black of the BBC does. -- Anthony Watts

. . . with this:

Naturally, the credulous press lapped it up. --Snowman

Or this . . .

The âpanel of expertsâ â IPSO â may well be expert. But, look, again, we see Greenpeaceâs name up there, steering the research â in its own words â alongside the Pew group, and Friends of the Earth. -- Anthony Watts . . .

. . .with this:

But even the sainted Guardian lasped into embarrassed silence when it was pointed out that this group contained more eco warriors and public relations types than scientists. --Snowman

And this . . .

âIâm sorry but I have utter contempt for this sort of pseudo-science by press releaseâ¦â âAnthony Watts

. . . with this:

I am sure you wouldn't be guilty of taking an unsubstantiated press release as gospel. Would you?

Snowman, you are a dim, lazy, wind-up toy for Anthony Watts. You are a mindless believer in the impulsive rants of a scientifically unqualified fool and fat mouth. Your agenda is truly being set, as you yourself have said. Itâs obvious you lack the wit for independent thought.

And Snowmanâs final supplication?

. . . so let's forget it.

No Snowman. I never will forget it.

Just like I will never forget :

(1)Your admission that this is not a factual debate for you.
(2)Your lies (I can document multiple.)
(3)Your statistical and scientific illiteracy and incompetence.
(4)Your idiotic choices of climate debate heroes.
(5)Your refusal to answer pointed questions whose honest answers expose you.
(6)Your cowardice.

It will all be remembered Snowman. Forever.

I guess I have cried wolf before, but this is definitely my last ever post--Snowman

If this latest version of this promise turns out to not be bluster, the reason is obvious.

Skip thank you for acknowledging that the names Wow said were on the Oregon Petition weren't. Wow obviously did not have honesty enough to admit he was lying, which is exactly what one would expect of an obscene lying Nazi parasite like him and why he has been publicly denounced as such by every single remotely honest eco-Nazi here - zero so far.

BTW I am always astonished that ecofascists continously bring up the fact that they managed to fraudulently get the name Dr Geri Halliwell on the petition (the other names are, of course, lies). All this proves is the those running the petition are not followers of the Spice Girls and that those alarmists, and all alarmists who have not told them how disgraceful such behaviour is, have absolutely no problem with deliberate fraud.

I fail to see how either of those reflect badly on sceptics or well on alarmists. Perhaps you could explain?

wow didn't lie.

It shows what we've been trying to tell you: The Petition was a joke, had no quality control, and any fool could call himself a scientist and say he disputed the IPCC and be included.

Any fool, Neil. Your reliance on this source shows that you are one as well.

At post #82, snowman made this interesting claim, among a number of interesting claims:

"... that the coral reefs have shown no appreciable change for decades..."

This sparked off a rather heated debate between snowman on one side, and skip and I on the other, with snowman accusing skip and I of relying on a 'press release' from a bunch of pals having a love-in, that it was all just PR, and that we failed to produce any peer reviewed science to back up our claims.

Apart from the fact that I did link to a peer reviewed study in my previous post (I also linked to peer reviewed studies for all snowman's assertions - but of course he failed to acknowledge that fact as per usual), and that snowman exhibited his usual hypocricy by not providing any evidence to back up his own claim - while demanding that skip and I produce evidence for ours - I guess he has a point. After all, a conference attended by marine scientists from around the world, where they analyse the peer reviewed literature - well, that has no credibility does it? It's much better to get your information on coral reefs from wattsupmybutt.

So then snowman, here are a couple of studies for your reading pleasure. I apologise, I only spend 10 minutes or so collecting these - I didn't do a full literature review or subject search. So if you want some more, let me know. Alternatively, you could go to 'web of science' or 'google scholar' and spend 10 minutes doing a little reasearch of your own, before you make any future unsubstantiated claims.

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6994/pdf/nature02691.pdf

www.springerlink.com/content/p31208j201208327/

www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000711

www.sciencemag.org/content/301/5635/955.abstract

www.springerlink.com/content/c7338826l780x5h3/

www.springerlink.com/content/m147088j24440843/

web.me.com/ventana121/BrunoLab/Publications_files/Selig%20et%20al%202006.pdf

www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050124

www.springerlink.com/content/085g2151l3nlt871/

www.springerlink.com/content/g8p25514t153p723/

www.springerlink.com/content/w463t53344724374/

www2.cedarcrest.edu/academic/bio/jcigliano/MFEC/GARDNER_SUPP_MATS.pdf

web.mac.com/ventana121/BrunoLab/Publications_files/McLeod%20et%20al%202010_coral%20triangle%20threats.pdf

snowman - once you have read all those papers, could you please let us all know whether you still think that your original assertion was correct. If so, could you tell us all why you still believe it. If not, could you please do the honourable thing and withdraw your assertion and admit your error.

Thanks.

[Snowman,] could you please do the honourable thing and withdraw your assertion and admit your error.--Mandas

To late, Mandas:

. . . this is definitely my last ever post . . . --Snowman

I guess the pile of unanswered questions was piling up too high so he crawled back under his rock for a while.

107 Skip you are still a liar. That alarmists have no compunction about fraud, indeed virtually the entire movement has been self-congratulatory about this fraud, is evidence against them not their opponents.

Document one of my lies, Neil. Just one. Please use quotes, not assertions/parphrases. Have fun.

I take it you are giving up on the Oregon Petition? You should. If so, please admit it.

And while your at it, please answer these questions:

Have you ever written a peer-reviewed article?

Have you ever even *read* a peer reviewed article?

"The "goofball" names from the Oregon Petition, such as "Donald Duck" and so forth have been expunged by the organization of course but only after it led to their embarrassment"

HOWEVER, those names are still counted in the 31,000 names that Snowjob et al keep touting.

Dentists, dental hygenists and petroleum engineers are also on the list.

Hardly scientists.

But they too make up the number 31,000.

So although they're expunged from the official record, the denialists who insist on 31,000 names being significant continue to include them.

Coby / skip / wow

Not sure why this âOregon Petitionâ crap is coming up again. It has been debated to death on the applicable thread â over here:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2011/06/open_thread_2.php#c4314422

However, I am at a loss as to why denialists like to claim that 31,000 signatories is somehow meaningful. If you put it in context, it is a complete joke.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010, 41,289,000 people had a Bachelorâs Degree as their highest educational qualification, 15,357,000 had a Masters Degree, and 2,793,000 held a Doctoral Degree. In the UK, the figure is around 20% of the population, or around 12 million. The figures are similar in most western countries. However, in places like India, the percentages are much less, but with the much higher population numbers, the total number of people with university degrees is staggering â around 100 million.

Source (US data): http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2010/tables.html

So, what does this mean? Well, if we look at US figures alone, if everyone who signed the Oregon Petition held a legitimate university degree (but we know they donât), then we can do a simple sum. The total number of university graduates is around 60 million. There were 31,000 signatories to the petition. This represents a staggering half of one percent of the population.

But of course, the âOregon Petitionâ was open to anyone who wished to sign â you didnât have to be in the US. So the figures are obviously much lower than half of one percent. You can make your own estimate if you like.

So....... The standard claim of âconsensusâ in the climate change debate is 97% of all working climate scientists. In other words, around 3% disagree. Unfortunately, the âOregon Petitionâ has even less dissent. The pitiful number of 31,000 signatories â even if they were all legitimate â suggests that less than half of one percent disagree with the science of climate change.

Pretty pitiful really.

Sorry - wrong link:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/01/the_oregon_petition.php

And I am going to apologise for my shoddy mathematics!

31,000 signatores does NOT represent around half of one percent of the university graduates. The correct figure is around 0.05%. I overstated the figure by a factor of 10!

So - it isn't pitiful, it is only 10% of pitiful.

Well Wow it would certainly be foolish to say one has a list of 31,000 signatories and when added up it comes to 30,995 because you have removed a habdful so you must have some pretty overwhelming evidence that that is what was done :-)

That or this is hust yet another example of your childish lying.

Perhaps you could give your evidence of the petitioners saying that is what happened. Perhaps not.

Mandas I assune, being honest, you are on record as saying the alarmists, who have never got close to that level of numbers, despite the vast amount of money thrown at them, are under 1% of pitiful.

Yes, the evidence is in the list itself. However, that would require you actually do something, hence you don't know and don't want to know.

Crybaby cries.

Nobody cares.

Skip you are still a liar. -- Neil

Document one of my lies, Neil. Just one. Please use quotes, not assertions/parphrases. Have fun. --Skip

Answer?

Whilst you're answering skip's question Neil, perhaps you could also tell us where you got the figure: 60% of scientists are independent from government funding?

Chris S I don't remeber where I read the exact figure. Please say why this matters so much when nobody suggests that not only not 60% of the alarmist "scientists" are independent but nobody can name even 0.1% that are. If it were not important then you would obviously merely be blowing smoke to distract from the fact that nobody can answer simple questions, honestly, in a manner that shows alarmism anything but a deliberate fraud.

Sjip I have already documented some of your lies. I suspect life is far to short to trace "all" of them.

Wow despite being a liar you seem to have inadvertently got moderately close to the truth with "Nobody cares" about the honesty, or otherwise, of alatmists. Certainly very few commenters on "£scienceblogs" care enough to try any factual answering and by definition, those site authors who censor debate do not care about mere facts when they are being paid to lie. Obviously, despite qualifications, nobody who doesn't care has any connection to scientific principles.

"say why this matters so much when nobody suggests that not only not 60% of the alarmist "scientists" are independent but nobody can name even 0.1% that are."

Because by your own definitions 0% of scientists are independent. Your claim to have read the figure somewhere smacks of "making shit up" to me. That you struggle to back up even this one claim begs the question: how much of the rest of your rhetorical questions are also born of made up shit?

"that nobody can answer simple questions, honestly"

This is what's known as projection. Your questions have been answered innumerable times on several blogs, you just don't like the answers. As the wise man once said: "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth."

""that nobody can answer simple questions, honestly"

This is what's known as projection."

It's also wrong.

Neil just redefines what honestly means until nobody answering his questions falls under his idiosyncratic definition of "honestly".

Q1: Honest answer: Jones didn't say that.

Q2: CO2 isn't the sole cause. The majority cause is the billions spent on agribusiness R&D. Or Monsato et al are in a scam.

Q3: Nobody thinks that. The National Academy of Science looked at it and saw no error of conclusion. Subsequent papers confirm.

Q4: Neil even manages to typo the typo (and misattribute it to Pachuri to boot).

Q5: The assertion it would be a fraction of the cost makes the honest answer "No", but Neil has been told "No" several times. Never listened.

Q6: the IPCC and the science of climate is not alarmist, so nobody exists to either denounce fraud or commit it to be denounced.

Q7: The requirement of no government involvement is irrelevant and therefore the question irrelevant.

Sjip [sic] I have already documented some of your lies. I suspect life is far to [sic] short to trace "all" of them. --Neil

So just trace one.

Sjip, Neil Craig won't answer questions honestly, he's also a liar. So don't hold your breath.

Many of us will be aware that the Heartland Institute have just held their sixth international conference on climate change, where they made drew these fascinating conclusions:

"...The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earthâs atmosphereâs interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do...."

"...We are witnessing the Berlin Wall moment in the global warming regime. The statist cabal that has ruled the climate debate since the UN IPCC's inception in 1988 is now tumbling down before our eyes. The so-called 'gold-standard' of scientific review turns out to be counterfeit. Global warming is now undergoing the fastest ever collapse of any modern political movement..."

"...."For those scientists who value their scientific reputations, I would advise that they distance themselves from politically motivated claims of a 'scientific consensus' on the causes of global warming -- before it is too late...."

"...."Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that's a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult. . . . All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings...."

Hmmm - seems like they are saying that the science if far from settled. Why does that sound familiar? I thought I would do some more checking of their website, and I found this:

"....More than a year has passed since U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona said, "The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard".....The results do not support a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality. The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed....A 1998 World Health Organization (WHO) study covering seven countries over seven years actually showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers and no increase for spouses and coworkers of smokers....The idea that smokers and nonsmokers might solve this problem voluntarily is dismissed out of hand by those who claim secondhand-smoke exposure is a public health crisis. The "solutions" they want all require bigger government: higher taxes on cigarettes, bans on smoking in public, restrictions on advertising and health claims, etc....Oddly, these solutions all work to advance the self-interest and agendas of the five groups that repeat Carmona's claim of "consensus." What are the odds this correlation is coincidental?...."

Yes, that's right. The science on tobaccos smoke is far from settled. There is no relationship between health and second hand smoke. Smoking can be good for you (for children anyway). It's all about big government and taxes.

These guys sound like a broken record!

"but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earthâs atmosphereâs interaction with sunlight to decide."

So we can't decide if burning fossil fuels is a good idea or not.

So why are we continuing to do what we don't know is safe?

"since the UN IPCC's inception in 1988"

There are denialists who didn't know that the IPCC started in 1988.

"Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that's a pollutant just boggles my mind."

So sit in a box that's sealed. See how benign CO2 is. Why, for example, is CO2 which is a waste product of our breathing not a pollutant, yet if I shit in this guy's dinner, I'd be polluting it? That's just a waste product of my digestion.

Weird people. Able to think 12 impossible thoughts before breakfast.

"Because by your own definitions 0% of scientists are independent"

I would be interested in seeing where I said that liar.

Wow Q1 Yes Jones did say that. He may now be claiming that we are back into significance but nobody remotely hones, or intelligent, vould claim otherwise. I assume the rest ois equally dishonest.

Mandas I think they are being cautious. Climategate was the Berlin Wall moment. What we are now seeing is the collapse of the various alarmist authorities.

And yes the evidence for 2nd hand smoking is well within the limits of statistical error of the surveysd claiming to have found it; there are studies which do not show harm; if you look at the various predictions of 2nmd habd smoking deaths you wuill see they vary wildly, indeed that the variation is greater between them than between the lower ones and zero (something also true of warming alarmists). By definition, therefore, the scintific debate cannot be over whatever the politicians say.

"I would be interested in seeing where I said that liar."

Childish Neil cries again.

Where did Chris say that you said 0% of scientists are independent?

Hmm?

Seems like all you can do is smear these days.

"Wow Q1 Yes Jones did say that."

No, he didn't say that.

He said that the trend was positive at 0.12C per decade. That is significant warming. The determination of that trend was statistically significant at the time to beyond the 90% level.

The rest of your post is equally fetid lies and smears.

