Pharyngula

If you’ve been following the climate change ‘debate’ at all, you should be aware of the excellent YouTube channel, Climate Denial Crock of the Week, which always has excellent take-downs of the denialists, professionally made and always devastating. Here’s one example:

The author is in a competition for a $5,000 grant. All you have do is register at that link and vote — let’s promote good science presented well!

Comments

  1. #1 Robster
    May 14, 2010

    He asks at the end, “what has made so many embrace the 12th century?” Then, there’s footage of what appears to be a scuffle in a mosque or similiar venue. It’s obvious that the source of this closed-mindedness is organised abrahamic religious belief. I’m getting flyers in my letter box from the religiously deluded, claiming that the bible is full of gawd exhorting the masses to protect the environment. I’ve done some online research and can’t find anything like that. But they also believe (believe it or not) that gawd will rescue them when the torrent that may result from climate change occurs. So, see, if you follow the lawd, it’ll be alright. So, don’t worry.

  2. #2 Al B. Quirky
    May 14, 2010

    Every time I point out (on this blog) that Phil Jones agreed that “there has been no significant global warming since 1995″, I get abused for ignorance of the fact that 15 years is too short a time to measure climate changes, and that 30 years is more appropriate. So I point out there was zero GW in the previous 15 years (1980 – 1995); an inconvenient fact ignored by ignorant alarmists, but that makes 30 years of FA GW, (check graph in link) in my humble estimation.

  3. #3 Pyrrhonic
    May 14, 2010

    @ #2: That graph clearly shows a warming trend. Am I missing something?

  4. #4 Fortknox
    May 14, 2010

    I’ve been subscribed to his channel for a while now, he is to climate denialists what Thunderf00t is to creationists.

  5. #5 Uncephalized
    May 14, 2010

    @#2, WTF are you talking about? That graph shows a clear warming trend in every decade, including the past ten years. Did you even read the context of the graph?

  6. #6 Usagichan
    May 14, 2010

    #3

    Indeed you are missing something – you are missing that ABQ doesn’t understand the concept of Statistical significance and doesn’t want to.

  7. #7 Pyrrhonic
    May 14, 2010

    @ #6, thanks! I thought there might be a hint of irony in there somewhere, especially because I don’t know what “FA” means in the phrase “30 years of FA GW,” and because you’d have to be willfully ignorant not to see the warming trend in that graph. Also, as #5 points out, the text surrounding the graph says as much.

  8. #8 Usagichan
    May 14, 2010

    #7

    Ah yes, it is possible that the FA our Quirky troll refers to is the (English) Football Association, but I rather think that it is intended to mean what my grandmother always quaintly euphemised to “Sweet Fanny Adams” (that’s F*** All).

  9. #9 Brownian, OM
    May 14, 2010

    I get abused

    Abused? Why, that’s a very serious thing, Al B. Quirky. Have you contacted your local police to inform them of this abuse? How about spoken to a trusted friend or relative who can help you escape your abusers? Do you know if there are shelters in your area where you can find sanctuary until you can make arrangements to get away?

    You do not need to live like this. Do drop us a line once you’ve reestablished your life free of your tormentors.

  10. #10 Pope Maledict DCLXVI
    May 14, 2010

    I get abused for ignorance of the fact that 15 years is too short a time to measure climate changes to the required degree of statistical significance

    Fixed it for you. The trend is still there, but the point is, measured over a brief time-scale the possibility of a short-term aberration reduces the certainty. Go take a course in statistics ? it might help you understand the critical word in the Phil Jones quote that you like bandying about, but obviously don’t understand.

  11. #11 sadistic
    May 14, 2010

    Excellent project mate, I’ve been sub’ed to this guy for quite some time, and he really does make some awesome videos. I remember being able to show my climate denialist fundy friend a video greenman made that contradicted precisely what my friend was saying. “In the 70s, They said there’d be an ice age” is the name of that video, and it was nearly the exact quote from my friend.

  12. #12 DLC
    May 14, 2010

    I guess I don’t see the need to “counter” climate theory by nitpicking it.

  13. #13 Al B. Quirky
    May 14, 2010

    Is there an alarmist on the blog man enough to admit there was zero GW in the period 1980-1995 (according to the graph at the Alarmist site I linked to), or are you all a pack of pathological liars?

  14. #14 Shplane
    May 14, 2010

    So which one of you guys went to ABQ’s house and beat the shit out of him?

    Or… or wait. He means Internet Abuse.

    *Snrk*

  15. #15 https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkiGF2ZBmSSmv7yE-FvTxAJTOteQD0R1YY
    May 14, 2010

    Is there an alarmist on the blog man enough to admit there was zero GW in the period 1980-1995 (according to the graph at the Alarmist site I linked to), or are you all a pack of pathological liars

    I’m really confused here. There have been multiple posts explaining statistical significance, and why a 15 year is not statistically significant in regards to global warming, so using a 15 year snapshot is never going to show a relevant trend.

    Then you come here, and use a specific 15 year block of time, which again, has been said multiple times is not statistically significant, in order to try to argue a point.

    I understand that climate change/global warming deniers are not the brightest bunch, but this is worse than creationist status here. Maybe you should make a graph and take a period between October and December to show that there is a cooling trend. It would be just as significant.

  16. #16 echidna
    May 14, 2010

    ABQ,
    It’s really quite simple, as the video explains: 15 years is too short to be sure of whether the warming trend is statistically significant or not. 1995-2009 is too short. 1994 – 2009 is not too short – the warming trend is statistically significant.

  17. #17 echidna
    May 14, 2010

    ABQ,
    One more thing – if you are looking for a trend by just looking at a curvy graph, you don’t just look at two points. Draw an imaginary line between all of the peaks, or the troughs, or the midpoints. It doesn’t matter. You will see that whatever line you draw, the trend goes up. Over a period of longer than 15 years, you can be reasonably confident that trend is real – that’s what statistical significance means.

    Have you understood now? Or are you just going to continue blustering?

  18. #18 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    May 14, 2010

    Is there an alarmist on the blog man enough to admit there was zero GW in the period 1980-1995 (according to the graph at the Alarmist site I linked to), or are you all a pack of pathological liars?

    I don’t think any single one of us is in a rush to lie. If you look at your own graph, in the period you specifically called for us to look at, there is in fact warming from 81 to 82, 87 to 89, and 90 to 93.

  19. #19 greg.bourke0
    May 14, 2010

    Albuquerque,

    There are none so blind as those who will not see. Are you man enough to open your eyes, or are you pathologically blind?

  20. #20 mistermuz
    May 14, 2010

    I take back everything I’ve said comparing deniers to creationists. They’re quite the opposite.
    Deniers keep trying to point out the emperor is naked when he’s clearly very well dressed: “Look at this graph! Noooodityy!”; “No. Look. Cloth, right here”; “That’s not cloth! It’s a hem! It can’t be cloth and hem at the same time! That’s crazy talk! Noooodityyy! A conspiracy of tailors.”; “No. Of course it’s a hem. I was using a bit of it as an example. See, look, shirt, waistcoat, breeches. All cloth. Jacket hem hangs down a bit in case of a daft when the breeches are low.” ; “Are yooo saying the hem HIDES THE DECLINE in breeches!?!”; “Oh fer fucksake, no…yes. Look it doesn’t matter to the overall question of clothing” ; “Potentially exposing yourself is a kind of nooodity!! Naked! Your house of cloth cards falls! I am more skeptical than yoooo!”

    Somehow it’s a horrible side effect of certain types needing to imagine people naked in order to speak publicly.

  21. #21 Q.E.D
    May 14, 2010

    Every climate change “skeptic” and denier I have ever met disbelieves global warming because of their political and/or religious views. They disbelieve because “tree huggers”, “liberals”, “socialists” care about the issue and they are oppoosed to them generally. They dsibelieve because the climate change facts require responses they find unnaceptable for political, economic and life style reasons. They disbelieve because they don’t understand and haven’t made any good faith attempt to understand. They disbelieve because they actively find echo chambers for their demonstrably false pre-existing belief. They disbelieve because they prefer their worldview to the new understanding of reality.

    In short, their disbelief has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

  22. #22 a_ray_in_dilbert_space
    May 14, 2010

    Al B. Moron is engaged in the standard tactic of denialists–and magicians for that matter–misdirection. When they direct your attention to a “fact” or period, what it really means is that you should be looking in the opposite direction to see what is really going on. Al would like to divide time into nice cherry-picked intervals. That ain’t climate. Climate trends emerge only when you look at periods of 30 years or more. So he cherrypicks two dates early on and then selectively quotes Phil Jones to give the impression that the planet isn’t warming. Hmm. and yet, when I look at the early part of that graph, temperature anomalies are around 0, while at the end, the last point is at 0.72. Ta da!

    And now, for his next trick, he’s going to try to tell us that Venus high temperature has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. No, he will tell us, it’s all due to the high atmospheric pressure compressing the atmosphere. I’m not kidding, Anthony Micro-Watt’s abysmal blog has been talking about this “revolution” all week. Even idiot-savant Lobos Motl has been taken in. There’s one wonderful bit about how one guy applied this “new physics” to explain why the air coming out of the hairdryer was warm. I shit thee not. These guys are just that stupid.

    So, Al, go ahead. Tell us about Venus.

  23. #23 CunningLingus
    May 14, 2010

    Hey Al B Moron, do you type by throwing chopsticks at a keyboard that is spinning? I’m pretty sure that would explain all the crap that ends up on screen from your posts.

  24. #24 Teddydeedodu
    May 14, 2010

    The truth always takes a while. It requires more effort to look for. It demands more rigour. It is dispassionate about human feelings. But in the end, it is the sweetest most delicious candy in the store. Thank goodness for people like Greenman and scientists like him. Like candles in the dark, they are.

    Oh by the way, Al B. Quirky, you are a fuckwit!!

  25. #25 Duckbilled Platypus
    May 14, 2010

    There are some strange trends where it comes to GW denialists – they seem inseperable from right-wing, populist parties.

    I think that the politicians themselves can’t be as stupid as to think that the scientific evidence is wrong, but that they’re merely hitching a ride. They draw votes by claiming that GW is just a fabrication to beat money out of the poor man’s pocket, a fabrication set up by their political opponents no less. It’s sure to hit a sensitive spot in parts of the population who have always had an inbred distrust for any kind of government decision.

    If we want to win the public vote on this one, it’s about time we start pointing out where the real money is made. I can’t believe people failing to see that it’s not climatologists getting better paid over GW, but fossil fuel providers staying fucking loaded over denialism.

  26. #26 Al B. Quirky
    May 14, 2010

    @24
    I’m a fuckwit for quoting Jones and linking to a pro-warmist website? OK!

  27. #27 greg.bourke0
    May 14, 2010

    #26

    No you’re a fuckwit for not being able to decipher words on a page.

  28. #28 John Morales
    May 14, 2010

    ABQ, it takes but a few seconds to locate the source.

    Here’s an actual quote: “I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed.”

  29. #29 davem
    May 14, 2010

    I look at the early part of that graph, temperature anomalies are around 0, while at the end, the last point is at 0.72. Ta da!

    More to the point, the zero line is the 1979-1998 average. You’d hardly expect the 1980-1995 average to wander far off the 1979-1998 one, would you? If you plotted the graph again, with the 1900-2000 average as a base, even ABQ might see a rise in temps.

  30. #30 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 14, 2010

    or are you all a pack of pathological liars?

    No, the only pathological liar here is you. Starting with lie that weather equals climate. Weather over 30 years begins to equal climate. Weather under 30 years is just weather. If you can’t understand that, you are a total and utter moron. And guess what ABQ, you are a pathological liar and a moron.

  31. #31 darvolution proponentsist
    May 14, 2010

    Is there an alarmist on the blog man enough to admit there was zero GW in the period 1980-1995 (according to the graph at the Alarmist site I linked to), or are you all a pack of pathological liars?

    “Alarmist”, “Pathological Liars”, and presenting snippets of data when you’ve been shown time and time again that it is a useless and dishonest methodology akin to mining for quotes. Nice.

    Honest individuals go where the amassed evidence leads and take the time to address reasoned criticism. Honest individuals admit their mistakes and openly correct them. (Intellectually) Dishonest individuals cherry-pick, quote-mine, and reject corrections (usually silently ignored) to their assertions without showing why such criticism is incorrect and why it should be rejected.

    Which shoe fits you Quirky?

    You might consider acknowledging and dealing with your patent intellectual dishonesty. It’s quite possible that some honest introspection, perhaps using the points made by Q.E.D. @20, could help you with this. Or, perhaps you shouldn’t as I find you transparent and entertaining. I really am on the fence on this one.

  32. #32 Andyo
    May 14, 2010
    #2

    Posted by:
    Al B. Quirky Author Profile Page |
    May 14, 2010 1:43 AM

    Every time I point out (on this blog) that Phil Jones agreed that “there has been no significant global warming since 1995″,

    Which is the LIE this very fucking same video debunks. Sigh, go on…

    I get abused for ignorance of the fact that 15 years is too short a time to measure climate changes, and that 30 years is more appropriate. So I point out there was zero GW in the previous 15 years (1980 – 1995);

    (Hey, pssst… That’s still about 15 years. Stop it or mean people are going to start calling you names.)

    an inconvenient fact ignored by ignorant alarmists, but that makes 30 years of FA GW, (check graph in link) in my humble estimation.

    OK, so that is 30 years. Upward trend. So? You were saying?

  33. #33 darvolution proponentsist
    May 14, 2010

    .. excuse me, make that Q.E.D. @21

  34. #34 Al B. Quirky
    May 14, 2010

    @31
    I’m only arguing with information and advice provided to me by Climate Scientists and Warming Believers. So far, I don’t see any reason to be alarmed. If you have any substantial evidence to the contrary, which may change my stance to panic-mode, please feel free to provide same.

  35. #35 KingUber
    May 14, 2010

    I would vote but I’m lazy so I don’t want to go through the registration process

  36. #36 MartinM
    May 14, 2010

    Every time I point out (on this blog) that Phil Jones agreed that “there has been no significant global warming since 1995″, I get abused for ignorance of the fact that 15 years is too short a time to measure climate changes, and that 30 years is more appropriate. So I point out there was zero GW in the previous 15 years (1980 – 1995); an inconvenient fact ignored by ignorant alarmists, but that makes 30 years of FA GW, (check graph in link) in my humble estimation.

    That’s rather like arguing that, since five trials is insufficient to determine whether or not a coin is fair, five thousand is insufficient also, since one can break it down into a thousand groups of five. Two fifteen-year periods neither of which show a statistically significant trend can nonetheless combine into a single 30-year period which does achieve significance.

  37. #37 Duckbilled Platypus
    May 14, 2010

    I’m only arguing with information and advice provided to me by Climate Scientists and Warming Believers.

    No, you’re only cherry-picking your information. You decided to read only the half a diagram.

    So far, I don’t see any reason to be alarmed. If you have any substantial evidence to the contrary, which may change my stance to panic-mode, please feel free to provide same.

    Sorry, there is no cure for blindness that I know of.

  38. #38 sybrenb
    May 14, 2010

    @ ABQ

    It’s been pointed out to you several times that you sit here and fire off canards which only demonstrate your ignorance (like your inability to understand the term “statistically significant” and your inability to quote Jones correctly.) And you don’t seem to respond with any substance to what people here have been saying. There are only two possible reasons, either you are deliberately misrepresenting the data you claim to get from “alarmist websites” or you’re just not very bright.
    Either way you have yet to demonstrate any understanding of climatology in general.

  39. #39 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 14, 2010

    Yawn, ABQ, repeating refuted alleged evidence just makes you look stoopid. As if you need any help in that category. I do suggest you try to find your AGW refuting data in the peer reviewed scientific literature for much, much better evidence. It is found in the science section in libraries of higher learning world-wide. Places you appear to be totally and utterly unfamiliar with. And I do suggest you understand that 30 years is the minimum for weather to be called climate. Making such a silly mistake with a simple definition this consistently makes you look totally stoopid too.

  40. #40 MartinM
    May 14, 2010

    And I do suggest you understand that 30 years is the minimum for weather to be called climate.

    Actually, I’d take issue with that. 30 years is a useful rule of thumb, but such a long period isn’t actually necessary to separate the climatic signal from internal variation. How long one needs is a function of the data, but at present, about 16 years appears to be sufficient.

  41. #41 Charlie Foxtrot
    May 14, 2010

    Following on from Al B.Q’s methods, I did a rigorous statistical survey of March to November, and discovered that there is no christmas!
    And there never was!!!!

  42. #42 hyperdeath
    May 14, 2010

    Nerd of Redhead:

    I do suggest you try to find your AGW refuting data in the peer reviewed scientific literature for much, much better evidence. It is found in the science section in libraries of higher learning world-wide.

    Why would he want to do that? Fox News tells him all he needs to know.

  43. #43 MetzO'Magic
    May 14, 2010

    Actually, the magic number for a guaranteed trend with 95% statistical significance is 22 years, and there’s a good reason for that. No matter what year you start at, it spans two consecutive sun cycles that currently run at 11 years.

    And… @Q.E.D. #21

    What he/she said.