Skip you are still a liar. --
Posted by: Neil Craig | July 4, 2011 4:41 AM

Document one of my lies, Neil. Just one. Please use quotes, not assertions/parphrases. Have fun.
Posted by: skip | July 4, 2011 4:54 AM . . .

[no answer]

Answer?
Posted by: skip | July 5, 2011 5:17 AM

Sjip I have already documented some of your lies. I suspect life is far to short to trace "all" of them.
Posted by: Neil Craig | July 6, 2011 6:15 AM

So just trace one.
Posted by: skip | July 6, 2011 11:22 AM

[no answer]

Sjip, Neil Craig won't answer questions honestly, he's also a liar. So don't hold your breath.
Posted by: Chris S. | July 6, 2011 11:08 PM

Cjris, I do believe youâre right.

Neil: I will also repeat a couple of questions from before:

Have you ever written a peer-reviewed article?

Have you ever even *read* a peer reviewed article?
Posted by: skip | July 4, 2011 4:54 AM

This is what, according to the very highest standard of honesty to which wow aspoires Prof Jones never said

"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

I assume no pother part of what he says is more than 10,000 times closer to honest than that standard. Goes anybody not also proven dishonest have anything to say?

Funny how you missed out what he said, Neil. Just like the liar you are:

I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.

Therefore it WAS statistically significant at the 90% level.

All you have are lies and twisted edits, Neil.

Neil, riddle me this: Is the warming since 1995 to present* significant?**

*By present I mean July 2011

**I doubt you'll answer this, just as you haven't answered any other direct questions to you.

I have any number of things to say and I can even articulate them in English.

But first I am going to test to see just how obstinate and deluded you are.

Kermit gave you a link at the very beginning of the the thread here:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2011/06/open_thread_2.php#comment…

Notice that his link was dated *this year*:

Date: 10 June 2011

Let me repeat that again for those whose understanding of statistics matches their atrocious spelling.

Date: 10 June 2011

How about one more time:

Date: 10 June 2011

Now, from the article:

Title: Global warming since 1995 'now significant

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair.

. . . Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant . . . but another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real".

. . . .Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

Maybe you are not connecting the dots, Neil, but the last paragraph *refers to the quote you are using*.

Chris it cannot be considered significant unless it is proven to be so by figures produced and verified by real scientits who have not lied, perhured themselves and hidden the decline.

Now answer my question - is the net decline from 1998, significant?

Sip note "but another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold" - now if you are not a lyiing pice of filth you will publicly acknowledge that that the figures ofup to the previous year were not "significant". Obviously I don't expect you to prove in any way honest but am willing to be surprised.

Neil Craig, you can determine whether it is significant very easily yourself. Why don't you? Incompetence? Laziness? What is it?

And your question you can answer yourself also. Small warning beforehand, you will not even find a "decline".

If only you'd do some work yourself, you would get an idea what the difference is between a trend and a significant trend. Notably, you will have to answer the question what confidence interval to choose and why. Let's see if you understand even the most basic questions in science. I'm not getting my hopes up, you already showed a complete inability to understand the basic answers you got from William Connolley.

Beil - a short series of cherry-picked years frequently does not show a significant trend. Why do you consider this to be important? Your emphasis on this demonstrates your complete lack of any statistical expertise.

Schpiel:

I have usually taken it upon myself--with a dose of irony and even some martyrdom--to respond to every post on this forum, regardless how inane, when others do not.

I am tempted to declare we have sunk below the stupidity threshold here.

Skip said:

i am tempted to declare we have sunk below the stupidity threshold here.

Skip, unfortunately there is no "stupidity threshold" on un-moderated blogs. That is why I have lost interest in this blog and DeSmogBlog. If blog owners allow all sorts of lies, misinformation, insults to posters, slander of climate scientists etc. I no longer consider these blogs to be either science blogs or blogs worthy of my time since any time taken to correct the lies and disinformation is just laughed off by the paid denier trolls.

If Coby wants the respect of scientists he has to stop the anti-science and junk-science rubbish which is posted here.

I spend my time on the better blogs such as Openmind, Skepticalscience and Deltoid where the stupidity and dishonesty threshold is much higher and the trolls are not permitted to post their nonsense.

Richard I assume, being honest and impartial, you have always been openly critical of the alarmist movement for proclaiming catastrophic global warming in the late 1980s after a considerably shorter period of cherry picked years (ie from 1979), than you ever have od sceptics. I would enjoy seeing your li9nks to such refereshing impartiaslity.

Or not as the case may be.

Marco if you do not believe there was a decline I suggest you take it up with Jones who wrote that he had had to "hide the decline". Perhaps you would wish to accuse him of not being sufficiently "on" the alarmist religion line.

Marco if you do not believe there was a decline I suggest you take it up with Jones who wrote that he had had to "hide the decline".

Unbelievable.

Neil, I'm not even going to explain this to you.

Just be a public idiot. Please.

Jesus I wish Snowman was here to cheer this fool.

Neil - I first heard about the physics of global warming and the possible harmful consequences in 1967, when it seemed an emminently reasonable proposition. Nothing I have read since has led me to change my mind. There certainly has not been the slightest scrap of evidence from the denialists to even hint that the basic concept is shaky.

Oh god - not 'hide the decline' again?

The zombies are out in force today, and they have had their brains eaten so there is nothing left.

There are two possibilities here. Either deniers are so catastrophically stupid that they don't even know what 'hide the decline' refers to, or they are such pathological liars that they know what it refers to, but choose to use it completely out of context in order to suit their deluded ideological agenda.

But as Grandpa Simpson says - its probably a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B.

But just in case some people really don't get it (because they are too stupid of too lazy to spend 2 minutes researching it), here is what REALLY happened:

"....Iâve just completed Mikeâs Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keithâs to hide the decline...."

That is the real quote from the e-mail, not the cherry picked crap spouted by your standard denier. The context is regarding a graph for the cover of a 1999 World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) report, which depicted both instrumental temperature data and reconstructed temperatures based on tree rings. Tree rings proxies were used for the temperature reconstruction prior to instrumental records being available, but from about 1961 onwards, tree ring proxy data shows a still unaccounted for divergence from instrumental records - they show a 'decline' (ie they go down when actual instrumental records show an increase in temperature). This is a very well known phenomenon, and is discussed extensively in the scientific literature, eg:

http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende//cherubin/download/D_ArrigoetalGlo…

It is also discussed in the IPCC (WG1) report, as follows:

"...There is evidence, for example, that high latitude tree-ring density variations have changed in their response to temperature in recent decades, associated with possible nonclimatic factors (Briffa et al., 1998a). By contrast, Vaganov et al. (1999) have presented evidence that such changes may actually be climatic and result from the effects of increasing winter precipitation on the starting date of the growing season (see Section 2.7.2.2). Carbon dioxide fertilization may also have an influence, particularly on high-elevation drought-sensitive tree species, although attempts have been made to correct for this effect where appropriate (Mann et al., 1999). Thus climate reconstructions based entirely on tree-ring data are susceptible to several sources of contamination or non-stationarity of response. For these reasons, investigators have increasingly found tree-ring data most useful when supplemented by other types of proxy information in âmulti-proxyâ estimates of past temperature change (Overpeck et al., 1997; Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998; 1999; 2000a; 2000b; Crowley and Lowery, 2000)...."

Mann's "crime" was that he used actual temperature data for the graph post 1961, rather than tree ring data which suggested an obviously incorrect decline in temperatures. In other words, he 'hid the decline'. In any case, it would have been scientifically stupid to continue to use proxy data when real, instrumental data, was available.

I guess that's why Mann is not a denier. He doesn't do scientifically stupid things, nor does he cherry pick data. That's the job of the zombie troll and the ideologue.

"which depicted both instrumental temperature data and reconstructed temperatures based on tree rings"

Along with ice cores, soil deposition and other temperature proxies.

It's not just tree rings.

Oh, and the tree ring proxies diverge from the temperature only for northern temperate latitude Bristlecone pines post 1960 (you may remember such things as smog and acid rain). These were not the only tree rings used as a proxy.

"you have always been openly critical of the alarmist movement for proclaiming catastrophic global warming"

The only ones proclaiming catastrophic global warming are the deniers like yourself, Neil.

"Now answer my question - is the net decline from 1998, significant?"

There is no decline, it's going up.

"Chris it cannot be considered significant unless it is proven to be so by figures produced and verified by real scientits who have not lied, perhured themselves and hidden the decline."

So no to Wegman(plagiarised, lied), david mckay(perjured, lied), David Evans(lied) or Don Esterbrook (hide the incline).

"you will publicly acknowledge that that the figures ofup to the previous year were not "significant""

They were significant to the 90% confidence level.

Neil, you clearly are impossible to educate if you link the global temperature record since 1998 with the "hide the decline" phrase.

One has to wonder whether this is willful ignorance, or outright malice. No one is THAT stupid to link the two. Or perhaps you are. None of the three options puts you in a favourable light.

Richard if you are3 being truthful I wopuld really like to see where you spent the 1970s denounceing the "denialists", including Hansen, who not only denied we were sufering from catastrophic warming but said we were sufering from catastrophic cooling.

Mandas the fact that Hansen and co show a rise while the world's trees show a decline is not, of itself, proof that it is the world's trees that have been been faking. We seem to be agreed that Jones did indeed try to "hide the decline" the trees were showing.

Wow's claim that overall temperatures have risen overall since 1998 is, as normal, a total and deli9berate lie and he will again be denounced by every alarmist who has a trace of integrity. So far that menas none here.

Marco I look forward to you proving whether you have any trace of honesty, by dissociating yourself from the fascist liar wow, or not.

My guess would be not, but I am willing tom be surprised.

No such event happened except in the fevered hallucinations of your diseased brain, Neil.

"We seem to be agreed that Jones did indeed try to "hide the decline" the trees were showing."

Nope, that would be wrong. Only if you believe that all your thermometers were wrong and ALL other proxies (including Bristlecone Pine trees not in the northern temperate zones) were wrong and the ONLY accurate measure of temperature were a small section of bristlecone pine data for the last 50 years (before which there was no discrepancy discernable).

Or, in other words, if you were a nut like Neil.

"Wow's claim that overall temperatures have risen overall since 1998"

Nope, the claim you made was that it's been cooling since 1998. That's a trend. Not a difference.

Then look at the GISS temperature set. Or the RSS dataset.

Then again, Neil is just a load of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

None of the three options [willful ignorance . . . malice . . . stupidity] puts [Neil] in a favourable light. --Marco

You neglected the option of irreparable lunacy.

Richard if you are3 being truthful I wopuld really like to see where you spent the 1970s denounceing the "denialists", including Hansen, who not only denied we were sufering from catastrophic warming but said we were sufering from catastrophic cooling.

Where on earth did you find this twaddle?

Even if correct, why the obsession with what people did decades ago? In your world, is no-one allowed to ever change their mind?

I noticed that you ignored my claim that "There certainly has not been the slightest scrap of evidence from the denialists to even hint that the basic concept is shaky." Presumably you are unable to refute this.

Neil Craig, by dissociating myself from the factual information Wow provided, I'd be a liar myself. I have no intention to live in an alternative reality like you.

Now also seeing your comment about Hansen it is clear you really have no idea what you are talking about.

"In your world, is no-one allowed to ever change their mind?"

Notice that denialists in the main NEVER change their minds.

To the RightWing, that's called "flip-flopping" and is a major sin.

Wow has proven himself totally dishonest many times here and his denial that Jones admitted that he was acting to "hide the decline" is of coursethe sort of lie that only an obscene fascist paraiste like him could ever make. Thais why, by definition, any alarmist not willing to disociate themselves from such lies is also whholly dishonest.

Richard - having already said you have known all about the temperature discussion since 1968 cannot credibly claim ignorance of the 1970s cooling scare (though you seem to be trying to have it both ways both denying any knowledge of that scare and saying you are allowed to change your mind from your apparent support of it at the time). Please advise which lie you are standing by. Your "no evidence" remark merely proves how totally deviod of both integrity and inteligence you are. You could have claimed that the evidence against us experiencing catasdtrophic global warming is not, in your opinion, entirely conclusive, which would have been defencible, but to say there is no evidence that we are not is ridiculous.

Skip is, as he has proven repeatedly, an obscene, lying, thieving, fascist parasite without any respect for honesty and has been denounced here as such by every honest alarmist. I am sure the thief is not insane.

I think this thread has become a fascinating case study on the denialist mindset. We have refusal to answer direct questions, misunderstanding of the issues, some delightful little Gish gallops and plenty of projection.

If anyone asks why it is often deemed futile to debate with denialists you can just give them the URL: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2011/06/open_thread_2

Of course, Neil has nothing to prove his case.

All that's required is to state it.

"and his denial that Jones admitted that he was acting to "hide the decline""

There was no decline. How do you hide a decline in temperatures when the thermometers say there has been no decline?

How do you indicate a trend with two numbers? The evaluation of a trend DEMANDS at a minimum three numbers (since the variance depends on the number of points minus 2, making the determination of a trend with two numbers infinitely variant and hence unstateable).

But maths is something to jettison if you are a denialist and maths gets in your way.

"cannot credibly claim ignorance of the 1970s cooling scare "

Since you've been told that there was no 1970's cooling scare from the science, you cannot credibly claim ignorance of the fact and your continued restatement of this huge whopper shows that you are in deep denial.

But Neil is the sort of scum that gives scum a bad name.

Neil, we have now on several occasions found you to be lying. You are provingly a liar. Now, will you dissociate yourself from yourself? Without doing so you'd be the fascist liar you so complain about, no?

Thieving?

LOL.

I would be interested in Neil's reason for saying the Hansen was predicting "catastrophic cooling" in the 70's, or any other time. I assume it is just fabrication of his own, but Neil, if you have a source for this particular claim, please provide it, I am curious.

In the meantime, this whole red herring is debunked here:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in…
among other places.

Neil: I did not say that there had not been a global cooling scare in the more hysterical parts of the mass media in the 1970s. However, it is complete twaddle that Hansen said we were suffering from catastrophic cooling.

You could have claimed that the evidence against us experiencing catasdtrophic global warming is not, in your opinion, entirely conclusive, which would have been defencible, but to say there is no evidence that we are not is ridiculous.

That is not what I said. I said that "There certainly has not been the slightest scrap of evidence from the denialists to even hint that the basic concept (i.e. of anthropogenic CO2 causing global warming) is shaky." However, if you think my statement, as modified by you, is ridiculous, feel free to supply some supporting evidence.

"Thieving?"

Yes, as usual, skip, Neil is trying to throw off his own shortcomings onto others.

He stole the work of another in another thread.