  44. #44 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    May 14, 2010

    In short, their disbelief has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

    Climate

    Evolution

    Homosexuality

    Racial equality

    Crime

    Sex Education

    etc..

    I see a pattern

  45. #45 RamblinDude
    May 14, 2010

    Made of awesome. The great thing about the internet is that the truly good communicators rise to the top?and who?s gonna stop them?

  46. #46 David Marjanovi?
    May 14, 2010

    Hey, Al! You seem to believe that “statistically significant” means “vaguely plausible-sounding”.

    It does not.

    It’s a technical term. As such, it has a precise definition:

    A pattern in data is statistically significant if the probability that it was caused by random is 5 % or less.

    So, there has been quite a bit of warming from 1995 to 2008, but the probability that it’s just a random fluke is 6 % or something. In contrast, the probability that the warming from 1994 to 2008 was random is 5 % or less.

  47. #47 MadScientist
    May 14, 2010

    The latest fashion in denialism seems to be volcanic ash hazard denial. It’s depressing to see how many people are gulled into the “we made a few flights, called them ‘test flights’ and they were all OK, therefore there shouldn’t have been a flight ban”.

  48. #48 Athena
    May 14, 2010

    Does anyone know what effect the oil-laden waters of the Gulf will have on climate change/hurricane formation? The light reflection and refraction plus heat-bearing qualities of oily water can’t be negligible. The oil is still gushing; what is the tipping point of irreversibility?

  49. #49 William R. Dickson
    May 14, 2010

    Is there some sort of award we can give to mistermuz on the spot for post #20?

  50. #50 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 14, 2010

    Is there some sort of award we can give to mistermuz on the spot for post #20?

    Try nomination for a Molly. Happens every month.

    a_ray_in_dilbert_space

    That ain’t climate. Climate trends emerge only when you look at periods of 30 years or more.

    My expert has spoken. Not to say trends in weather may be spotted in 16 or 22 years.

  51. #51 broboxley OT
    May 14, 2010

    A.B. Quiky #15 got here
    http://www.khanacademy.org/
    scroll down to the statistics section and get stuck in

    the small movement over 15yrs is not statistically significant. Climate change isnt always about surface temperatures or atmospheric gas concentrations.

  52. #52 eMel
    May 14, 2010

    Has anyone read the transcript of Lord Monckton addressing Congress on behalf of the GOP?

  53. #53 Ibis3
    May 14, 2010

    A.B. Quirky:

    You may want to watch this video, since you seem to find it difficult to understand statistical significance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag

  54. #54 Doug Little
    May 14, 2010

    QED

    Every climate change “skeptic” and denier I have ever met disbelieves global warming because of their political and/or religious views

    I just ran into this over on Phil’s blog. It took a while but I finally got the person to admit that he was all rabid about cap and trade which then caused him to jump on the denialist bandwagon. So it was the typical creationist argument of putting the cart before the horse.

    Don’t like the solution so the problem must not exist.

  55. #55 Doug Little
    May 14, 2010

    Has anyone read the transcript of Lord Monckton addressing Congress on behalf of the GOP?

    Ask and ye shall receive.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/moncktons_testimony_to_congres.php

  56. #56 jafafahots
    May 14, 2010

    “So it was the typical creationist argument of putting the cart before the horse. “

    More like wanting to haul a cart so imagining up a horse.

  57. #57 eMel
    May 14, 2010

    @ Doug Little

    Thank you! I had seen his transcript but haven’t seen any analysis until now.

  58. #58 Utakata
    May 14, 2010

    Same here Doug Little @ 54, I have notice peeps having a sane rational discussion on climate…then out of the blue, a few Tea Bagger types waltz right in, and bring Fuax News type politics into it and accusing us of pandering to some “liberal” conspiracy at hand. Even though the conversation was never really about politics to begin with. At the same time acccusing us of being too political about it, even when we never mentioned the word until they brought it up. And the insipidity they use can turn into a several paragraphed dissertation of what most reasonable scientists have proven to be pure bunk…

    …it’s pity they troll over on BA’s blog because Phil is really too nice to them. But they never come here, ’cause I suspect they’ll get rightfully Al B.Q’d. :)

  59. #59 hankroberts
    May 14, 2010

    The ‘signup’ link at Brighterplanet is broken at the moment, but if you use the regular ‘login’ link it gets you a page where you can sign up; then wait for the email confirmation; THEN vote.

  60. #60 mmelliott01
    May 14, 2010

    Using the same logic that Quirky employs, I can prove that my age in years is zero.

    On the day I was born, I was zero years old. In the first day, I did not age one year, nor in the second day, nor in any day after that. Therefore, since I never aged even a single year, I am still zero years old.

    For my next trick, watch me prove that I still weight 8 pounds 15 ounces!

  61. #61 Epikt
    May 14, 2010

    Al B. Quirky @26:

    I’m a fuckwit!

    Live by quote-mining, die by quote-mining.

  62. #62 KOPD
    May 14, 2010

    Don’t like the solution so the problem must not exist.

    It’s so hard to understand that way of thinking. If they are awoken by a smoke alarm do they just say:

    I don’t want my house to burn down because then I’d have to deal wit the insurance company and try to get my stuff replaced. And living in a hotel for a few weeks would be rough. No, I don’t like that idea, so my house isn’t burning and I’ll just go back to bed. After all, if you were to take measurements of the temperature in the house and look at it in small increments, there’s no period in which it rose significantly, so there’s no way it’s burning.

    ?

  63. #63 Doug Little
    May 14, 2010

    Utakata, yeah Phil s a little too nice. He needs to unleash the horde once in a while to keep the concern trolls, accommodationists, creationinsts and denialists in order. it can get pretty thick over there from time to time.

  64. #64 Katharine
    May 14, 2010

    Every time I point out (on this blog) that Phil Jones agreed that “there has been no significant global warming since 1995″

    In the same interview he said that the earth is warming, you idiot.

    Your statistics-fu does not measure up to snuff.

  65. #65 Katharine
    May 14, 2010

    And I remember in the same interview he never actually said that, he said it didn’t reach the 95% confidence interval, which means it reached a lower but nearly as high confidence interval.

    Come back when you understand statistics, dog-fellator.

  66. #66 davej
    May 14, 2010

    Al B. Quirky why don’t you just go back to 1995 and stay there? That way you can avoid the whole issue and you won’t have to grow up.

  67. #67 pete d
    May 14, 2010

    Great video. Are Al B. Quirky and Trinity the same person? Can’t read a poster, can’t read a graph, can identify an underlying trend, can’t identify an underlying theme, etc.

  68. #68 syteman
    May 14, 2010

    A friend of mine sent me this article because I’m a skeptic. While I think the video is effective at pointing out some of the kooks on the denialist side, it attempts to lump all denialists as science-fearing creationalists who believe in astrology and are the only ones to manipulate statistics.

    Well, I’m a skeptic not because of my beliefs, but because I believe scientists use fear to propagate GW theory and extrapolate on a limited amount of data to create projections that fit their preconceived beliefs.

    Based on Vostok core samples, temperature swings of 12.6 degrees have occurred over the last 400,000 years, yet somehow scientists are certain that the projected future changes in temperature (which are significantly less) are somehow due to human influence? Your having a hard enough time convincing people that the earth is warming, but to boot, you want to convince us that it is and it’s our fault?

    I believe we should be good stewards of our environment and as the dominant species on this planet we have a responsibility to take care of it, but using strawmen to bash your opponents and using fear to gain support is a BAD idea.

  69. #69 syteman
    May 14, 2010

    Ironically, the video talks about the places where articles appear are bad because they have bad advertisements – but when I went to another article on this website, the Trend Micro Web Protection Add-on I have running blocked an advertisement within:

    Trend Micro Web Protection Add-On has identified this Web page as undesirable.

    Address: [removed]
    Page rating: Dangerous

    I guess what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  70. #70 CJO
    May 14, 2010

    Well, I’m a skeptic not because of my beliefs, but because I believe scientists use fear to propagate GW theory and extrapolate on a limited amount of data to create projections that fit their preconceived beliefs.

    This sentence contradicts itself. It’s also employing an ad hominem fallacy. That they “use fear,” even if true, doesn’t make AGW false. Likewise, even if their preconceived beliefs match their conclusions, that doesn’t in itself make them wrong. At best, to make this an actual argument, you’d need to show that the preconceived beliefs are incorrect re: AGW. Finally, what scientific conclusion was ever based on an unlimited amount of data?

    Based on Vostok core samples, temperature swings of 12.6 degrees have occurred over the last 400,000 years, yet somehow scientists are certain that the projected future changes in temperature (which are significantly less) are somehow due to human influence?

    What do you think the result of digging up a whole lot of ancient carbon and pumping it into the atmosphere will be? And what other forcing do you suggest to account for the observed warming in the last decades?

  71. #71 a_ray_in_dilbert_space
    May 14, 2010

    Syteman,
    Could you show me an example of a peer-reviewed publication by a climate scientist that is an example of fearmongering.

    As to your ice data, the range there is from -9.4 to +3.2–a bit disingenuous of you, especially since it was over a period of several tens of thousands of years. Heating up the planet 3-5 degrees in 200 years is a VERY different matter–especially a planet that will have 9-10 billion humans on it.

    As to evidence for warming, you have 4 separate temperature products–2 terrestrial and two satellite that show convincing and statistically significant warming over 30 years. You have 2 trillion tons of ice gone and spring comes earlier and earlier–demonstrably.

    The attribution to humans is equally certain:
    1)We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    2)We know humans are responsible for the increase in CO2.
    3)We know CO2 is sufficient to explain the warming

    The evidence has convinced virtually the entire scientific community. There is not a single professional or honorific organization of scientists that dissents from the consensus position.

    So, perhaps you are not a “science-fearing creationalist, but you have zero science to back up your position. I can either conclude that you are ignorant of the evidence (which is overwhelming) or that you are in denial of it. Neither is a sicentific position. Neither is worthy of respect.

  72. #72 matthew.james.neil
    May 14, 2010

    There was an interesting presentation on NPR this afternoon about lizard population declines/extinctions around the globe tied to climate change:

    NPR Story

  73. #73 PZ Myers
    May 14, 2010

    Al B. Quirky and Trinity are two different people. Quirky posts from Australia (he’s one of yours), while Trinity is in the NE US.

  74. #74 Epikt
    May 14, 2010

    syteman:

    Ironically, the video talks about the places where articles appear are bad because they have bad advertisements – but when I went to another article on this website, the Trend Micro Web Protection Add-on I have running blocked an advertisement

    Unsurprisingly, you’ve missed the point. Sinclair says quite clearly that the place to find answers is in the peer-reviewed literature, which typically doesn’t accept advertising. In principle, you could look there for papers supporting the denialist position, but you’ll find very, very few such. So denialists are reduced to getting their “information” from tabloids or crank websites, while non-denialists have a huge body of actual science to which they can refer.

    I guess what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Precisely. Peer-reviewed literature. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.
    .

  75. #75 MartinM
    May 14, 2010

    A friend of mine sent me this article because I’m a skeptic.

    That remains to be seen.

    Based on Vostok core samples, temperature swings of 12.6 degrees have occurred over the last 400,000 years, yet somehow scientists are certain that the projected future changes in temperature (which are significantly less) are somehow due to human influence?

    Similarly, we know that countless enormous forest fires have occurred over history due to natural causes. What does that tell us about the risks of throwing away lit matches, exactly?

  76. #76 syteman
    May 14, 2010

    Well, I’m a skeptic not because of my beliefs, but because I believe scientists…
    This sentence contradicts itself.

    Alright, bad choice of words, but you get the implication – I’m not a skeptic because I’m a creationalist, I believe in astrology, etc (which I don’t). I think people use and abuse science for their own personal, financial, or political agendas.

    It’s also employing an ad hominem fallacy. That they “use fear,” even if true, doesn’t make AGW false.

    Sort of like using published articles from journals with bad ads makes the articles false? Hmmm…

    At best, to make this an actual argument, you’d need to show that the preconceived beliefs are incorrect

    I’m not the one proposing legislation that could potentially hurt our economy and put us at a competitive disadvantage to other countries who don’t see it like you do. So, I don’t think the burden of the proof lies with me. In fact, I think the burden of proof should lie with those people who want to implement drastic environmental reform to curb global warming. The fact is, if you take the temperature data since the industrialization of man an apply it within the context of truly long-term sample of data (ie, the Vostok data), the trends that exist are essentially meaningless and do not conclude that man is the cause.

    What do you think the result of digging up a whole lot of ancient carbon and pumping it into the atmosphere will be? And what other forcing do you suggest to account for the observed warming in the last decades?

    Who knows? Correlation != causation, and scientists should know this. There is as much evidence to show that an increase in temperature causes an increase in CO2 as vice-versa.

  77. #77 MartinM
    May 14, 2010

    In fact, I think the burden of proof should lie with those people who want to implement drastic environmental reform to curb global warming.

    And that burden has been met. See, for example, IPCC AR4.

    The fact is, if you take the temperature data since the industrialization of man an apply it within the context of truly long-term sample of data (ie, the Vostok data), the trends that exist are essentially meaningless and do not conclude that man is the cause.

    Do you have an argument in support of that claim, beyond “lots of change happened in the past, so who knows what’s causing this one?”

    Who knows? Correlation != causation, and scientists should know this.

    They do. That’s why they also look at mechanisms. That CO2 has a greenhouse effect is basic physics; that this effect grows stronger as CO2 concentration increases is a reasonable hypothesis even before one considers the mountain of evidence for a substantial climate sensitivity.

    There is as much evidence to show that an increase in temperature causes an increase in CO2 as vice-versa.

    Each causes the other.

  78. #78 CJO
    May 14, 2010

    The fact is, if you take the temperature data since the industrialization of man an apply it within the context of truly long-term sample of data (ie, the Vostok data), the trends that exist are essentially meaningless and do not conclude that man is the cause.

    The fact is, you’re talking out of your ass and you couldn’t analyze the methods and conclusions of the research that says your bare assertion is dead wrong if your life depended on it. If anything, that long-term context makes it all the more obvious that the rapidity of the change we’re just beginning to see is unprecedented at least since before the Pleistocene. And it’s the rate of change that is important, not the absolute variation judged against longer timescales.

    There is as much evidence to show that an increase in temperature causes an increase in CO2 as vice-versa.

    This is idiotic. We know where the carbon came from. It’s not going to just disappear, and it has to be accounted for in climate models. When it is, the result is warming.

    Saying “who knows?” is just denialism, plain and simple. If you think there’s another mechanism, the burden is in fact on you to show a model where that forcing, whatever it is, affects the climate in a way that agrees with observations.

  79. #79 syteman
    May 14, 2010

    Here’s an article that basically concludes that even in the absence of anthropogenic forcing, we’re still going to have global warming until the year 2400.
    Late Holocene 1500 yr climatic periodicities and their implications

    Here’s an article from the National Academy of Sciense which states that periodic tidal forces may cause rapid climate change.
    The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change

    And here’s an article in GeoJournal which basically says the science used in “An Inconvenient Truth” is essentially false and the conclusions are used to paint “… a picture of near scientific certainty with an overwhelming bias toward catastrophe scenarios”
    An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle
    No, no fear-mongering there.

    That should partially satisfy the people above who requested peer-reviewed literature and evidence of fear-mongering.

    I’ve got a life outside of this comment list – I’ve had my say, it’s Friday, and as a shepherd would say, I’m getting the flock out of here.

  80. #80 Epikt
    May 14, 2010

    syteman:

    Here’s an article from the National Academy of Sciense which states that periodic tidal forces may cause rapid climate change.
    The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change

    Nice. You’re skeptical that the temperature is rising, so you link to a paper that says that some of the observed temperature rise may be due to an 1800 year natural cycle. And you’re skeptical that humans are the cause of any of it, so you link to a paper that warns that the effects of any human-caused warming will be in addition to the natural warming they discuss.

  81. #81 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    May 14, 2010

    I think people use and abuse science for their own personal, financial, or political agendas.

    Thank you, for reminding us that Scientists get allt he money, hookers and blow while the oil and coal companies are impoverished, and their CEOs are only upper middle class, at best.

    You do realize that the real funding, prestige, and the like comes from a successful challenge to the consensus, right? Darwin isn’t famous because he successfully reinforced Lamarkism or biblical creationism. He’s famous because he successfully challenged the consensus with his data.

    That should partially satisfy the people above who requested peer-reviewed literature and evidence of fear-mongering.

    You misinterpreted the request. THe request was “Tell us a peer reviewed journal that has been fear mongering.”

  82. #82 Neil
    May 14, 2010

    In response to Al B. Stupid @#2:

    I probably shouldn’t bother, but what the hell…

    I’m calling Layman’s Bullshit on Al. B Quirky…he’s trolling. Even a full-on denialist with head firmly planted in ass can’t be that fucking stupid.

    Trolly trolly trolling. I used to think he was possibly a complete and utter fucking moron, but no…I’m going with troll.

    There is no possible way that anybody stupid enough to believe his comments could type coherently. If he’s not just some asshole trolling just for fun, then the only other option I can see is that he has some political objection to climate science, or institutional science in general, actually believes that he has a chance of deceiving other non-scientists who read this blog, and is either greatly overestimating his persuasiveness or greatly underestimating the intelligence of the average layperson science buff. Trolling for fun or trolling for politics, but still a troll.