Wow is, of course, an obscene,lying, thieving eco-Nazi parasite who has been denounced by every honest alarmist on "scinenceblogs". Hardly my fault if there are no such.

Chris S - I ask you to name the "direct questions" of substance, with evidence, that I have not answered. IIf you can't I will accept it as representing the highest standard of honesty to which you aspire and that you are a disgusting corrupt piece of filth. No offence.

Richard "not the slightest scrap of evidence" is "no evidence".

Coby since you ask a question here is the replyhttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-p… Hansen was involved in the ecofascist catastrophjic cooling fraud. You could, of course, have found this easily for yourself. I now ask you to acknowledge that Wow Skip and Chris are lying ecofascist parasites who could have no place whatsoever in any remotely honest movement and whom any remotely honest member of that movement would have to dissociate themselves from.

Well it's always a laugh to see how little Neil "whiner" Craig reads.

"Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus."

Ah, so not Hansen yet.

"John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that "in the next 50 years" - or by 2021 - fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.""

Ah, not Hansen still. And yes, if you get enough dust in the air, you get cooling.

Has Whiner Mc Whiney forgotten the previous rhetoric of "There are many things we can do in engineering terms that can fix the problem"? You know, where some scientists are saying we should spray sulphur in the air to get a cooling?

Gosh, even Mwiney Mc Whiney here's pet source isn't helping him.

So, no Hansen.

What a lunatic this kid is.

Neil Craig,

You might by now have observed that we are actually capable of reading and understanding English. We do not have the ideological blinders that make somebody using someone else's computer model translate into the person who made a computer model *predicting* global cooling. Worse even, you claimed Hansen already stated we were suffering global cooling in the 1970s.

Neil, you'll have to decide whether you will continue to lie on this forum, or to think about all your lying and decide whether you might be suffering from a pathological disorder. I am no longer willing to accept the idea you might just be misinformed, considering that your own link contradicts your own claims.

"Chris S - I ask you to name the "direct questions" of substance, with evidence, that I have not answered. IIf you can't I will accept it as representing the highest standard of honesty to which you aspire and that you are a disgusting corrupt piece of filth. No offence."

From you Neil, no offence taken. How can one take offence at the obscene ravings of a delusional moronic idiot? (No offence.)

Lets start from the beginning, post 1:

Will you denounce Wegmann for plagiarism?

Will you denounce Watts for his lies over his surface station project, and his refusal to accept the findings of a study he himself supported?

Will you denounce Monckton over cherry picking, misquoting, lying and name calling?

Lets see if you answer those then we'll move on to the next set of direct questions you've avoided.

Chris / Wow / Marco

Trolls die if you don't feed them.

Only if they're trolling for reaction, mandas.

With nutcases like cracer-ass, snowman and Whiney McWhiner here, they're Deluded Christian Soldiers and won't stop until you take the strawman away from them.

"program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus."

Ah, so not Hansen yet."

Idiot.

Neil, I have a very simple question:
Why don't you admit you were wrong that Jim Hansen warned about cooling in the 1970s?

I mean, it's not like the English in the article YOU cited is difficult to understand in any way.

Yes, Whiney McWhiner, you're an idiot.

A program written by Hansen isn't Hansen talking.

Though maybe you're AU (Artificial Unintelligence), kind of like the dark side of SkyNet.

A programme written by Hansen giving what I assume even Wow would have to admit* was a false warning is giving a wrning.

*Perhaps not - perhaps he will claim that the warming scare and cooling scares can both be true. We shall see.

"A programme written by Hansen"

Is not the words of Hansen.

Just because you can use your E Type Jag that Sterling Moss used to drive around in to run over pedestrians isn't proof that Sterling Moss exhorts drivers to kill pedestrians.

"admit* was a false warning"

What was the false warning? Do you remember one change made in the 70's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act

Do you know what they were doing with that? Reducing sulphate and particulates from industrialized endeavours.

Now lets look at the warning:

"fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.""

Well guess what? We stopped throwing so much fossil-fuel dust into the atmosphere.

I guess that Whiney McWhiner here thinks that if you stop playing with knives, this proves that playing with knives is safe because when you stopped, you didn't get cut.

You're a childish moron, you whining speck of flyshit.

Wow's attempt to portray himself as a drooling imbecile are lies. He is merely atempting to make himself look better.

Neil: I notice that you've not made any attempt to provide evidence that there is anything wrong with the physics underpinning the expectation of global warming. Not that I am surprised. Denialists never do, at least not since Lindzen's stalled 'iris hypothesis' of a decade ago.

Richard with alleged catastrophic warming having been going on for over 30 years, a quarter of the way to the catastrophic case of "Antarctica being the only habitable continent" nature seems to be suggesting that there is something wrom=ng with the alleged physics. Perhaps you would care to provide your evidence that 1/4 of Antractica has now melted.

You certainly would if what you were defending was a genuine and accurate theory rather than a pack of lies proclaimed by a movement of obscene thoeving fascist parasites.

I await evidence form your self, or indeed anybody at all in the ecofascist movement who is not perfectly well aware it is a fraud, with eager anticipation.

I await evidence . . .

You have no training in science and never read scientific papers. It is quite likely you have no more than a high school education--if that.

How would you even recognize the evidence?

Neil, you are simply too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

"Antarctica being the only habitable continent" seems to be an invented 'quote'. Source, please. In the meantime, perhaps you would care to reconsider who best deserves your repetitive stream of invective.

I assume you have nothing to contradict the physics that leads us to expect global warming. No surprise there.

Check this out for hilarity!

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Scienceblogs - "eco-fascist blogs which pretend to scientific standards"

"Scienceblogs" is a linked site of several blogs operating together. A number of them are run by scientists. The interesting thing is that none of them dispute catastrophic global warming and most of them support it in terms that, at least for the followers, consist largely of ad hominem invective and a disregard of facts that is inconsistent with respect for scientific principles.

As might be expected I have been censored from several of the sites, in all cases for stating facts undisputed by the site author. I think they should be named and shamed.

DELTOID - I was barred from them when I, quoted a prominent government funded alarmist and "Jeff Harvey, a former Nature editor attacked me by saying that sir David King the government's science advisor was capable of only "kindergarten" science. Jeff hadn't properly read what I said & didn't realise who I was quoting but nonetheless his assessment of king was dead on.

RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE I had a long debate on here, which ended constructively purely because there was 1 person on it who agreed that debating science is not simply a matter of ignoring the science and engaging in personal attacks. Nonetheless "Orac", the host, repeatedly refused to discuss the scientific basis of his allegation that Ann Coulter, in disputing the Linear No Threshold theory had been "versus Physics", as if censoring reasoned investigation could ever be "against" the principles of science.

The good bits of the discussion are here & show that, at the very least the no threshold hypothesis has less evidential basis and is thus less scientific than the opposite theory, radiation hormesis.

PHARYNGULA Hosted by Prof P.Z. Myers an Associate Professor in Minnesota who has made something of a name for himself by saying that evolution happened and creationism didn't. I consider this shooting very slow moving fish in a barrel but it has gained him some fame. When he was in Glasgow my question from the floor wasn't taken. I made the comparison between creationism and warming alarmism saying "By any objective standards the warming alarmists are far more destructive, robbing human society of trillions of dollars, whereas the harm creationists do isn't within many magnitudes of that. The cultural effects of teaching children they will die if they question things may be even greater"

This could only be countered by personal vituperation, which is where I was refered to as "fuckwit".. I several times suggested to Prof Myers that anybody who respects science should abjure such vituperation but either (A) he acknowledges he has no respect for science or (B) he has no understanding of it and thinks vituperation essential to and facts anathema to science.

Either way he censored.

STOAT produced a thread devoted to the claim that Richard Lindzen had engaged in "the kind of full blown Black-helicopters-of-peer-review we expect from an incipient fellow of the Breakness Institute". As normal no form of factual support for such silliness could be produced so

I put up the 7 questions that can be answered if alarmism is true and naturally they couldn't,

so instead I was told my "claims" (actually they were questions) were "toe jam". I disagreed and since no seriously better response could be constructed I got censored.

GREG LADEN'S BLOG produced a thread astonishingly favourable to Michelle Bachmann, who is sceptical about global warming so I congratulated him for his fair mindedness and put up the questions.

Apparently questioning anything scientific on his blog results in "COMMENTS DELETED FOR VIOLATION OF BLOG COMMENTING POLICY" though the reply "

Neil- Do you accept George Monbiot as your personal anti-Christ?" remained and thus clearly represents the standard of blog commenting policy he aspires to.

EVOLUTIONBLOG I said "The problem with the anti-creationist argument is that most of those doing it are not trying to promote science but merely trying to make themselves look smarter than the rednecks. No wonder they antagonise these people.

The damage, financial, cultural & scientific done by creationism is tiny and can be easily avoided. The damage done by the catastrophic global warming scam runs into trillions and cannot be avoided by anybody. The cultural and scientific damage can be shown by the fact that most blogs on "scienceblogs" feel the need to censor any discussion to promote, what the very act of censorship proves they know to be, this pseudoscientific fraud. "

Which got me censored. A fine example of the scientific attitude that differentiates "creation scientists" & most "sciencebloggers" from real scientists.

A FEW THINGS ILL CONSIDERED Attacked "non-Lord" Lord Monckton for doubting that catastrophic global warming is visibly bearing down on us like a steam train. I asked for some evidence that such a claim of visible catastrophe there was and the reply was censorship, which, in its way, does answer the question.

======================================

Call this a survey of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming true believers. Not all the "scienceblogs" authors have engaged in censorship but most of the others do not blog to any great extent on the subject. What is quite clear is that

1 - If all the 7 questions cannot be answered in a way that supports the warming scare it is clearly false and if 3,4,6 & 7 cannot be answered it is deliberately fraudulent. Nobody can give an answer to any of the 7 which is both supportive and truthful.

2 - The basic principles of science involve discussion and verification of facts and measurements. Thtey are wholly incompatible with ad hominen cries of "fuckwit", let alone censorship to defend the official faith.

3 - If "scienceblogs" was genuinely motivated by scientific values neither authors nor commenters would feel, it necessary to so betray scientific principles. Obviously every author who engages in censorship rather than debate is not, under any circumstances, concerned about science. They are simply frauds taking the government money.

Pretty much the same applies to commenters who use obscenity and insult in place of reason. Perhaps more important, for the general health of science, at least in America where this site is based, is that there were very few people there willing to put their heads above the parapet to say that reasonable questions deserve reasonable answers and indeed that if such answers are not available there must, by definition, be something wrong with the theory.

I must admit to having reacted robustly but have never done so except in response to the most outrageously insulting behaviour which no person who was not a wholly corrupt charlatan could have engaged in and no site author, of whom the same was true, could have supported.

This links to the latest "scienceblogs" threads. I will post on those that don't censor again. There is informative stuff there as well but, having proven the impermeability of some to anything but religious faith, it is unlikely that I will engage in prolonged debate again.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/07/11/3265013.htm

h/t Hank Roberts via J Bowers via Stoat

I believe that 178 wasn't mandas· Or he's had Whiney McWhiner invade his mind.

http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2011/07/scienceblogs-eco-fascist-b…

This was where Mandas got the "excellent post" from the "lone wolf" Mr. Craig.

What I can't figure out is who declared it "excellent". Neil himself?

Yeah. Post #178 was me.

Just wanted to give everyone a glimpse into the delusions that exist in the minds of the idiot.

You have to be pretty damn thick to keep getting banned everywhere, and yet still keep blaming everyone else but yourself. He just doesn't get it. The reason he gets banned isn't because people want to 'censor' debate, it's because he is an annoying dickhead who can't see past his own twisted ideology. I was going to suggest that he is paraniod - but he isn't. Everyone really does hate him.

Richard http://geography.about.com/b/2004/05/04/antarctica-may-be-only-habitabl…
Perhaps you will also claim that Gore never said south sea islands had already been evacuated or that Hansen didn't lie and spin.

There appears to be no lie too low or obvious that it will not be told by eco-fascists or that anybody at all in the movement has any problem with.

Mandas since you have just claimed that Galileo and Dr Semelweiss were "pretty thick" perhaps you, with apparently some sort of "environmental" degree, could explain what makes you their intellectual superior. You can use short words if it helps.

Perhaps you'll explain why you keep hiding the truth by showering us with bullshit about who said what, Whiner.

With your "Hansen said there'd be an ice age in the 70's" schtick still rebounding around the site with the proofs of your lies and misrepresentations, who would believe your assertions about what anyone says?

"Pacific island nations needing to evacuate Much of Tuvalu is only a few feet above sea level, and any sea level rise is going to impact them strongly. The impacts are felt in seemingly disconnected ways â increasing brine in groundwater, increasing damage and coastal erosion from tides and storm surges, but they are no less real for that. The government of Tuvalu has asked New Zealand to be ready to evacuate islanders if needed, and while currently only 75 people per year can potentially be resettled, this could change if the situation worsened.
In the movie there is only one line that referred to this: âThatâs why the citizens of these pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealandâ, which is out of context in the passage itâs in, but could be said to only be a little ahead of itâs time. "

But I guess in the world of your insanity, you know better than the judge on a case.

"Seeing themselves as climate refuges some Tuvalans are already leaving their islands, moving their communities to higher ground in a new land. ... Fala and Suamalie, along with international environmental activists, argue that Tuvaluans and others in a similar predicament should be treated like refugees and given immigration rights and other refugee benefits. This tiny nation was among the first on the globe to sound the alarm, trekking from forum to forum to try to get the world to listen. New Zealand did agree to take 75 Tuvaluans a year as part of its Pacific Access Category, an agreement made in 2001."

Note also that Whiney's much more massive whoppers are completely irrelevant: they prove nothing to Whiner's accuracy or the validity of the denier arguments.

Quite how this alchemy occurs is a mystery to anyone not as insane as this nutjob.

Neil Craig, never rely on secondary sources. What is claimed on the link you provided, is FALSE.

The DIRECT link to what David King said is here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvaud/490…

Go ahead, try and find where he claimed that Antarctica would be the only habitable place by 2100. It requires a misrepresentation (and likely deliberate) of what he said.

Once again we find you are completely incapable of detecting bullsh!t.

Thanks Marco.

I was going to hunt that down myself after looking at Neil's dipshit link but got distracted by a couple of home improvement projects.

Thanks for the link, Marco. I tried to go back through Neil's link but hit a broken one.

Neil: even if he had said what you wrongly claimed, no-one is immune to making the occasional slip, or even to saying something that, on reflection, they would realise is dotty. However, enialists rarely make any comment that is neither wrong nor dotty.