    For the record, I am certainly no scientist. My last science education was high school biology and a year of astronomy in college. I never even got around to taking trigonometry as recommended, but was able to pick up what I needed for the astronomy course. I’ve never taken a statistics course in my life.

    (I know that this next point has been made already in this thread by other, likely more qualified people, but this is mainly for Al B. Ashithead the Troll)

    Even from just the context provided by the video posted here and my very basic knowledge of climate science, I can tell what the presenter means by statistical significance. And I can grasp that 15 years is too short a time to identify a trend in climate change. I can therefore see immediately that looking at one set of data from a fifteen year period and not being able to identify a solid trend, and then looking at another set of data from the previous fifteen year period at not being able to identify a solid trend, is not the same fucking thing as looking at the whole thirty years of data together!

    That doesn’t require any knowledge of statistics or climate science at all. It doesn’t even require basic arithmetic. All it requires is enough intelligence and logic to realize that counting to fifteen twice is not the same thing as counting to thirty. I’m sure that any ten-year-old of average intelligence could understand that distinction fairly quickly. Hell, give me a week and I could probably teach my dog the goddamn difference.

    So I ask you, Al B. Quirky… WHAT’S THE FUCKING PROBLEM WITH YOUR BRAIN, YOU STUPID FUCKING ANNOYING PIECE OF SHIT TROLL?

    Al B. Quirky…your Troll-Fu is weak sauce, and if you really want attention that badly or are actually so stupid you expect people to take you seriously, you should probably go back to Fark, or the commments sections of local online newspapers, or some other cesspool of dumbshits like the one from which you were spawned.

    And don’t bother counting me as another fish hooked, you fucking imbecile, because I for one will never, ever respond to your bullshit again. This is all you get from me. Your stupid troll routine has been annoying me a bit lately but you are now out of my system completely, to be ignored like a dried up dog turd on the sidewalk.

  83. #83 Doug Little
    May 14, 2010

    And here’s an article in GeoJournal which basically says the science used in “An Inconvenient Truth” is essentially false and the conclusions are used to paint “… a picture of near scientific certainty with an overwhelming bias toward catastrophe scenarios”
    An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle

    This is one of a series of articles where climate change experts express their opinions on the scientific validity of the film?s claims.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414115107.htm

  84. #84 Andyo
    May 14, 2010

    Has anybody taken a good look on who is actually making more money out of this? The prominent climatologists and scientists, or the prominent denialists such as the guy at junkscience.com? Not that it matters much if the science is correct, but the “sientists are in on it for the one million dollars ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS” routine is getting pretty tiring.

  85. #85 a_ray_in_dilbert_space
    May 14, 2010

    Syteman, OK, we have extremely tenuous evidence for periodic warming !!! We have evidence that MAYBE a tidal cycle that is not operant now could cool ocean temperatures, and we have a MOVIE by a POLITICIAN that a denialist scientist didn’t like (and I note that the article has been cited by…oh dear, nobody).

    Dude, is this really the best you can do? Feeble, really, really feeble.

    I notice you haven’t really addressed any of the evidence at all. And here I sharpened my claws for nothing.

  86. #86 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 14, 2010

    I think people use and abuse science for their own personal, financial, or political agendas.

    I think this fully cynical and unevidenced statement is where Syteman’s head is. I won’t say where, but I get the feeling he needs a flashlight to see. Sniff. I almost get eau de liberturd. From the rebuttal posts above, a lot of noise but no real conclusive smoking gun evidence, and one where he shoots himself in the foot. Not coming across to well as an expert is he.

  87. #87 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    May 14, 2010

    I notice you haven’t really addressed any of the evidence at all. And here I sharpened my claws for nothing.

    At least they’re sniny.

  88. #88 'Tis Himself, OM
    May 14, 2010

    syteman #76

    I’m not the one proposing legislation that could potentially hurt our economy and put us at a competitive disadvantage to other countries who don’t see it like you do.

    The most economically important export of the US (and Canada) is agricultural products. Global warming will have major detrimental effects on North American agriculture, way more devastating than any proposed legislation will have.

    Sorry, looneytarian, but once again the real world comes in conflict with your economic fantasies. And guess what, the real world doesn’t care if your life style is affected or not.

  89. #89 Al B. Quirky
    May 14, 2010

    Well gee whiz, if ACC/GW is real & true, and it’s only them denialist right-wing creationists (and syteman) who say different, maybe all the lefty governments and 3rd-world countries should have a big conference and nut out a global agreement…oh wait, they already did; even BHO took some time off from appeasing Muslims and collecting his Nobel peace prize and drooped in to Copenhagen for a few hours. Epic Fail, but they did offset their carbon emissions by forking over taxpayers’ $ to an investment bank to help reduce the dirty emissions of Bangla-deshan brickmakers, even though we’re constantly told its the affluent Western nations that’s the major culprit, but that’s lefty politics for you. Things are looking up, heck we got a conservative PM in the UK.

  90. #90 Andyo
    May 14, 2010

    I’m trying to think of one of those “other countries” (presumably developed, or otherwise competitive ones) that don’t see global warming as a threat.

  91. #91 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 14, 2010

    Yawn, what a loser post by ABQ. Still nothing cogent. Still thinks he is a wit–NOT! Wasted effort for such an abject idjit. Maybe he can get a job as a guinea pig doing toxicity testing. We need good LD-50 data for humans…

  92. #92 'Tis Himself, OM
    May 14, 2010

    I’m glad Al B. Looneytarian admits his objections to global warming are purely political. It’s rare for a looneytarian to be so honest. Hell, it’s rare for a looneytarian to be honest about anything. Most of the time they just lie, like Al B. Looneytarian does about AGW science.

  93. #93 CJO
    May 14, 2010

    Shut up, QuirkyTroll. Nobody cares what you have to bleat about.

    I agree with whomever it was up there who vented on you for a moment. Toddle off back to whatever dunce’s corner of the internet you stumbled in from, and let the grownups talk.

  94. #94 Andyo
    May 14, 2010

    even BHO took some time off from appeasing Muslims

    It this eau de racist I’m smelling too? (h/t to Nerd @ #86)

  95. #95 Brownian, OM
    May 14, 2010

    @ Al B. Quirky:

    Tell us all how “not statistically significant” equals zero again.

    I’m trying to write up a grant for an ethnological study into the primitive math of fuckheads like yourself.

    Tell us: do you have words for numbers up to three, or do you just view the world in terms of “one”, “two”, and “many”?

  96. #96 Al B. Quirky
    May 14, 2010

    Oh look! Science magazine got busted for publishing a photoshopped image (of a forlorn Poley Bear floating on a wafer-thin ice floe) to accompany a letter headed:

    Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

    snik..snigger…BWAAAAhahahahah! Irony overload! Sort of symbolic of how this debate is headed, really, though it doesn’t do much for the public perception of science and scientists in general, including my good self.

  97. #97 Ichthyic
    May 14, 2010

    maybe all the lefty governments and 3rd-world countries

    which ones would those be again?

    was the US a lefty 3rd world country when GW was prez?

    ’cause as stupid as he is, he even agreed AGW is a problem.

    so are you saying you’re dumber than W?

    wow.

  98. #98 Ichthyic
    May 14, 2010

    Things are looking up, heck we got a conservative PM in the UK.

    looking at what those calling themselves conservatives have done to both the UK and the US over the last 30 years, “looking up” is either wishful thinking or complete denial.

    probably the latter in your case.

  99. #99 CJO
    May 14, 2010

    Magazine production department Photoshops image! Climate Change Proved False!

    Jebus, but this one’s a moron.

  100. #100 Ichthyic
    May 14, 2010

    Irony overload!

    project much, dimbulb?

  101. #101 Brownian, OM
    May 14, 2010

    “Subject unable or unwilling to respond to numerical queries. Changed conversation to focus on U. maritimus specimen (possible food source or threat?) Clearly, conversation about abstract concepts beyond issues of survival impossible. Further research required.”

    Good enough. Thanks, pal!

  102. #102 Andyo
    May 14, 2010
    #96

    Posted by:
    Al B. Quirky Author Profile Page |
    May 14, 2010 6:19 PM

    Oh look! Science magazine got busted for publishing a photoshopped image (of a forlorn Poley Bear floating on a wafer-thin ice floe) to accompany a letter headed:

    Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

    snik..snigger…BWAAAAhahahahah! Irony overload! Sort of symbolic of how this debate is headed, really, though it doesn’t do much for the public perception of science and scientists in general, including my good self.

    Just to tip people who won’t bother to click on your link. Here’s the original image. How is that any different? The “photoshopped” photo was from a stock photo site and was put there by mistake. It was not photoshopped by scientists like you imply.

    Science Mag was not “busted”. They corrected their own editorial mistake.

    You really are a dishonest jackass. No one can be that dumbfuckingtastic.

  103. #103 Andyo
    May 14, 2010

    By the way, Al B., you’re right in that your post was symbolic of how this “debate” is headed. Some dishonest lying scumbag posts a link that he says debunks something, hoping that people won’t bother to read. Hey, déjà vu!

  104. #104 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 14, 2010

    Jebus, but this one’s a moron.

    Don’t compliment him. He might think he is adequate.

    You really are a dishonest jackass. No one can be that dumbfuckingtastic.

    QFT.

  105. #105 Teddydeedodu
    May 14, 2010

    ABQ @ 89
    “Things are looking up, heck we got a conservative PM in the UK.”

    Yeah, after more than a decade of fuckups by Blair (most importantly the support for the Iraq war), the Tories still couldnt get a majority on their own. They had to snuggle in bed with the leftist LDP to form a government.

    Bloody right alright…things are looking up indeed for the conservatives. Up the shitters, that is!

  106. #106 AnthonyK
    May 14, 2010

    including my good self.

    Can we see that one? It’s called “Show and tell”, remember?

    I’ll leave turd-for-thought to you guys.
    But I loved the video, and his take-down of Lord Monckton even better.

  107. #107 a_ray_in_dilbert_space
    May 14, 2010

    Al B. Dumber-Than-Owlshit,

    You know, on the off chance that you might actually want to talk about actual, oh, say EVIDENCE, maybe you want to work on your writing skills first. Try simple sentences: subject, verb, object. ‘Cause what you are writing at present has zero information content. Carry on, though. I love that the denialists are represented by folks as stupid as you.

  108. #108 Epikt
    May 14, 2010

    Al B. Quirky:

    Oh look! Science magazine got busted for publishing a photoshopped image (of a forlorn Poley Bear floating on a wafer-thin ice floe) to accompany a letter headed:

    The accompanying letter contains the following:

    “We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular.”

    “There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.”

    “Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.”

    “Much more can be, and has been, said by the world’s scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices.”

    “We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.”

    The letter is signed by over 250 members of the National Academy of Sciences.

    So, Genius Al, how do you address these? Oh. Right. Complain about the accompanying picture. Well, congratulations. I can’t think of a better way to demonstrate that you have no coherent counter-argument.

  109. #109 Jadehawk, OM
    May 14, 2010

    I’m calling Layman’s Bullshit on Al. B Quirky…he’s trolling. Even a full-on denialist with head firmly planted in ass can’t be that fucking stupid. no, he really is that stupid. he thinks “no statistically significant amount” means “none”, so he is actually thinking that the two 15 year periods don’t show any rise in temperatures, and that therefore putting them together also shouldn’t show any, because 0+0=0. When in reality, both 15 year periods do show warming, but it’s not sufficiently certain that it’s not a fluke, but adding the two 15 year periods and their warming into a 30 year period does make it sufficiently certain that it isn’t a fluke.

  110. #110 Jadehawk, OM
    May 14, 2010

    fucking blockquote fail.

    I’m calling Layman’s Bullshit on Al. B Quirky…he’s trolling. Even a full-on denialist with head firmly planted in ass can’t be that fucking stupid.

    no, he really is that stupid. he thinks “no statistically significant amount” means “none”, so he is actually thinking that the two 15 year periods don’t show any rise in temperatures, and that therefore putting them together also shouldn’t show any, because 0+0=0. When in reality, both 15 year periods do show warming, but it’s not sufficiently certain that it’s not a fluke, but adding the two 15 year periods and their warming into a 30 year period does make it sufficiently certain that it isn’t a fluke.

  111. #111 John Morales
    May 14, 2010

    Bah. ABQ aspires to mere stupidity.

  112. #112 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 14, 2010

    Bah. ABQ aspires to mere stupidity.

    The question is, does he ever reach it???

  113. #113 syteman
    May 14, 2010

    Wow, such venom. I returned in the evening to find so much immature vitriol. The people who resorted to name-calling don’t even deserve a response. I find such people have lost the handle on knowledge and education of the subject and have to resort to emotional self-gratification.

    For those of you who did remain civil, I’ll tell you this: I found those articles with just a few minutes of searching.

    I don’t have a problem believing that the earth is warming – it probably is (though that data is not completely conclusive). What I have a problem with is the GW alarmists who think the whole thing is caused by us and that making drastic changes to the way we live will somehow impact the trend.

    The articles that I pointed to (which some erroneously perceived as my stepping on my own foot) showed that even though the earth may be warming, the cause is not clear.

    Y’all jumped on me and attacked me (with extreme immaturity, I might add) because you thought I was denying GW. Not at all – what I do question is our impact on it.

    For one, scientists gloss over the effect of water vapor and its variability, and yet they almost unanimously agree that water vapor has (BY FAR) the largest impact on global warming. In fact, without it the planet would be about 70 to 90 degrees colder than it is today. Yet, the effect of water vapor takes almost no role in the conversation, except when scientists talk about positive feedback mechanisms.

    And of the carbon dioxide that does go into our atmosphere (of which humans contribute about 4%), scientists still don’t understand where it all comes from or where it goes, and what ultimately governs its concentration.
    NASA news release from January 13, 2009

    @#88

    Global warming will have major detrimental effects on North American agriculture, way more devastating than any proposed legislation will have.

    I sure would like to see the science on THAT statement. I’ve read the opposite, in fact – increased temperature will result in longer growing seasons. Maybe GW is what we need to solve the eventual food shortages which might occur due to overpopulation?

  114. #114 John Morales
    May 14, 2010

    syteman, start here.

  115. #115 Jadehawk, OM
    May 14, 2010

    For one, scientists gloss over the effect of water vapor and its variability, and yet they almost unanimously agree that water vapor has (BY FAR) the largest impact on global warming. In fact, without it the planet would be about 70 to 90 degrees colder than it is today. Yet, the effect of water vapor takes almost no role in the conversation, except when scientists talk about positive feedback mechanisms.

    oh, so what you’re saying is that you’re innumerate and don’t understand that the only reason water vapor is important in maintaining current temperatures is because there’s fucktons of it; because actually, the global warming effect of vapor is minuscule.

    OTOH, there’s all this C02 that is being released, it’s physical qualities as a strong greenhouse gas are well known, and it correlates with a (literally) unnaturally fast and otherwise unexplainable rise in average temperatures.

    For there not to be a warming caused by emission of fossil-fuels and accumulation of more CO2 in the atmosphere, you’d have to actually posit a counteracting phenomenon, since otherwise you’d be breaking the laws of physics.

  116. #116 John Scanlon FCD
    May 15, 2010

    sadistic #11,

    I’ve been sub’ed to this guy for quite some time

    Isn’t that a bit too much information to drop about greenman’s private life?

    Oh, did you mean subscribed?

  117. #117 TimKO,,.,,
    May 15, 2010

    Well, personally, the climate deniers in my circle of aquaintances are the xtians. Open and shut case, imo. Xtianity makes you fear facts and knowledge. The bright light of reason is just too scawy!

  118. #118 Knockgoats
    May 15, 2010

    For one, scientists gloss over the effect of water vapor and its variability – syteman

    The kind of barefaced lie typical of AGW denialists. On the contrary, water vapour is known to be the main positive feedback which multiplies the effects of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and this effect has been and is being intensively studied: the increased CO2 raises temperatures, and warmer air holds more water vapour.

    even though the earth may be warming, the cause is not clear.

    Another barefaced lie. There has been no significant change in mean solar output since 1950, while warming has been rapid. The pattern of warming (greater at the poles than the tropics, greater at night than during the day, troposphere warming while the stratosphere cools) points unequivocally to greenhouse gas concentration increases as the cause.

    I sure would like to see the science on THAT statement.

    You could start here, and with the references from it. Regional changes are harder to predict than global ones, but if you look at figure 3, you will see a severe drying is expected in the SW of the USA – some models also predict one in the SE. IIRC, the SW is already having problems with water availability, with irrigation needs and cities in competition. A second important effect of the increased water vapour in the atmosphere will be both more drought, and more downpours and floods: the atmosphere can hold more water, so it will rain less often, but when it does, it will pour. If you’ve ever been in a tropical rainstorm, you will know what it’s like. A downpour at the wrong time will ruin crops, soil gets washed away or leached of essential elements. Most of all, you reveal your complete ignorance of farming: farmers need, above all, predictability in the weather: when a complex system is subject to a novel forcing, that is the first thing to go. Moreover, farmers need time to learn how to cope with new conditions, how best to grow and harvest new crops.