I assume you still have found nothing to contradict the physics that leads us to expect global warming.

Well, not to worry further -

Greenhouse gas theory of global warming is refuted in momentous Mexican lab experiment. Results mean epic fail for doomsaying cult and climate taxes.

http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/38420.html

Thanks Paul. I'm convinced.

An opinion piece written by a lunatic (Nasif Nahle), published on his own website, reported on by another lunatic (John O'Sullivan) about an experiment that has little to do with climate change. And this overturns the whole science of climate change?

Do we have to keep playing wack-a-mole all the time?

Paul:

I commend your copy and paste skills.

Do you stand by everything said on the website you linked?

That's a direct question, not just rhetorical.

Wow I note your claim of Tuvalu as the only example ofan island evacuauted because of rising sea levels as claimed by the political high priest of warming alarmism - a man who, so long as the alarmists don't denounce him as a lying charlatan, must be assumed to represent the very highest standard of honesty to which they aspire.

For the reasons you state, that it is so low, Tuvalu would inded be the forst to disappear and would have if the alarmist claim of rising sea levels was not a toal and deliberate fascist lie.

Of course your claim that it HAS been evacunated is a total and deliberate fascist lie which any remotely honest alarmist will publicly dissociate themselves from.
-----------------------

Maerco - You are, of course, lying about that being the source of the David King lie. It was in an interview in the Independent, as my link CLEARLY stated.

Skip, Richard, Paul and Mandas I note that none of you have made the sli8ghtest attempt to dissociate yoursel;ves from the liars. I trust nione of you will ever suggest you possess 1,000th as much integrity & human decency as my toenail clippings.

I ask you noth to retract both lies you obsene fascit scum.

Neil Craig, perhaps a return to primary school to learn basic English would be of benefit to you. Your link does not claim it was an interview. Neither does the Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/why-antarctica-will-soon-be-th…

You are still a liar. When will you dissociate yourself from your own fascist lying self?

Neil, is it not bad enough that you can neither answer questions nor articulate your non-answers in English? Must we also track down your own abused sources for you?

Marco and I obviously are on line at the same time because I also found the original article from the Independent. I won't re-link it because Marco already has.

It was in an interview in the Independent, as my link CLEARLY stated. --Neil

Your link to geography.about.com "CLEARLY stated" *nothing* of the sort Neil. As Richard Simons pointed out, your link *does not even work* when one attempts to leave the one-paragraph blurb and hit the "said" link that supposedly would provide us the original article.

This demonstrates irretrievable stupidity, dishonesty, or both, on your part.

Repeat, Neil:

(1) Your original link does not even *work* past a one-paragraph blurb which is not even the original article in the Independent, let alone King's actual testimony.

(2) The original article in the Independent--which you lack the wit to even find--never even *claimed* to include an interview of King, directly refuting you as either a bungler or a liar.

(3) Even if King *had* said what you claimed--and he didn't--as Richard pointed out, so bloody what? Has anyone contributing to this site made the claim about Antarctica being the only habitable land by 2100? If not, then why, for the love of Christ, even bring it up?

Again, you are either irretrievably stupid or dishonest.

> I note your claim of Tuvalu as the only example ofan island evacuauted

Well done.

So you now know that Al Gore's comment was merely slightly ahead of its time when made, since the agreement had only been made at that time, not actioned to the degree agreed.

S'funny how you don't denounce Mad Lord Monckton:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/background_briefing_on_monckto…

or Wegman:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/wegman_scandal_gmu_investigate…

but instead decide to concentrate on someone who YOU PERSONALLY consider (without evidence, but a whole lot of hate) lying not being denounced as a liar by others. Do you REALLY need conformation that much?

Yes Skip,
I stand by everything on the website and am convinced of the Mexican scientist study overturning the platform global warming by CO2 is built on.

PaulinMI: Nasif Nahle merely redid the Woods experiment, which showed that a greenhouse works through a different principle than the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. As a result, Nahle has only 'shown' something that has been known for 100 years already, and does nothing to our understanding of the function of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

Yup, Massive Nail has managed to prove something nobody else thought was real. Rather like Wegman when he tried a statistical analysis that nobody used and found that it was not a very good statistical analysis method.

Nail has discovered that there is no glass roof over the earth. Well done.

If that is sarcasm Paul please identify it as such or admit what a cursory glance shows: The site is pure bullshit.

Paul

Interesting how you said you stood by everything on that website you linked us to at post #189. Letâs leave aside the experiment for a little while (I will get back to that in another post) and have a look at the titles of some of the recent threads shall we:

Grim Video Graphically Exposes Wind Farm Misery and Death

Whistleblower Outs NASA for Hiding Data of Global Cooling

Broken Wind Turbine Blades Create Mountainous Waste Problem

Fake Sea Level Rise Approved by NASA in Climate Fraud

Global Warming Fraud Creates Third World Food Crisis

Greenhouse Gas Theory Discredited by 'Coolant' Carbon Dioxide

Top Climate Scientist on Radio to Expose Global Warming Fraud

US Govt Caught Hiding Earthquake Data to Discredit Climate Skeptic Expert?

MIT Experts Says No Significant Radiation Can Leak from Japan Reactor

Eco Light Bulb Lunacy Harms Your Health and Destroys Environment

Power Supplier Admits Going Green Will Put the Lights Out in Britain

As another NASA Climate Satellite Explodes â Conspiracy or Incompetence?

British Green Movement Backed Murderous Libyan Regime

British Weather Guru Labels Met Office as Evil Dictator of Science

BBC and Met Office Caught in Ponzi Scam over Winter Forecast Fiasco

I think my favourite is how the low energy lightbulbs are going to ruin my health and destroy the environment â but the expert who testified that no significant radiation could leak from Fukushima is a pretty close second.

Now tell us all again how you stand by all the information on the website? Or would you like to put that mind of yours to work â you know, the one where you claim to be a sceptic â and be a little bit sceptical of some of these claims.

Or â and hereâs a really good piece of advice I have given to crakar over and over again â how about you actually read some of these things first before you nail your colours to the mast and say that you unequivocally support them. Because sure as shit, if you say you support something that you havenât even read, then you make yourself look like nothing more than an ideologically driven idiot who cares nothing for evidence.

The following link is not about climate science - it's about gay marriage. But it is a perfect example of how to deal with some of the idiotic denialist crap that we get around here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=318DYr_K8J4&feature=player_embedded

Ok â the experiement:

âNotes on the Theory of the Greenhouseâ, by R.W. Wood, in 1909. Here is a link to his notes (sorry, itâs not the original document â that is from Philosophical Magazine from 1909 and I have been unable to track down a copy):

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

You should read those notes very carefully, and ask yourself whether this is a well designed experiment, in what way it supposedly tests the theory of climate change, what are the results, and whether the conclusion is supported by the results.

I particularly like these four statements:

â....THERE appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length...â

â.....There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures....â

â....From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 o, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely....â

â...I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter, and publish this note merely to draw attention to the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar...â

So, firstly the experiment was about enclosed spaces covered with glass â not the Earthâs atmosphere â which I would have to say is a fairly major limitation on trying to extrapolate the results to discredit the well known physical principles of radiation absorption.

Secondly, I wonder what WAS difference in temperature between the two enclosures, and what the PREDICTED difference would be. After all, these were very small enclosures, and therefore the increase in system energy from CO2 absorption would also have been very small. But since the measuring apparatus was crude (thermometers wrapped in cotton), and the difference is not reported, we have no way of knowing do we?

The third statement makes it clear that there is a difference in the radiation transparency of rock salt and glass. What is it? Has it been taken into account in the measurement of temperature? It would appear not â because it is only discussed in passing and no figures are given.

Fourthly, even Woods himself says he hasnât gone into the matter very deeply, but also suggests that the trapped IR radiation plays a small part (ie some role).

There are so many other things wrong with trying to use this experiment in the way that has been claimed that I donât even know where to start. What was the humidity on the day? Temperature? Where the two enclosures oriented exactly the same and made in exactly the same manner? How long were they left in the sun? Why wasnât different gaseous mixtures tried? Why would anyone think that a gas âthicknessâ of a foot or so is representative of the atmosphere? Etc, etc.

If you wish to use science to discredit anthropogenic climate change then fine â but at least try to use valid science, and not grade school experiments which are completely unrepresentative of the thing you are trying to establish.

ok, ok,

I admit it, it's pure denialist crap.
Grasping at straws while Rome, er, the world burns.

Wow, Skip and mandas have come to the defense of real science and global warming by CO2 continues.

I guess I should have known when I didn't see the IPCC back-peddling that it wasn't a significant breakthrough.

darn.

Excellent.

So now we have it on record: Paul fully stands by --in his own words--"denialist crap".

Thank you, Paul.

Any other confessions you would like to make, Paul?

How about your unanswered question as to how you personally assess the arguments of our lately absent Crakar?

Again, what is your opinion of him? Do you stand by him fully? Is/was he a purveyor of "denialist crap?" Or (most likely) both?

skip

Don't be too hard on Paul - at least he had the integrity to admit that he had it wrong, which is a hell of a lot more than some others you can (and just did) name.

And good on you Paul for recognising your error. Just a small request though, if you could do the checking before linking to idiots like the deluded John O'Sullivan (who we have had discussions with on here before), it will save some work. If you could provide real scientific studies that shed some light on the debate it would be appreciated.

So it is now accepted that the "Antarctica only inhabitable continent" claim was made and every single alarmist here with a shred of honesty has aploogised . But only evry eco-Nazi with a shred of honesty, so that would be none.

I assume, since no alarmist at all has here has said it was a lie that claim must be something you still stand by.

Incidentally if somebody is being interviewded it is an interview.

I note the claim that Tuvalu remains as an eco-fascist claim even though it is a total and obvious lie.

If the definition of "mad" applies to Monckton because he said, in court, that these islands had not been evacuated merely becaause they had not been evacuated we see the definition of "sanity" among eco-Nazis and it involves precisely the same dissociation from reality that "madness" has in reality. Therefore every eco-Nazi, who refuses to denounce all the others as lying or insane fascist parasites is, if the English language means anything, totally dishonest or totally insane, or both (I think both the most reasonable assumption)..

So no relying on any figures produced by Hansen, Gore or anybody else in the movement then.

Once again I call on Wow to apologise for calling Monckton "mad", or produce evidence of his psychological qualifications, or for every single alarmist with the tiniest trace of personal honesty & not proud to be a thieving lying child murdering Nazi parasite to dissociate themselves from that obscene filth.

Of course ethe evidence unambiguously shows neither Wow not any other alarmist possess that remotest shred of honesty.

LOL.

So it is now accepted that the "Antarctica only inhabitable continent" claim was made . . .

Ok this will be immortalized for all time.

Neil, you are either schizophrenic or sociopathic. Or maybe just stupid.

And yes those are harsh words but no "apoology" is forthcoming.

Neil, if you actually believe what you just wrote, you are either insane or retarded.

Skip, he does not appear to be schizophrenic. So far I have not yet seen his alternate personality. Sociopathic sounds more likely.

Don't confuse schizophrenia with split-personality disorder, Marco.

Its possible our dear Neil simply exists in an alternate reality.

From the pen of our friend, Biel: (http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/)

Alleged Catastrophic Global Warming - A few years ago the BBC devoted an entire day to Al Gore's Pop Music against Global Warming concert. If that had been the only programme ever done supporting this theory then the BBC, if it were attempting to be impartial would have had to devote 10 hours to the opposite theory. If it devoted 1 hour it could claim to be 10% honest. If the BBC had ever allowed the broadcast of a 1 hour formal debate on the subject (with debaters from both sides) it would be able to claim to be 5% unbiased if only the programmes mentioned had taken place. Obviously the BBC have never done anything remotely as impartial as that & there is no possibility of anybody remotely honest ever suggesting that the BBC's integrity is anything better than asymptotically approaching zero. Their repeated contention that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming, which they still have not retracted, while censoring any mention of the fact that the largest single expression of scientific opinion, the Oregon Petition says it is false, is deplorable.

Nuclear Power and Radiation - The BBC devote a considerable amount of time to nuclear scare stories, Chernobyl etc. While pushing the LNT theory that there is no safe lower limit to radiation they never report that the LNT theory was a bureaucratic not scientific decision for which not only has there never been any evidence whatsoever but that there is a large mass of evidence for the opposite Hormesis theory.

Windmillery - Not only do they omit any mention of relative proven costs in their consistently wildly enthusiastic reporting of windmills but I have never once heard them mention that windmills are far further from being CO2 neutral than nuclear plants.

That is all so hilarious Biel â you have written some of the funniest satire I have read for ages! Your grasp of Poe is out of this world! The way you highlight their idiotic views, and parody them by using appalling grammar and spelling to show that none of them have even the equivalent of a primary school (grade school) education, let alone know anything about science - I love it!

By cleverly putting forward pseudo-science crap like hormesis and the Oregon Petition as if they were real science, by questioning the integrity of the BBC with hilariously bad mathematics and statistical analysis, and by deliberately using probably the worst grammar and sentence construction I have read since crakar disappeared back under his rock - well, that's just pure genius!

Well done there Beil, you are really giving to the deniers with your fantastic parodies. You are making them all look so stupid!

So no apology, no retractions & no evidence from the groundlings here.

More importantly not a single "environmentalist" willing to say that these liars represent anything but the normal standard of dishonesty opf their movement.

Neil still can't admit that he lied, or that he is incapable of understanding basic English.

How surprising.

So no apology, no retractions & no evidence from the groundlings here.

That reminds me - have you got around to finding any evidence that the physics behind the prediction of global warming is wrong?

Still no sign of a remotely honest ecofascist.

Richard (A) if you knew anything about science you would know that the way to disprove a theory is to find evidence (B) that the onus is on somebody producing the theory to prove it not vice bversa (C) you haven't said which particular parts of the "physics behind the prediction" you mean.

Neil: A) I have peer-reviewed research publications.
B) A theory is never proven, it is just never shown to be false. The physics behind the concept of global warming are very robust.
C) Don't you know? What are you doing commenting here if you are unaware of the basics? I am referring in particular to the emission and absorption spectra of bodies and particular molecules. There is also atmospheric chemistry that could be questioned by denialists, if they ever had any evidence.

OK, cherub, now get cracking finding the flaws.

B - well there's an admission. You mean "the debate is over" , so often claimed by alarmists, is a lie?

A still applies whatever your "peers" believe.