    And of the carbon dioxide that does go into our atmosphere (of which humans contribute about 4%), scientists still don’t understand where it all comes from or where it goes, and what ultimately governs its concentration.

    You are repeating the most absurd denialist idiocies as if we might not have heard them before. There is constant exchange between atmospheric and oceanic CO2 – most of the CO2 entering the atmosphere comes from the ocean, but a very similar amount returns there. We know, from its isotopic composition, exactly what the contribution of fossil fuel burning is to the rise in CO2 concentrations: effectively all of it. We can even see the stuff – the concentration is greater over cities and industrial areas.

    The last sentence I’ve quoted from you implicitly makes exactly one of the creationists’ favourite claims: that because we don’t know everything, therefore we don’t know anything. The overwhelming consensus of the relevant scientific experts is that AGW is real, and an urgent problem. If you could just take your head out of your arse for a few minutes and take note of that, you would be doing yourself a favour.

    I’ve read the opposite, in fact – increased temperature will result in longer growing seasons. Maybe GW is what we need to solve the eventual food shortages which might occur due to overpopulation?

    Do you think this issue has not been studied? Yes, there will be such an effect at high latitudes, where growing season is a constraint, up to a rise of about 2 degrees C. In lower latitudes, however, yields will fall even with a considerably smaller rise, and above 2 degrees – which we are already almost certain to exceed – the balance is overwhelmingly negative. I work in a rural land use institute, and the experts I know and have heard giving seminars are unanimous in their view that AGW is a severe threat to agricultural production. Oh, but I suppose they are all part of the great librul-socialist-commie-green conspiracy. Yes, that must be it – scientists who have devoted their lives to understanding agricultural systems and increasing food production, really all they’ve been after is installing Al Gore as world dictator so they can get bigger grants.

    Grow up. Like all denialists talking to an audience that includes knowledgeable people, you are simply displaying your crass ignorance and shameless dishonesty here.

    Things are looking up, heck we got a conservative PM in the UK. – Al B. Fuckwit

    For all my dislike of Cameron, he is in no doubt whatever of the reality of AGW; unpleasant as they are, most conservatives in the UK aren’t quite as stupid as the US variety, fortunately.

  119. #119 Jadehawk, OM
    May 15, 2010

    I sure would like to see the science on THAT statement. I’ve read the opposite, in fact – increased temperature will result in longer growing seasons. Maybe GW is what we need to solve the eventual food shortages which might occur due to overpopulation?

    crap, I totally missed that one. 10 minutes in a ND bar would teach you how fucking wrong you are.

    1)The biggest enemy of the farmer is unpredictable weather. This is already a problem in this state; climate change will make this worse.

    2)Spring floods and summer droughts are another enemy of the farmer; these too are likely to increase

    3)there will be no such thing as a “longer growing season”; rather, the range of a lot of crops will shift northward, away from fertile soil onto the Canadian shield, which has virtually no soil (that’s all in the U.S., dragged there by the glaciers.)

  120. #120 a_ray_in_dilbert_space
    May 15, 2010

    Syteman says: “I found those articles with just a few minutes of searching.”

    Well, that’s nice, but they don’t support your case.

    Syteman: “I don’t have a problem believing that the earth is warming – it probably is (though that data is not completely conclusive).”

    Really? We have 4 separate global temperature products–two terrestrial, two satellite–ALL of which show over 3 decades of warming with a trend of about 0.2 degrees per decade. What, pray, is inconclusive about that? We lost 2 trillion tons of ice in 5 years. What is inconclusive about that? And there is a long trend of first frost coming later and last frost coming earlier.

    Syteman: ” you thought I was denying GW. Not at all – what I do question is our impact on it.”

    I can only assume that you are not familiar with the evidence. Are you having trouble with the attribution of the CO2 to human activity? The evidence there is incontrovertible–isotopic signatures in the carbon.

    Perhaps your difficulty is with the mechanism of the warming. The problem is that it’s not just tropospheric warming but stratospheric cooling at the same time. That is diagnostic of a greenhouse mechanism with a well mixed, long-lived greenhouse gas as the culprit. Do you have an alternative explanation? There are other factors as well–polar amplification, etc. that also indicate a greenhouse mechanism.

    Scientists ignoring water vapor? Bullshit. This is simply, utterly ignorant. All you’ve done is throw up some vague accusation you’ve heard or read on your favorit denialist website. If you provide specifics, I will correct your misinformation.

    Syteman: “Maybe GW is what we need to solve the eventual food shortages which might occur due to overpopulation?”

    Oh, because we all know there are never any food shortages in tropical countried… Jesus, this is ignorant. I presume you’ve never grown crops or traveled in a tropical country. You make the common mistake of confusing fetid with fertile. Again, you rely on denialist disinformation rather than peer-reviewed literature.

    The temperate regions are the breadbaskets of the world. They will become hotter and drier. Rainfall will become more sporadic and extreme–deluges that cause floods, washing away topsoil while leaving aquifers uncharged. Pests will not be killed off by winter frosts. Weeds will expand northward. Moreover, we won’t be able to grow winter wheat south of about 50 degrees, and many rice crops will also fail. The IPCC summarizes all of these risks. Oh, but wait that’s a UN body…ooga booga.

    Syteman, everything you thought you knew about climate is wrong. You can either accept that and go to try and learn the actual science, or you can remain an ignorant fool. Exxon-Mobil and Massey Energy (you remember, they’re the ones who kill coal miners?) have a very strong interest in keeping you ignorant. If you want to actually learn, you will have to work at it. I’d be happy to direct you to resources with actual scientific bona fides.

    Shouldn’t it tell you something that there is not one professional or honorific organization of scientists that supports your position?

  121. #121 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 15, 2010

    For one, scientists gloss over the effect of water vapor and its variability,

    Nope, scientists aren’t that stupid. You are if you think they don’t.

    the cause is not clear.

    Only in the minds of deniers. Not knowledgeable scientists.

    scientists still don’t understand where it all comes from or where it goes, and what ultimately governs its concentration.

    Utter and total lie. There goes your credibility, not that you had much after your previous posts. Scientists are far, far smarter than you, and they know what can affect their observations and calculations. Any non-scientist who thinks they know more than the scientists in the field is an utter fool. If the shoe fits, wear it.

  122. #122 Al B. Quirky
    May 15, 2010

    syteman, they’re just going a bit ratty cos they know they’ve lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Politicians on both sides know AGW is a vote-loser, that only a minority believe in it, or that if it is real & true that its so bad we need to take action, or that it is even possible to stop CC.

  123. #123 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 15, 2010

    they’re just going a bit ratty cos they know they’ve lost the argument

    Boy, a bigger load of shit than normal ABQ. The science is solid. Just like your stoopidity, bravado, and total inability to use evidence correctly. Nothing but loser all over your post.

  124. #124 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    May 15, 2010

    syteman, they’re just going a bit ratty cos they know they’ve lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Politicians on both sides know AGW is a vote-loser, that only a minority believe in it, or that if it is real & true that its so bad we need to take action, or that it is even possible to stop CC.

    Yep and we all know science is settled by a vote on popularity.

  125. #125 'Tis Himself, OM
    May 15, 2010

    Politicians on both sides know AGW is a vote-loser, that only a minority believe in it, or that if it is real & true that its so bad we need to take action, or that it is even possible to stop CC.

    There we have it, ladies and non-ladies, proof positive that AGW is a myth. Al B. Looneytarian has spoken!

  126. #126 a_ray_in_dilbert_space
    May 15, 2010

    Al B. Deluded, let me introduce you to a concept:

    REALITY–that which does not go away when you (or the voters or the politicians) stop believing in it.

    There, I’ll leave you two to get acquainted. You have a lot to catch up on.

  127. #127 Al B. Quirky
    May 15, 2010

    Gee whizz, fellers, you sure know how to hurt a guy. I can see there’s only one way to resolve this: we do nothing, then wait and see if your Warming Gods cause the seas to rise, and all the other plagues & pestilence promised by the prophets of doom & gloom come to be, then you can wave an angry fist against the red sky, and cry ‘I told you so!’ But its gotta happen in a certain time-frame, say 30 years?

  128. #128 nelc
    May 15, 2010

    Well, that was an easy win, ABQ.

    The seas are already rising, you dolt.

  129. #129 a_ray_in_dilbert_space
    May 15, 2010

    Al B. Asshat,
    Your disagreement is not with us. It is with reality. You can try to make deals with it if you like. Be sure and tell us how that works out.

    Got kids, Al. I’m sure they’ll tell you how things worked out–as they die cursing you with their final breath.

  130. #130 AGWSkeptic
    May 15, 2010

    Maybe he could do a video on how to use a nature trick to hide a decline.