C so you claim no evidence that feedbacks are massively positive, on which any claim to catastrophic levels of warming obviously depends. There goes your alleged scientific certainty (or even probability) (also see B)

Neil, let's discuss gravity. "Only" a theory, and we know it is problematic on a subatomic scale. Let's have a debate on that. You'll be the one that proclaims we cannot use airplanes, because gravity is only a theory, and there is still discussion on aspects of the theory. Yes?

B - well there's an admission. You mean "the debate is over" , so often claimed by alarmists, is a lie?

How did you get that from what I wrote? If you knew the first thing about science, you would know just what is meant by a theory.

so you claim no evidence that feedbacks are massively positive,

How did you get that from what I wrote?

oops, just saw this thread. Should have posted my response in the Ever Wonder thread here. Sorry. Shouldn't have engaged a troll in that thread.

> that the onus is on somebody producing the theory to prove it not vice bversa

And that evidence is there:

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Correlation.html

If you want to claim that correlation DISPROVES AGW or is in some way incorrect, then YOU have to prove YOUR claim.

However, it's much easier to deny rather than prove your statements, isn't it.

This is why you're called a denier.

Ok Marco you takev Newton and I'll take Einstein.

Richard if you knew the first thing about science you would know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Since there is nothing alarmists will accept as able to falsify it catastrrophic warming may, arguably, qualify as a hypothesis rather than a total fraud - but not one any real scientists accept as a theory.

Wow your alleged "proof" seems somehow to have missed the medieval warming, the little ice age and pretty much everything.

Richard if you knew the first thing about science you would know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

Beil:

I'll ask these questions for the fourth time:

Have you ever published a research article?
Have you ever even *read* a research article?

You have been asked these questions four times and you cower from them every time--you who demand answers to *your* questions.

Neil, you don't answer because the honest answer to both is "no". You are making sweeping pronouncements about something of which you know nothing.

"Richard if you knew the first thing about science you would know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis"

He does.

You don't.

"Since there is nothing alarmists will accept as able to falsify it catastrrophic warming"

What's with the obsession you have with catastrophes?

Falsifying the climatologically accepted warming trend caused by anthropogenic sources of CO2 increasing would be falsified by the temperture trend going down beyond any currently accepted process explaining it.

E.g. if it gets 0.2C cooler but we have a huge number of volcanoes that cause according to the science in the models 0.2-0.3C of cooling, then this cooling doesn't falsify AGW.

If it cools 0.2C such that it excludes the projected temperature trend to 95% confidence with all measured influences accounted for, then AGW and the models are falsified.

Just because the temperature trend hasn't falsified the models doesn't mean nothing COULD falsify them.

And a warming trend of 0.12C per decade over 15 years is neither a cooling trend nor below IPCC projections (since the error bars at the 95% confidence limit are +/- 0.13C).

But you know as little of statistics as you do of maths in general.

"your alleged "proof" seems somehow to have missed the medieval warming"

Because it isn't proof of the medieval warming nor of the little ice age. It's proof of the recent warming correlating extremely closely to the CO2 levels we're increasing in the atmosphere.

You know, proving that AGW is real.

Other things cause temperature changes, but they change them in a way correlated to those causes.

In the LIA, it was volcanic ash.

Today, it's Antropogenic CO2.

Neil: you are unable to provide any evidence that the physics behind the idea of global warming is wrong for the reason that there is none, despite the fact that people on denialist sites tell you otherwise. They have been lying to you and taking you for a sucker.

What else do you think they have been lying to you about?

coby

Can we start a thread entitled:

"Insanity from the Mind of Biel Roaig (or is it Biel Cvaig now?)"

I have already provided a few inputs, but I would like to add this one, that he wrote on his blog only two days ago:

The Birth Certificate Obama Produced was an "Irrefutable" Forgeryâ
â.....If the real thing exists (birth certificate) it would not have been necessary to forge it. Therefore it doesn't. Obama has officially denied the story and been caught lying doing so. I happen to think this is important. That the rule of law is vital to any country and that it has been broken by Obama, almost certainly with the connivance of people who ignored the question when he first stood and certainly involving a criminal conspiracy of the forgers now. If the Constitution, the basis of America, isn't maintained then there is no Constitution....â

Yes, that's right! Biel is a birther!!!!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Yap.

http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2011/07/birth-certificate-obama-pr…

One of these days, mandas, I will tire of being your lapdog.

skip

What else will you do with you time if you give it up? And yes, that's where I got it.

My head is about to explode from the sheer lunacy of some of his threads! It seems he is an unending bucket of stupidity.

"What's with the obsession you have with catastrophes?"

My Obsession??? ;-)

Am I the one saying we have to spend trillions to ameliorate this alleged catastrophe.

If the "catastrophic" claim is a lie then doing anything more than getting a few real scientists (ie the sort that depend on facts rather than lies, ad homs and obscenities like pre-teen Skip) to do some real research. In which case all the lying thieving fascist parasites would have to work for a living.

Mandas if you were being honest you would have acknowledged that I was not a "birther" until it was proven the documentation Obama produced had a variable, ie computer produced, typeface. Even so I kept inverted commas round "irrefutable" but if somebody wants to refute it....

""What's with the obsession you have with catastrophes?"

My Obsession???"

Yes, YOUR obsession.

You're always (and I mean ALWAYS) banging on about catastrophes and catastrophic warming. YOU are obsessed with it. Read a dictionary, it will tell you what obsessed means.

"Am I the one saying we have to spend trillions to ameliorate this alleged catastrophe."

Yes.

"If the "catastrophic" claim is a lie then doing anything more than..."

Wrong.

Standing in front of a runaway train isn't catastrophic.

Still standing there when it passes through you is.

"I was not a "birther" until it was proven the documentation Obama produced had a variable"

Which doesn't prove it's a false birth certificate. Which is why you're a lunatic.

That you jumped straight to the conclusion you did with glee and abandon shows you were a birther well before then.

Neil, I will ask these question for the *fifth* time now:

Have you ever written and published a research article?
Have you ever *read* a research article?

Remember, Neil: You with great bravado demanded answers to your 7 stupid-ass questions and have received them repeatedly.

It is telling that you will not answer these two very simple yes-or-no questions.

Wow says of me

"Am I the one saying we have to spend trillions to ameliorate this alleged catastrophe."

Yes."

I accept that as representing the very highest standard of honesty to which Wow ever aspires. Indeed, assuming the alarmist community is remains unwilling to dissociate themselves from you it must be assumed as the highest standard of all alarmists.

On the other hand it not merely a total and deliberate lie, as anybody here can se. It is as total and deliberately dishonest as it is posibloe to be. His claim that In have called for spending trillions on satisfying these fraudsters is the exact and literal opposite of the truth.

Wow has less personal integrity or human decency than a rabid dog. Infinitely less sense of personal honesty than a cockroach. He is an adornment to the entire eco-Nazi community who embrace this arse to their bosom.

Skip I await an apology from you you obscene lying fascist animal plus evidence that your claim to "peer reviesed" eco-Nazi lies being published "in the finest journals" os, in some unprecedented way, truthful you disgusting, lying obscene piece of filth.

No offence to either.

Wow says of me

"Am I the one saying we have to spend trillions to ameliorate this alleged catastrophe."

Yes."

I accept that as representing the very highest standard of honesty to which Wow ever aspires. Indeed, assuming the alarmist community is remains unwilling to dissociate themselves from you it must be assumed as the highest standard of all alarmists.

On the other hand it not merely a total and deliberate lie, as anybody here can se. It is as total and deliberately dishonest as it is posibloe to be. His claim that In have called for spending trillions on satisfying these fraudsters is the exact and literal opposite of the truth.

Wow has less personal integrity or human decency than a rabid dog. Infinitely less sense of personal honesty than a cockroach. He is an adornment to the entire eco-Nazi community who embrace this arse to their bosom.

Skip I await an apology from you you obscene lying fascist animal plus evidence that your claim to "peer reviesed" eco-Nazi lies being published "in the finest journals" os, in some unprecedented way, truthful you disgusting, lying obscene piece of filth.

No offence to either.

Whiny old neil asks: Am I the one saying we have to spend trillions to ameliorate this alleged catastrophe.

Yes.

You are Neil. YOU are the only one saying that.

Other, sane people, say we have to spend a small fraction of GDP to avoid worsening the changes in climate to a state that would be catastrophic to our civilisation.

This is because YOU are a cretin, and project your credulous lunacy into everyone else just to make you feel better about being a scumbucket.

Neil: instead of spouting invective, use your noggin. It is not just a place to put your hat.

There is a reason why your heroes never produce evidence to contradict the physics and chemistry of global warming. There is none.

They cannot even get together a consistent version of what they think is happening.

Sonny, they are lying to you.

Neil, you can doubt my academic record if you wish. Please use all the rope you wish to hang yourself on that matter. I have absolutely no intention of sharing it with you and my real identity in the process. I'll just laugh.

You're using this as a distraction to avoid answering the direct questions I have posed to, now for the 6th time:

Have you ever published a research article?
Have you ever even read one?

My answer to both questions is, "Yes. Multiple on both counts."

I know it is the truth, whatever you think, so now *you* answer the questions, and I'll decide for myself whether *you* are being truthful.

Just answer the questions. Your refusal continually reveals your corruption.

Another post for the - as yet uncreated - thread entitled "More Insanity from Biel Roaig". Latest post from his blog:

"....Even if he was right his tactics, killing much of the next generation of Norway's elite (young adults not the "children" the media say) may do more harm than good as the Kirov assassination in Stalin's Russia did. Whatever one thinks of Breivik he is, by his own lights, undoubtedly a patriot willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for his country........ European civilisation would be much the weaker if there were no lone patriots willing to follow their own consciences. Better a country that has such people than one where the "great and good" are corrupt genocidal mass murderers and the press lie and censor to protect them...."

Yes, you got it folks. Biel thinks the Norwegain mass murderer - Anders Breivik - was right, is a patriot, that we need more people like him, and that his only failing was that his tactic of murdering children was flawed and may actually harm the cause. I wonder what cause that is?
Apparently its people like you and me who are the thieving, lying child murderers. But peope like Anders Breivik - people who actually put a gun to the head of children and pull the trigger - well, such people are heroes in the twisted, delusional mind of Biel Roaig. And yes - 14 and 15 year olds ARE still considered children in most parts of the world.

But - and here is an interesting twist - Beil thinks that European civilisation needs lone patriots who are willing to follow their conscience. I must admit, I agree with Beil on that one. That's why I think that people like Tim DeChristopher are so important and others should be encouraged to follow his example. And since Beil thinks that we need more people who are willing to follow their conscience no matter what the cost - then I am sure he agrees with me that DeChristopher is a hero; a patriot who is willing to follow his conscience - isn't that right?

"Neil, you can doubt my academic record if you wish"
How kind. Your claim to have learned your taste for obscenity by "peer reviewed articles" in "the finet journals" does not, even for climate "scintists" ring entirely true.

"I have absolutely no intention of sharing it with you and my real identity in the process"
Then stop pretending it is something to be proud of. If you behave like a pre-teen who has discovered naughty words you must expect to be treated as such.

And your misanthopy and hate for anyone not as greedy for themselves as you are is why we treat you with the contempt you demonstrably deserve, whiner.

You've admitted you've never read a paper, never produced a paper and have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF of your statements about skip and therefore have admitted lying.

Your claim to have learned your taste for obscenity by "peer reviewed articles" in "the finet journals" does not, even for climate "scintists" ring entirely true--Beil

I never made such an inane claim, but if I had, I would have at least spelled it correctly.

Your continued silence destroys you. You are ignorant of the scientific process you are so eager to flout.

Skip says, post 240 here, of my post saying he had claimed to have been published in "the finest journals" - "I never made such an inane claim"

Incane or not Ship said, post 5 here "Like Mandas, Richard S., Chris, and others I too have a track record of peer reviewed publication in the finest journals".

So not only is Skip anm obscene, wholly corrupt, inane, lying, thieving, Nazi animal willing to tell absolutely any lie in the eco-Nazi cause he is lying about being a liar lying about having lied and so on.

Clearly any member5 of the eco-Nazi movement who possesses the remotest trace of personal honesty or integrity will wish to enthusiastically distance themselves from this obscene protoplasm. As we have seen so far there seems to be nobody in the eco-Nazis from Hansen and Gore down, who is even capable of the remotest trace of personal honesty. I am willing to, but do not expect to see, that change.

On one point I may have done Skip a disservice. I have previously said that because he is apparenly an adolescent obscene lying idiot I thought it unlikely his "published in the finest journals" claim could be true.

Looking at what lies, inventions and pure inanity pass "peer review" produced by a doddering imbecile {I refer to Charles'Muttonhead's "polar bear extinction" nonsense} http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/29/inspector-generals-transcript-of-… } I must now accept that "peers" in the climate "science" community and the "finest journals" are one and all liars, thieves and doddering imbeciles and he fits right in.

Neil:

Your claim to have learned your taste for obscenity by "peer reviewed articles" in "the finet journals" does not, even for climate "scintists" ring entirely true.

Now you're switching it to:

Skip says, post 240 here, of my post saying he had claimed to have been published in "the finest journals" - "I never made such an inane claim"

I *have* been published in the finest journals in my field. I stand by the assertion. However, it is *not* how I learned my "taste for obscenity." I got that dealing with dumbshits such as yourself.

Big difference.

Neil, it is quite obvious that you are the obscene lying piece of filth.

God, to be you must be awful: Friendless, illiterate, stupid, crazy, and most likely one of the physically ugliest examples of the otherwise charming Scottish people to be found.

Coby:

I have begged this of you before re: Snowman ("The Snow Report"), and Crakar ("The Crakar Box"). Can't you just cancel this idiot and devote a brief thread to the explanation. You could call it "Croegzlisst", where volunteer contributors could amass an accounting of this fool's history on the forum.

Unbelievable.

So after 242 posts, in none of which has any aralmist been able to supportively answer any of the 7 simple questions, all of which must be able to be answered in a manner supportive to the catastrophic warming scam,we see the alarmists reduced to "begging" for censorship.

Note that the site owner has already moved these questions from the original site precisely so that this discussion would not overwhelm the original thread.

Skip why don't you just stick to Deltoid or Pharangula or the other "scienceblogs" that believe censorship is compatible with science? You will clearly feel happier in blinkers.

Yawn.

And back we are to this moron's 7 questions.

Obviously, Neil, this is how you've managed your entire joke of a life: When confronted with complete refutation, you just remain the Bigger Asshole until rational people give up on you. You then claim victory. This is why you are alone (not counting sheep, granted) and miserable.

Sorry about the long post â but I think this is an important issue:

There has been speculation and comment in the uniformed media over the past few days about a supposed 'investigation' into a scientist named Charles Monnett, who produced a paper in 2006 regarding observations of mortality in polar bears that had presumably drowned. The paper is here:

http://www.umac.org/about/pubs/Observations_of_Mortality_Polar_Biology…

Of course, no-one in the ill informed media or in the idiotic deniersphere - which as you may well imagine has jumped all over this - has even read the paper. And of course, the completely illiterate Biel Roaig is all over it, with this screaming thread headline from his delusional blog:

POLAR BEAR FRAUD PROVEN FRAUD - IS THIS THE END OF THE Warming Scam? It certainly discredits the symbol of the warming alarmist movement

This is Biel's "proof", as he sees it:

"...It turns out that the entire case was that he saw 4 polar bears and a week later saw 4 drowned ones, 3 of them tagged. He therefore ASSUMED they were 3 of the original 4, though there was no evidence for it. He then ASSUMED there had been 36 bears in the area, though there was no evidence for it. He then ASSUMED 27 of them must have died. He then ASSUMED the storm that killed them was caused by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, though there was no evidence for it. He then ASSUMED the same applied to all polar bear populations, though there was no evidence for it. Thereby "proving" that polar bears face extinction because of global warming...."

So.... here is the chance for everyone to see if Biel is right. Go and have a look at the paper (yes read it - unlike Biel - and check his claims.

Claim 1: â....the entire case was that he saw 4 polar bears and a week later saw 4 drowned ones...â

WRONG! (from the paper......... âIn 2004, a total of 55 polar bears were observed during September. Fifty-one were alive and of those 10 (19.9%) were in open water (Fig. 1). In addition, four polar bear carcasses were seen floating in open water (Table 2), the first such observations over the span of the survey.....â)

Claim 2: â...3 of them tagged...â

WRONG! (from the paper....... âThe BWASP survey was conducted from 1987 to 2004 from a de Havilland Twin Otter Series 300 aircraft... Surveys were generally flown at a target altitude of 457 m and a groundspeed of roughly 200â250 km/h....â Not only would this make observations of âtagsâ impossible, tags are not even discussed in the paper in any form.)

Claim 3: â...He therefore ASSUMED they were 3 of the original 4, though there was no evidence for it....â

WRONG! (from the paper...... Actually there is nothing at all in the paper about this. Itâs just Biel making shit up.)

Claim 4: â...He then ASSUMED there had been 36 bears in the area, though there was no evidence for it. He then ASSUMED 27 of them must have died....â.

WRONG! (from the paper..... âOnly a small total number of bears was seen on >14,000 km of transect surveyed in 2004, thus limiting our ability to provide accurate estimates of polar bear mortality and associated confidence intervals (see McDonald et al. 1999; Evans et al. 2003). If, however, data are simply spatially extrapolated, bear deaths during a period of high winds in 2004 may have been significant. Our observations obtained from 34 northâsouth transects provide coverage of approximately 11% of the 630 km wide study area assuming a maximum sighting distance for swimming/floating polar bears of 1 km from the aircraft (coverage=630 km/ (34 transects 2 km wide transect)=10.8% of study area). Limiting data to bears on transect and not considering bears seen on connect and search segments, four swimming polar bears were encountered in addition to three dead bears. If these bears accurately reflect 11% of bears present under these conditions, then 36 bears may have been swimming in open water on 6 and 7 September, and 27 bears may have died as a result of the high offshore winds. These extrapolations suggest that survival
rate of bears swimming in open water during this period was low (9/36=25%).â The author makes no assumptions at all â they simply make an extrapolation from limited data, while correctly pointing out that the data IS limited and should not be relied on. All scientists would have recognised this.)

Claim 5: â...He then ASSUMED the storm that killed them was caused by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, though there was no evidence for it....â

WRONG! (from the paper..... âHigh mortality in 2004 was more likely related to extreme and metabolically demanding conditions, such as high sea states associated with stormy weather.â The author SUGGESTS that the bears may have been killed in a storm, but DOES NOT say the storm was caused by climate change.)

Claim 6: â....He then ASSUMED the same applied to all polar bear populations, though there was no evidence for it.....â

WRONG! (from the paper.... âSuch risk might increase if land-based bears are forced to swim in search of ice if the open water period continues to increase in fall. Presumably, changes in sea ice would not affect all sex/age classes of polar bears randomly or uniformly. Lone females and females with cubs may be more prone to deaths during long-distance travel in open water (Derocher et al. 2004, p 166). If this scenario is realistic, there are rather serious population-level implications since
additional losses to females above those expected under current ââtakeââ agreements (Brower et al. 2002, p 365) could ultimately lead to long-term population declines (Taylor et al. 1987â. The authors DO EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what Biel claims â they say that not all polar bears would be affected equally!)

We can see that the deniersphere and idiot media are up to their usual standards. They donât read or understand what they are criticising, they get it completely wrong, and they promote ideology as if it was fact. And that is exactly why they are deniers and not skeptics. They are never âskepticalâ at all â just ideological liars who ignore evidence.

So why is this happening? I think we can also see that in the final paragraph of the paper in this quote:

â....Polar bears swimming offshore in the Beaufort Sea risk contact with oil, if spilled and strikes by ships (see Stirling 1988, 1990). Our observations of higher numbers of swimming polar bears in open water than previously supposed should be considered by analysts and managers relative to marine transportation, ice-breaking, oil and gas development and other potential activities in open water....â

There has been a concerted effort recently in the USA to downgrade the protected status of polar bears so that any impact on their populations can be ignored in the ever increasing search and exploitation of resources, particularly oil. This is just another element of in that campaign. If the oil companies can discredit research into polar bear numbers, the way ahead will be clear to drill wherever they want. And who cares about the effects huh? As long as we can still drive Hummers.

"The authors DO EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what Biel claims"

This, however, is not news.

"So after 242 posts, in none of which has any aralmist been able to supportively answer any of the 7 simple questions"

It was answered in post #3.

Way to go on reading comprehension, there, whiner.

Tell me, do you ever get tired of lying?

Answer yes or no.

So after 245 posts no answer then.

Still waiting.

Wowm as normal, lies. Post #3 here, as anybody here can see, pretends only to be answering the first question not all 7. In fact, as Wow knows I have previously explained the "answer" doesn't actually answer.

Mandas report deliberately omits the link to the interview with Muttonhead in which he adnits everything I said. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/29/inspector-generals-transcript-of-…

Still waiting after 243 posts for you to read the answers given to you.

Post #3 answers your questions. Post #4 answers your questions. Post #7 answers your questions. Post #10 answers your questions.

And Whiner and Watts both ignore that the journal put the paper up for peer review. After all, that doesn't conform to their desired scenario, therefore can be summarily ignored.

The issue that I wrote about in post #245 has taken an important turn, with a complaint being made about the conduct of both the DOI and the IG. A copy of the complaint is here:

http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/7_28_11_Scientific_Misconduct_Complaint.pdf

If you have read the paper - which no denialist has yet done - then you would understand that Monnett had made a ballpark estimate of the possible number of polar bears affected by storm events, based on a limited number of sitings in part of the search areas. The methodology and numbers are explained very well in the paper, and anyone with a basic level of scientific knowledge - especially in my field of wildlife research - would have been able to easily understand the findings and their limitations.

But its apparent that the 'agents' conducting the investigation do not have a clue about basic mathematics, let alone basic scientific research concepts like transects. Not only that, but they don't even seem to have much of a clue about what they are supposed to be investigating. At one point they mention that the investigation is about incorrect use of data and incorrect calculations, as per this quote from the interview transcript (Jeff Ruch is the PEER Executive Director, Eric May is the IG Agent):

JEFF RUCH: Um, but, uh, Agent May indicated to, um, us all that he was going to lay out what the allegations are, and we havenât heard them yet, or perhaps we donât understand them from this line of questioning.
ERIC MAY: Well, the scientif- â well, scientific misconduct, basically, uh, wrong numbers, uh, miscalculations, uh â
JEFF RUCH: Wrong numbers and calculations?
ERIC MAY: Well, what weâve been discussing for the last hour.
JEFF RUCH: So this is it?

What is laughable is how woefully incapable the IG Agents are at understanding what it is they are supposed to be investigating. You would think that if you wanted to investigate wrong numbers and calculations, then you would get someone who actually understood numbers and calculations. Obviously not. Have a read of the interview transcript starting on page 5 of the link (ignore the cherry picked version on wattsupmybutt) . Try not to shake your head in disbelief.

If you want more, the full interview transcript is here:

http://www.peer.org/docs/doi/7_28_11_Monnett-IG_interview_transcript.pdf

There is some telling commentary near the end. It confirms what I said above about the political interference in scientific research and the attempts to silence anything that may be critical of oil and gas exploration in the Alaskan Arctic. Standby for more fallout on this issue.

250 posts and still nobody capable of answering simple questions that would be easily answerable if alarmism wasn't fraudulent.

Wow is, as normal, lying. If responsive answers had been made anywhere, not just on this site, he would obviously be able to find and repost them.

250+ posts and still Neil is incapable of answering simple questions that would be easily answerable if he wasn't fraudulent.

Have you ever published a research article?
Have you ever even read one?

250 posts later, and Whiner is still pretending his leading questions haven't been answered.

I guess he means "hasn't been answered in a way that confirms my beliefs".

Rather fundamentalist of him.

"If responsive answers had been made anywhere"

For this, replace with "If answers I could twist to support my insanity had been made anywhere".

See, for example, post 10 on this thread.

Substantive answers, but not ones he could use to "prove" his insane conspiracy theory.

The latest insanity from the mind of Biel Roaig:

â....the Libyan war is being sold on the grounds of various alleged atrocities by Gaddafi, all without alleged evidence being seen by anybody independent while the fact that NATO's policeman running Kosovo is unquestionably guilty of far worse crimes, including genocide and the dissection of living people all carried out under the NATO authority of politicians now justifying this new aggression on these grounds...â

Yes, thatâs right Biel. Gaddafi is really a nice guy, and there is no evidence that he has ever committed any atrocities. I seem to remember that he caused a plane to land unexpectedly not far from where you live, but I guess that doesnât count. And while you demand independent evidence for Gaddafiâs atrocities, donât you think you should be a little bit consistent and provide some independent evidence for your own claims about NATO? Dissection of living people huh?

â....the ""News International hacking scandal" so heavily reported by the BBC is being reported because the BBC were scared of facing real competition in British broadcasting not because of any alleged inherent importance of the story....â

Yes, thatâs right Biel. There is nothing interesting or important at all about the News story â itâs all just a beat up by the BBC because they are scared of competition.

But wait ..... it getâs better!

â...I remember at the height of the "scandal" a Beeboid talking head being asked why Murdoch was still refusing to do the obvious and throw the woman editor involved overboard. His reply was some obvious euphemism about Murdoch being very family orientated, which was clearly nonsense but I took to mean he or his son were shagging her. Then when I saw her name written out it was obvious that it is because Rebekah Wade is Jewish, like Murdoch on his mother's side. Something you will not learn if you see wikipedia or other "respectable" news about her....â

Yes â 80 year old Rupert Murdoch, the man with the 33 year old wife â might be having sex with the editor of one of his newspapers. Or is it James doing the deed, and Rupert would never sack his sonâs mistress would he? Oh wait â it must be because Rebekah â the girl from Lancashire with the flaming red hair â is Jewish (oh really??). And of course, Murdoch would never sack someone who is Jewish, because after all, Rupertâs mother, Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, is the daughter of a Scottish railway engineer named Rupert Greene and Marie Grace De Lancey â a protestant. But HER mother was born to a Jewish family, so itâs obvious when you think about it. A ruthless businessman like Rupert Murdoch would never sack anyone who was the same religion as his motherâs motherâs parents, just because they broke the law and brought his company into disrepute.

I have a question to add to skipâs couple. Could you possibly be any more deranged?

255 and still counting.

That Mandas knows he is dishnonestly editing what i said is shown by his failure to provide a link.

If he has evidence that the PanAm bomb was Libyan rather than Syrian I am sure the US government woyuld reward him well for producing it. Equally if he has evidence that Gaddafi is 1,000th as murderous as the obscene, genocidal Nazi currently serving as US VP I would be interested in seeing it.

Apparently Mandas is of the curious belief that it is impossible to be Jewish and red haired.

"Rupert Murdoch would never sack anyone ... just because they broke the law and brought his company into disrepute" - I rather think he would and that Murdoch is not normally quite the fluffy bunny Mandas' theory depends on.

255 and still Whiner hasn't read any answers.

Not that there have been NO answers, he just hasn't read them.

That Mandas knows he is dishnonestly editing what i said is shown by his failure to provide a link.

And your stupidity in thinking you could make this claim and not be found out is manifest now that I am providing it:

http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2011/08/reprise-of-bbc-manipulatio…

If anyone wants to check, all of Mandas's block quotes are there on Beil's Blog--for now. Assuming he has the technical wit for it, he might try to take the post down just to spite Mandas and me, but I've got that covered.

Coby, this guys is *nuts*. I'm just saying . . .

It's beautiful isn't it? I cut and paste whole blocks of text from Biel's very own blog, and he accuses me of selectively editing because I didn't provide a link. He is so deranged he doesn't even know what he writes himself.

I think everyone here can now see - without any shadow of a doubt - that Biel is a liar. He is now trying to deny something that he wrote - and which I have quoted for everyone to see. Skip has provided the link above - but of course the link to Biel's blog has been provided on a number of occasions in the past. Indeed, Biel even provides it himself at post # 256.

If you want to check, go there and have a look. While you are there, check out this latest piece of insanity - the title of his latest rant:

".....25,000 Pensioners Deliberately Killed Annually - MPs Decide "to engage with the public to expalin..."

Not only is he completetely and totally deranged, he can't even spell the fucking heading correctly! OMFG Biel is a moron.

259 - still no attempt to answer.

I note the groundlings are still lying about having edited out much of what I actually said. They clearly represent the very highest standard of honesty to which amybody in the eco-Nazi alarmist movement ever aspires.

Mandas is not able to factually dispute that the eco-Nazis are indeed engaged in the mass murder of old people. Is Manda, Skip or Wow in any way whatsoever, morally better than or even equal to the people who ran Auschwitz. Clearly not.

Yup, still no answers except the ones that Whiner can't abuse.

Tell us, whiner, what's the result if the warming trend since 1995 is not statistically significant?

At this point this is nothing more than comedy--of the darkest variety.

Its amazing how these guys get to this point: They somehow learn that all they have to do is keeping insisting a series of stupid assertions in the face of all reality and somehow this is winning.

There is a price for this, though. Neil, being a fool and a toad, has no friends and no life. He's a joke among his neighbors. He apparently can live with this, somehow convincing himself that its joyful. I certainly couldn't.

262 and no answers. It is not just that Wow, Skip and co have repeatedly proven thenselves to be wholly corrupt, thieving Nazi parasites but that there is NOBODY with access to scienceblofs who does not clearly know that the simpest questioning of alarmism cannot be answered without showing that the entire edifice is a fraud and every single person involved in it a lying parasite.

262 posts and still whiner mc whiney still hasn't read the several posts right at the beginning that answer his questions.

And as for "alarmism", you demonstrate it impeccably with: "repeatedly proven thenselves to be wholly corrupt, thieving Nazi parasites".

That's alarmism for you.

Full of bile and hate and absolutely no rationality.

264 and no answers. It is not just that Wow, Skip and co have repeatedly proven thenselves to be wholly corrupt, thieving Nazi parasites but that there is NOBODY with access to scienceblofs who does not clearly know that the simpest questioning of alarmism cannot be answered without showing that the entire edifice is a fraud and every single person involved in it a lying parasite.

265 and Whiner is still blind to the answers given in many posts to his whining.

E.g. post 7:

Ok then, the challenge is out, I will answer all of the 7 questions:

1 - No
2 - No
3 - No
4 - Yes
5 - No
6 - No
7 - Yes

Anything else?

Posted by: mandas | June 26, 2011 4:11 PM

I have just been alerted to the presence of Neil Craig of Glasgow in this thread by Marco over at http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/bag-of-hammers-ii/

I've had only a very brief look at this thread, enough to confirm that Neil Craig is continuing his paranoid and pathological rantings, with liberal use of accusations of Nazi, liar, parasite etc.

I must say I'm surprised to see him tolerated here. For those who don't know who he is, see: http://9percentgrowth.blogspot.com/

He used to pollute The Scotsman newspaper blogs, exhibiting no understanding whatsoever of climate science but likewise being liberal in use of the above terms of abuse. He is just an insufferable nuisance if one is wishing to engage in sensible discussion of climate change related issues.

Slioch

Thanks for those links, but we are very familiar with the delusional rantings of the illiterate fool from Scotland. I have posted some from his blog above - even though he has tried to deny his own words by complaining that I didn't provide a link.

It is a clear sign of a delusional mind when you think even your own ideas are fucked up. Mind you, your link does explain a lot. He's a wannabe politician huh?

What's the matter Biel? No-one vote for you? Never mind, you should join with your hero Sarah Palin and form a failed politicians party.

From Slioch's link: "...Neil Craig. He is like a lone wolf howling in despair in the intellectual wilderness..."

How true.

To Neil Craig's credit, he did actually stand in the 2007 Scottish parliamentary election as a candidate for his Nine Percent Growth Party (NPG) in the Glasgow Regional seat.
As you can see from this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2007/scottish_parliment/html/region_…
He received 80 votes out of 206,607, so, as he put it himself, "I didn't win - and then some", see:
http://9percentgrowth.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00%3A0…

As I say, it is to his credit that he has the energy and commitment to stand, but he appears unable to learn anything from the result or from his long and virulent tirades against those concerned about environmental issues.

Wow, as I have pointed out those are3 obviously not responsive response, nor are they truthful. If you, or indeed anybody, had such answers I think it rerasonable to assume somebody would have got round yo posting them.

Slioch I am pleased to be an "insufferable nuisance" to those who depend on their lies not being pointed out.

Chris, I thank you & others here for providing the intellectual wilderness.

270 posts and no attempt at any actual answers, not even from Slioch, who I will admit normally exceeds the usual standard of alarmists.

"those are3 obviously not responsive response"

They are a responsive response.

You asked the question, they answered.

"nor are they truthful."

Since, for example, you ask "Do you agree...?", an answer they give either yes or no is only asserted as not truthful if you're able to read minds over the internet.

This is not happening.

Worse, since you KNOW you can't read minds, you know that that statement is false in that you can't know it's not truthful.

Oh, lying again.

271 posts and still you refuse to accept answers so you can continue to whine about how you've not been answered. I guess that's why you lost so badly in scotland.

Two hundred and seventy-two posts later and Mr. Craig is still denies that his questions have been answered, responsively and truthfully. This is unsurprising, given that Mr. Craig demonstrates a very weak grip on reality at the best of times. He at least is entertaining; I look forward to more rage-filled, typo-ridden, and fantasy-laced responses from Mr. Craig's madly shaking hands.

Slioch

Thanks once again for those links (#270) - they are hilarious!

Yes, the illiterate scottish idiot actually stood for parliament. 80 votes huh? That is just precious. 79 other people out there are just as delusional as Biel Roaig. Maybe it was becauuse he didn't do too well in media interviews and refused to answer5 any fufurther stupid questions, and wanted your5 apolofy for criticising him.

What is even funnier are some of the other election results from that link. It seems the Communist party are far more popular than Mr Roaig - they managed to get 3.5 times as many votes as he did. But the Socialists were even better - they got 32 times as many votes as Biel. Of course, people in Scotland are far more likely to vote for the Greens than for illiterate idiots - they managed a staggering 135 times as many votes as Biel. And this was in Glasgow, that bastion of conservation and latte sipping eco-nazis.

All this and less than 50% of the voters turned out to vote anyway. So Biel's popularity is equal to 0.017% of the eligible votes. Never mind Biel, there is always next time. If you campaign really hard you might even get your proportion of the voters who agree with you up to 0.02%.

On an entirely different subject, I wonder what Tmax will be in Canada this year:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/07/21/records-southern…

It's a quiet day at work so I thought I would add to the - as yet uncommenced - thread entitled "More Lunacy from Biel Roaig". Check out this insanity (link in post #273):

".....Biden did say 10 million "Serbs should be put in Nazi-style concentration camps", which certainly qualifies him as a Nazi. He supported NATO setting up "police" in Kosovo & dissecting 1300 living human beings to steal their body org=fans, which is a form of cannibalism & not a nicer one than the traditional.Our5 "police" also kidnapped local schoolfirls to seel to br5othels accross Europe and I assume America. Obama chose this out and out Nazi as a running mate which proves him racist and supportive of child rape and precivilised. I understand he has inflated the currency by printing several thrillion - this is theft on a scale that makes Capone a piker. Mulatto and buffoon are obvious...."

That's a direct cut and paste folks - I left in the illiterate gibberish to give you an idea just how completely insane Biel really is.

I would also like to add a few questions to skip's as yet unanswered questions:

How much is a 'thrillion'?

Where can I find these schoolfirl br5othels accross Europe?

How much do our5 police make from the seel of a schoolfirl?

What did Joe Biden do with the body org=fans that he obtained by dissecting 1300 living human beings?

Are you completely retarded?

Hehe.

Yeah I have no problem deriving amusement and entertainment at this dipshit's expense, so thanks for the links and quotes, Mandas and Slioch.

But if you pay *really* close attention to Beil's blog, there is something else going on right now that he's obviously oblivious to.

I'll let you guys, if you give a rat's ass, try to figure it out.

It might take Beil a thrillion attempts5 to. This should be good.

Skip

Now that's hilarious - yes I figured it out (and I trolled a little myself)

Whiner also believes that the UN is dissecting live humans in huge numbers.

Probably because Glen Beck told him they were communists.

I believe he's from the Dark Ages and thinks that surgery is letting all the souls out for satan (Barak Obama) to eat

276 posts and still no answers.

I note Mandas does not factually dispute any of these atrocities, because, of course, he can't. He & his fellow Nazismerely in practice supports them.

Not unexpected for that sort of subhuman lying filth. I suppose, if nobody among the alarmists has any objection to genocide, child rape and cannibalism then, treating that as a statistical sample, it will mathematically proven that close to 100% of climate alarmists share such obscene views. No offence.

277 posts and Neil still pretending.

Here are answers for your seven questions:

1 - No
2 - No
3 - No
4 - Yes
5 - No
6 - No
7 - Yes

Of course, since whiner here doesn't like answers, doesn't do answers himself and is, moreover, a tripple-A class lunatic, his pretending is no surprise.

PS it's all the deniers who are doing the "child rape" thing:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…

But again they're in deep denial about so many matters of fact, what's another little lie..?

Five posts and still no answer from Biel:

How much is a 'thrillion'?

Where can I find these schoolfirl br5othels accross Europe?

How much do our5 police make from the seel of a schoolfirl?

What did Joe Biden do with the body org=fans that he obtained by dissecting 1300 living human beings?

Are you completely retarded?

From Biel's post #280:

â....Not unexpected for that sort of subhuman lying filth. I suppose, if nobody among the alarmists has any objection to genocide, child rape and cannibalism then, treating that as a statistical sample, it will mathematically proven that close to 100% of climate alarmists share such obscene views. No offence.....â

Well thanks for considering my feeling there Biel - none taken!

Let me start by saying that I am not nor have I ever been an expert on statistics. I have done courses on it, and I use them all the time in my research, but I usually leave the statistical treatment of data to experts who know what they are talking about. Skip and others here who are involved in research will know what I mean.

Having said that, I do have enough of a knowledge of statistics to â at the very least â have a working knowledge in order to do my work. And one of the fundamental tenets of research and statistics is the concept of sample size.

Sample size is an important feature of any investigation where the goal is to make inferences about a population from a sample. In the case we are discussing here, we are trying to determine a relatively simple situation â the estimation of proportion; ie we wish to estimate the proportion of alarmists who have no objection to genocide, child rape and cannibalism.

It is one of the first tasks undertaken by any researcher when designing an experiment (well, it is in my case anyway) to determine what size sample is needed. In this case, how many alarmists would I need to survey before it could be â...mathematically prove that close to 100% of climate change alarmists share such obscene views...â

To determine this to any degree of accuracy, we would need to decide on a number of important variables such as the level of precision (the accuracy of our answer +/- X %), the confidence level (since Biel has said âclose to 100%, letâs use 99%)), and the degree of variability of the population (how much peopleâs views may vary). There are a number of ways of determining this, but without going into too much detail, the simplified formula for calculating sample size is:

n= N/(1+N(e)2)

where ânâ is the sample size, âNâ is the population size, and âeâ is the level of precision

In this case we donât know the population size, but fortunately there are ways around this, especially for large populations. Since the number of âalarmistsâ in the world is likely to run into the millions, then for the sake of this calculation we can effectively ignore population size as it makes no appreciable difference to the final result.

We can go through the process of calculating the sample size, or we can use some simplified tables that have been developed for use by researchers. There are a number of these available on-line and you can search around if you like. Here is a link to one such table:

http://research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm

From this, we can see that if we wish to â....estimate the proportion of alarmists who have no objection to genocide, child rape and cannibalism....â, from a worldwide population of alarmists estimated to be in the millions, then based on the assumption that â...if nobody among the alarmists has any objection to genocide, child rape and cannibalism...â, then â.... treating that as a statistical sample...â, we can see that we need a sample size of 16,586 if we wish to determine this to within a 1% margin of error at the 99% confidence level. Even if we allow a 5% margin of error and a 95% confidence level, we still need a sample size of 384. So, given that in this survey, the sample size is 5 (coby, mandas, skip, wow, chris), then there is a clear deficiency in the sample size required to determine the outcome to any degree of statistical significance.

In conclusion, I guess we can effectively discount Bielâs assertion that â....treating that as a statistical sample, it will mathematically proven that close to 100% of climate alarmists share such obscene views...â.

No offence there Biel, but your statistical knowledge is on a par with your knowledge of climate science â non-existent.

283 posts and no answers.

Wow's are clearly not answers because they don't answer anything.

Mandas if instead of your long and pointless* psot on statisticsyou had tried to answer the real questions you would not have made it obvious that you are incapable of doing so.

* Pointless becaus evertyhing you say is negated by the fact that I did not say evety alarmist supports genocide, child rape and cannibalism but that only "almost 100%" do. This does not exclude the possibility that there are some who don't and I would be open to any evidence of the existence of such, comparative, paragons. I await your evidence on either subject.

Beil:

Evertyhing you say is negated by the fact that I did not say *every* denialist supports and engages in sexual congress with sheep, but I suspect "almost 100%" do. This does not exclude the possibility that there are some who don't and I would be open to any evidence of the existence of such, comparative, paragons. I await *your* evidence on either subject.

So, Beil, have you stopped shagging sheep lately?

Nine posts and still no answer from Biel:

How much is a 'thrillion'?

Where can I find these schoolfirl br5othels accross Europe?

How much do our5 police make from the seel of a schoolfirl?

What did Joe Biden do with the body org=fans that he obtained by dissecting 1300 living human beings?

Are you completely retarded?

"if nobody among the alarmists has any objection to genocide, child rape and cannibalism then"

Sorry, everyone here except you and a few other rabid denialists have an objection to genocide, child rape and canibalism.

Therefore your "if" is false.

Therefore, as logic dictates, the clause following that "if" is redundant.

But I've yet to hear you decry the denialists who threaten parents with raping and killing their children:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…

NOTE: Nothing from you decrying the activities of those people.

Then I'd say that it's the denialists who have no problem with child rape and murder.

287 and no answers from the eco-Nazis.

Yes, we're still waiting for an answer from you. Why, though, do you openly admit you're a Nazi?

Here are answers for your seven questions:

1 - No
2 - No
3 - No
4 - Yes
5 - No
6 - No
7 - Yes

189 and counting.

Those quite obviously, don't answer anything and thus are not real answers.

Equally obviously if you or any alarmist anywhere with access to the net could actually answer them in any way which would not immediately prove "catastrophic warming" to be a deliberate fraud you would have eagerly done so.

Here are answers for your seven questions:

1 - No
2 - No
3 - No
4 - Yes
5 - No
6 - No
7 - Yes

"Those quite obviously, don't answer anything "

They are answers to YOUR seven questions. That they aren't anything is your fault in asking irrelevant or non-existent questions.

Q1 - Do you accept Professor Jones' acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?

A1: No

Q2 - Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth by around 10% & that the consequent influence on world hunger is more beneficial than any currently detectable destructive action of alleged global warming?

A2: No

Q3 - Do you accept that the Hockey Stick, as originally presented by Mann and the IPCC contained calculations that were inconsistent with good science and that Mann's refusal to make calculations and algorithms available for checking were inconsistent with scientific principle?

A3: No

Q4 - Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side, from Al Gore's claim that South Sea islands had already been abandoned due to rising sea levels and Pachauri's claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was "voodoo" were untrue and insupportable even at the time.

A4: No

Q5 - Do you accept that there are a number of geoengineering solutions which arithmetically can be shown would work (including stratospheric dust, the geritol solution or even just replacing CO2 burning with nuclear power) which would work at a small fraction of the cost of the war against fire, or in the case of nuclear, at negative cost?

A5: No

Q6 - Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud or telling of obvious untruths. on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?

A6: Are you still fapping off at your computer with a GIMP mask and scrotal halter on?

Q7 - Of the alleged "consensus" - can you name 2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state, who support catastrophic warming & if not can you explain how something can be a consensus when no member of a subset of 60% of the alleged consenting, consent?

A7: Can't name two who support catastrophic warming at all.

Wow - you think you have answered Beil's questions. Everyone else may also think you have answered his questions, but Neik knows you haven't really answered his questions because he is convinced they are unaswerable and no-one can tell him otherwise.

Aye, but every time he complains that he's waiting for the answers, I'll post the answers.

It just drives home to anyone who happens to read it that whiner here is just whining.

Well I will accept that the answer to 7 teally answers it. However admitting you can't name any scientist who supports the fraud is hardly being supportive of it.

294 and still awaiting responsive responses to 1 - 6

Question 8:

What should we surmise about the intellect of someone who cannot even spell his own name?

Yeah skip, it should be 'Biel Roaig', not 'neil Vraig'.

And how can someone be so spectacularly stupid, that two posts after someone answers his questions he complains that people haven't answered his questions.

I'm pretty confident if someone asks "....Do you accept.....", and someone answers "...No...", then that is an answer to the question. On the subject of answering questions:

Seventeen posts and still no answer from Biel:

How much is a 'thrillion'?

Where can I find these schoolfirl br5othels accross Europe?

How much do our5 police make from the seel of a schoolfirl?

What did Joe Biden do with the body org=fans that he obtained by dissecting 1300 living human beings?

Are you completely retarded?

"Well I will accept that the answer to 7 teally answers it. "

Ruly and teally?

And "admitting you can't name any scientist who supports the fraud is hardly being supportive of it." is because there aren't any scientists who support catastrophic warming. However, when it comes to supporting fraud, it's denialists like you and your pet McIntyre, Wegman and Michaels who are defrauding with you applauding from the sidelines.

A human would realise that if there are no supporters of a position that means that the position doesn't exist.

The IPCC and climate change science that shows the reality of AGW isn't a fraud.

"294 and still awaiting responsive responses to 1 - 6 "

298 and still viel ignores away:

1 - No
2 - No
3 - No
4 - Yes
5 - No
6 - No

Post #300 so lets repeat the 6 questions the alarmists dare not answer (Wow by admitting he cannot answer #7 gives the show away though a quick Google of "catastrophic warming" will show many corrupt politicians and a few self styled scientists have claimed it).

1 - Do you accept Professor Jones' acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?

2 - Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth by around 10% & that the consequent influence on world hunger is more beneficial than any currently detectable destructive action of alleged global warming?

3 - Do you accept that the Hockey Stick, as originally presented by Mann and the IPCC contained calculations that were inconsistent with good science and that Mann's refusal to make calculations and algorithms available for checking were inconsistent with scientific principle?

4 - Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side, from Al Gore's claim that South Sea islands had already been abandoned due to rising sea levels and Pachauri's claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was "voodoo" were untrue and insupportable even at the time.

5 - Do you accept that there are a number of geoengineering solutions which arithmetically can be shown would work (including stratospheric dust, the geritol solution or even just replacing CO2 burning with nuclear power) which would work at a small fraction of the cost of the war against fire, or in the case of nuclear, at negative cost?

6 - Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud or telling of obvious untruths. on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?

Incidentally for those liars who have ever suggeste that i don't answer such questions here is that eminent "peer reviewed climate scientist", "published in the finest journals" Skip making it obvious that such the "peers" of such "scientists" must all be wholly dishonest by (A) putting up his 7 questions (B) having them answered (C) writing below the answer that it doesn't exist (D) writng that the post he is writing has not been published by me because I am censoring him & (D) going completely doolally.

http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2011/08/green-environmentalist-sca…

This ain't Gore publicly shouting "Bullshit" this is real high quality rabid dog stuff.

1. I accept that he made this statement in 2010, but that this has been superceded by inclusion of the 2010 data, which has made the temperature increase since 1995 to be significant (at the 95% level)

2. Please provide evidence for this claim.

3. No, I do not accept this claim. Data and algorithms were made available.

4. No, I do not accept this claim, as it contains outright falsehoods. For example, Pachauri's "voodoo science" was NOT related to the 2035 Himalayas error.

5. No, I do not accept this claim, as it solely focuses on the hypothetical solution to global warming, without taking into account the potential side effects. And that leaves out the uncertainty of the aerosol effect. Also nuclear power is expensive. If it were so cheap, why are countries not using it much more?

6. No, I do not accept this claim, as it is false. We do denounce fraud and false claims. Problem is, for you, that we are mostly busy exposing the fraud and false claims of people like YOU.

It's sad I have caught you out on making things up AGAIN. You are a liar, and hence, by your own claims earlier, a fascist.

So here's my question to you:
Do you accept by lying, again, about what somebody supposedly said, and by your own claims that liars are fascists, that you are a fascist?

Twenty one posts and still no answer from Biel:

How much is a 'thrillion'?

Where can I find these schoolfirl br5othels accross Europe?

How much do our5 police make from the seel of a schoolfirl?

What did Joe Biden do with the body org=fans that he obtained by dissecting 1300 living human beings?

Are you completely retarded?

Marco: "1. I accept that he made this statement in 2010,"

That isn't what Whiner asked. He asked "Do you agree that Phil Jones said ... etc".

Jones DIDN'T say that. He said that the warming now passes the statistical significance test.

It is also true he didn't say that in 2010 too. He said a much longer piece that means what he said, rather than what denialists want him to have said.

Post 300, answers to questions:

1 - No
2 - No
3 - No
4 - Yes
5 - No
6 - No

But whiner doesn't want answers, he wants accusations.

1 - So you accept no significant warming for 15 years. Well done.

2 - Previously given on a thread you were on.Answer awaited.

3 - No they weren't. They were repeatedly specifically refused. Mcintyre found them where Mann had hidden them proving his deliberate fraud.

4 - Lie. It was said about those who disputed his Himalaya lie.

5 - Lie. That stratospheric dust ans sulphur would have that effect is experimentally proven by Krakatoa and TYimbora. You might claim to believe there may be side effects you don't specify for reasons you don't specify (inded anybody could say that about anything) but you cannot honestly claim that such solutions don't exist.

6 - If that is not a lie you would be able to name alarmist "scientists" who denounced Pashy for his "voodoo" cliam or Mann for his fraud or etc etc etc. You do not because you know you cannot name a single alarmist "scientist" who has thus proven himself honest or a real scientist.

So 2 of the 7 questions, which if not answerable in an honest way supportive of alarmism, answered in a way which proves it is a fraud and for the rest no honest responsive answer at all.

305 and counting.

1. So, then do you finally accept we have now significantly warmed since 1995?
(I know, I know, the answer is "no", because you believe Jones only when it suits you)

2. answer not accepted, I need it here

3. Liar. He was given the data, and just started complaining when it turned out there was an error in the database

4. Liar. Pachauri specifically referred to a report that mentioned the Himalaya glaciers were melting but not because of climate change, despite the fact that no attempt at attribution was even made in that report.

5. As Pintabu has shown, you need to *continuously* throw as much particulate material in the air as these volcanoes. that is, not just over a few months, as Pinatubo did (with associated weather anomalies like enormous rainfall, anomalously cold weather in New Zealand, and strong hurricanes), but continuously as long as CO2 amounts are as high or higher than now. As soon as we stop, the temperature goes up.

6. Your claim about Pachauri is false. Your claim about Mann is false (how many investigations need to be done that consistently confirm there was not a shred of evidence of fraud? Not even Barton could get it in that direction). You have not denounced yourself. Hence, get lost with your hypocrisy.

QED, Neil is a fascist.

2 - You've seen it. You refuse to accept what you know. End of.

3 - Liar. He was niot "given" it till long after he had found it.

4 - Liar. Pachy specifically said that those who disputed his report that the Himalays would be melted by 2035 were parcticing "voodoo science". That clearly represents the very highest standard of honesty to which he aspires and since he remains in place, to whuich the IPCC ever aspires.

5 - Are you now saying it would work, but you have to keep doing it? This seems to be at variance with your previous assertion that it simply but definitely would not work.

6 - My statement about Pachy is not false (see 4). Yours is. Again I ask you to name any alarmist scientist who has publicly denounced any of the fraudsters, even Gore, running this scare. Even if they have held back from calling it fraud and merely said it was gross incompetnce proving them and those who assisted them unworthy to be taken seriously? If it were a real science there would be thousands of them

2. I've not seen it.

3. You are the liar, he was given the data. The methodology was described, so he should just have made his own algoritms. That's how science works

4. And again you lie.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece
"He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as âvoodoo scienceâ. "

5. Ah, the politician still does not understand some basic reasoning. Your proposal is to attack the symptoms with something that will have its own side-effects and let the root cause continue to rot the system to the core. It also does not do a darn thing to stop ocean acidification.

6. Yes it is. Even the Times makes that clear, and that isn't exactly a 'pro-AGW' newspaper. People have denounced the gross incompetence of Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, so stop the complaints. Have you? Have you already denounced yourself for continuing to lie? No? Then stop being such a hypocrite.

"1 - So you accept no significant warming for 15 years."

Nope.

The warming was significant: 0.12C per decade is significant.

"2 - Previously given on a thread you were on.Answer awaited."

You never gave an answer and you've been answered many times before. The answer is still "No".

"3 - No they weren't. They were repeatedly specifically refused."

The national academy of science in the USA among others refuted McI's statement. In fact, M&M's paper is far more full of incorrect analysis than the 1998 paper.

The answer to that is still "No".

"4 - Liar."

False. If you knew you were right, you could supply one link to a primary source.

The answer to that is "no" as well.

"5 - Are you now saying it would work"

Nope, because you would have to INCREASE your work each year and ALSO clean up the mess you're making each year.

Although shooting yourself in the head will stop your toothache, nobody (except an idiot like you) would say "It's a working toothache cure".

The answer is "no" here too.

"6 - My statement about Pachy is not false (see 4)"

We looked at 4. You just asserted again that it was said. No proof to your claim.

It would be easy to supply and its nonexistence shows you're lying.

2 - None so blind as those who will not see. Liar.

3 - Have you some evidence that theirvword sgould ever, under any circumstances, be taken as more trustworthy than either McIntyre's statements or the facts.

4 - From the report you cite as evidence "However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November." So both Pachy and you demonstrate the very pinnacle of honesty to which the thieving parasites calling themsel=ves climate "scientists" ever aspire.

5 - I asked "Are you now saying it would work, but you have to keep doing it?2 - your answer, though deliberately obfuscating, seems to be "Yes". If so that is 3 out of 1 needed acknowleding that the fraud is a fraud. If you aren't please explain what you are saying. Note that your obfuscation obout "ocean acidification" (which is no such thing, could not be done honestly if you knew anything about the subject.

6 - Again "Again I ask you to name any alarmist scientist who has publicly denounced any of the fraudsters, even Gore, running this scare." If nun write none.

And Wow before I read your nonsense please provide evidence that any part of it is more honest of indeed cene than the normal highest level of integrity of which you are capable.

I think our "friend" Beil must have a show running at this years fringe in his favourite city.

2 - None so blind as those who will not see.

Pure comedy gold.

Answers again:

1) The warming was significant: 0.12C per decade is significant.

2) No. NB: You still haven't shown your "answer". If it's so obvious, it should be even easier for YOU to show what YOU said. None so dumb as will not say.

3) The national academy of science in the USA among others refuted McI's statement. In fact, M&M's paper is far more full of incorrect analysis than the 1998 paper.

4) The typo was not in WG1, about the science basis, it was about the consequences. And they TYPO was found by the IPCC Scientists supporting the IPCC claims, NOT your lovely denialists.

5) The answer is "no". In just the same way as shooting yourself in the head is NOT an answer to the problem of toothache.

6) The only alarmist scientists are the denialists screaming about how it's all a scheme to bilk the USA of money and create a Communist New World Order. However, YOU seem to support them.

7) Your statement is still false. You have no clue what was said, you can only parrot what you've been programmed to say by your alarmist "scientist" friends.

Also note this blithering idiot's claim:

"305 and counting."

Withing THE VERY SAME POST he acknowledges answers given before that post!

This blithering buffoon blows chunks.

"None so blind as those who will not see."

From the well known comedian Jeremiah.

There was a book - I don't know if you've heard of it.
Jeremiah Chapter 5: verse 21

313 and counting

Yup, he even admits that he's been answered, then goes on to pretend he hasn't had answers (when the problem is he hasn't had answers HE LIKES). Then to top it all (why, oh why, doesn't this twunt top himself instead?), AFTER having this pointed out, doubles down in the most idiotic redneck way that has become popularly seen on reichtwingnut telly.

Answers yet again:

1 - No
2 - No
3 - No
4 - Yes
5 - No
6 - No

300 posts after the answers were given, whiner here still pretends he hasn't had any.

Those "answers" clearly don't answer anything. If you could factually answer why you claim to believe these you would do so.

QED

315 and counting

Answers yet again:

1 - No
2 - No
3 - No
4 - Yes
5 - No
6 - No

They answer YOUR questions.

You don't like answers? Well, that doesn't make them not-answers. It just means you don't like the answers.

They are answers to your questions.

QID (Quod Idiot Demonstrandum): The idiot has proven himself an idiot.

317 and counting.

Wow's repeated repasting of his "answers" that answer nothing merely proves that neither he nor any other alarmist can truly answer them.

QED Alarmism is a quite deliberate fraud.

So answers prove there are no answers . . .

QED Beil is an epic idiot.

This is always fun:

Hey Beil:

Want to try to document your nonexistent King Antarctica quote?

LOL.

Now watch the dodge . . .

320 later and whiner still hasn't acknowledged the answers given:

1 - No
2 - No
3 - No
4 - Yes
5 - No
6 - No

So answers prove there are no answers...

Everyone knows Real Answers⢠are done through interpretive dance. Words are nothing but words.

Beil, show us how it's done!