  131. #131 Jadehawk, OM
    May 15, 2010

    Maybe he could do a video on how to use a nature trick to hide a decline.

    oh noes!!! we’ve never heard that one before, and will now shrivel away from this powerful argument!!!!one!!1!

    seriously, do you even know what the words in your own sentence mean? the “decline” in question was not a decline in temperature, but a decline in correlation between temperature and one specific set of proxies. So, the “trick” is to stop using the proxies and replace them with actual temperature measurements, measured with actual thermometers. So what you get is actually closer to real temperatures, since you no longer deal with proxies.

    Total argument fail there, pseudo-skeptic.

  132. #132 AGWSkeptic
    May 15, 2010

    the “trick” is to stop using the proxies and replace them with actual temperature measurements, measured with actual thermometers pretend there has been statistically significant warming when no such thing has been happening for the past 15 years

    All fixed.

  133. #133 Jadehawk, OM
    May 15, 2010

    All fixed.

    so you’re just going to ignore the correct explanation, and insert a falsehood that fits with your personal preferences?

    pseudo-skeptic and liar.

  134. #134 Jadehawk, OM
    May 15, 2010

    crap, hit post too soon.

    was gonna add: the “decline” was not for the last 15 years, but for the timeframe since the 60’s, so you’re just pasting two completely unrelated issues together.

    Also, as I said to Al B. Moron, “no statistically significant warming” doesn’t mean “no warming”; and since we’re not talking about a 15-year-period here, the warming is in fact statistically significant.

    Innumerate pseudo-skeptic and liar.

  135. #135 AGWSkeptic
    May 15, 2010

    so you’re just going to ignore the correct explanation

    What explanation? The one you fabricated out of whole cloth?

    pseudo-skeptic and liar….Al B. Moron…Innumerate pseudo-skeptic and liar.

    REpetitive name-calling, and not even very original at that. Color me unimpressed.

    “no statistically significant warming” doesn’t mean “no warming”

    It doesn’t mean the end of the world as we know it, as you alarmists seem to think, either.

  136. #136 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 15, 2010

    we’re not talking about a 15-year-period here, the warming is in fact statistically significant.

    Well, the 15 years per se might be statistically significant, but since calling it climate requires at least thirty years, which there is no statistical question about the trend, there are some true liars and bullshitters posting here. And it ain’t the scienitists, but the deniers…

  137. #137 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 15, 2010

    It doesn’t mean the end of the world as we know it, as you alarmists seem to think, either.

    Ok, expect to grow your vegetables in Tennesee fifty years from now, or die trying…

  138. #138 John Morales
    May 15, 2010

    AGWSkeptic, you consider people who don’t deny established science “alarmists”, whilst those who do are “skeptics”?

    Feeble framing, that.

  139. #139 Jadehawk, OM
    May 15, 2010

    What explanation? The one you fabricated out of whole cloth?

    your willful ignorance and unwillingness is duly noted. The quote you didn’t even bother mentioning in fact already mentions this:
    ?I?ve just completed Mike?s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith?s to hide the decline.?

    The “decline” AKA divergence problem, is dealt with here, which makes it pretty clear you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

    REpetitive name-calling, and not even very original at that. Color me unimpressed.

    I’m not name-calling, I’m stating observations.

    It doesn’t mean the end of the world as we know it, as you alarmists seem to think, either.

    and this non-sequitur is relevant to the fact that you’re wrong, how?

  140. #140 AGWSkeptic
    May 15, 2010

    AGWSkeptic, you consider people who don’t deny established science “alarmists”, whilst those who do are “skeptics”?

    What “established science”? You certainly can’t mean AGW, since nothing about it has been “established”, other that the fact that it hasn’t happened since 1995.

    which makes it pretty clear you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

    And to prove this, you reference a well-known alarmist propaganda factory, “Real”Climate, oblivious to the irony!

    I’m not name-calling, I’m stating observations making it up as I go along.

    Riiiiight. I guess it depends on the meaning of the word “is”, doesn’t it Jadehawk?

    and this non-sequitur is relevant to the fact that you’re wrong, how?

    Another alarmist who doesn’t know the meaning of non-sequitur. Color me unsurprised. And exactly what “fact” am I wrong about?

    [crickets]

    That’s what I thought.

  141. #141 Kel, OM
    May 15, 2010

    What I wonder is why climate change “skeptics” haven’t yet used Thomas Kuhn’s idea of paradigm shifts and are working towards creating climate models that use causal mechanisms other than Human-induced in order to map the data now. Nothing would say “climate change is not human caused” more than showing a causal mechanism that has the explanatory power equal or greater than that of models including human involvement. Without that, it’s essentially taking the same tact as creationists use against evolution. It’s trying to dismiss the scientists as dogmatic or biased or acting in a conspiracy instead of demonstrating the superiority of models without human involvement.

  142. #142 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 15, 2010

    What “established science”? You certainly can’t mean AGW, since nothing about it has been “established”,

    What a liar and bullshitter. What next? The Cubs will win the World Series last year?

    And exactly what “fact” am I wrong about?

    Everything you haven’t supplied a citation to the peer reviewed scientific literature reference to. Which seems to be everything you have said. Just like the loser you are…

  143. #143 Jadehawk, OM
    May 15, 2010

    And to prove this, you reference a well-known alarmist propaganda factory, “Real”Climate, oblivious to the irony!

    you’re welcome to show me the papers that show that the paper linked in that article is incorrect.

    And exactly what “fact” am I wrong about?

    your confusion of the difference between “no warming” and “no statistically significant warming”

    and yes, the strawman about doomsdays and whatnot is indeed a non-sequitur. what does it have to do with you dishonestly pasting two separate issues together, as if they were talking about the same thing? it was a randomly threwn in piece of non-information, not even worthy of being a proper red herring.

  144. #144 Kel, OM
    May 15, 2010

    So if you think that humans are having some effect on the changing climate, it makes you an alarmist? Surely it’s only being alarmist if the concern is going beyond where the science lies. And no doubt there are some who do that, but that’s not the issue here. The issue is whether humanity through our actions are contributing to climate change, and right now that’s where the science points to.

  145. #145 John Morales
    May 15, 2010

    AGWDenialist: Statements by dissenting organizations

    With the release of the revised statement[88] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[2][89]

    Care to show otherwise? If not, then it’s established science.

  146. #146 Al B. Quirky
    May 15, 2010

    @128
    If that’s so, why did warming preacher Al Gore recently purchase a sea-side property, does he not believe?

  147. #147 Epikt
    May 15, 2010

    AGWSkeptic:

    What “established science”? You certainly can’t mean AGW, since nothing about it has been “established”, other that the fact that it hasn’t happened since 1995.

    Here is a graph of recent NASA GISS temperature data. Are you going to tell me, with a straight face, that there has been no increase since 1995? Are you going to tell me that the very large stack of peer-reviewed papers that falsify your claim are all the products of conspiracies, cabals and mendacity from nefarious libbruls?

    And to prove this, you reference a well-known alarmist propaganda factory, “Real”Climate, oblivious to the irony!

    Can you point to anything of significance where Real Climate differs significantly from the consensus in the peer-reivewed literature?

    And exactly what “fact” am I wrong about?

    Where to start… The graph I linked to above shows that your primary claim–no warming since 1995–is patent bullshit.

  148. #148 Jadehawk, OM
    May 15, 2010

    who the fuck cares what Al Gore does? Al Gore is not a scientist, he’s a politician.

  149. #149 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 15, 2010

    If that’s so, why did warming preacher Al Gore recently purchase a sea-side property, does he not believe?

    Maybe, he, like me, will be dead before the real shit hits the fan. Unlike for you, which your loser stoopidity hits the fan every post and throws bad smells back your way.

  150. #150 a_ray_in_dilbert_space
    May 15, 2010

    1896–Anthropogenic global warming predicted by Svante Arrhenius.

    1978-2010–32 years of sustained warming with average trend of 0.2 degrees C per decade. Warming of the troposphere is accompanied by simultaneous cooling of the stratosphere–a diagnostic of a greenhouse mechanism.

    The concern: Warming will adversely affect agriculture by making rains unpredictable, with long droughts punctuated by violent storms–at the same time as human populations increase to 9-10 billion.

    Sorry, Al B. Dumber-than_owlshit and pseudo-Skeptic, but the evidence is not on your side.

  151. #151 Epikt
    May 15, 2010

    Jadehawk, OM

    who the fuck cares what Al Gore does? Al Gore is not a scientist, he’s a politician.

    The denialists care very much about him, because he’s the basis of their core argument: I hate Al Gore, therefore global warming is a myth. QED.

  152. #152 a_ray_in_dilbert_space
    May 15, 2010

    Al B. Stupid,
    What makes trolls like you so worthless is that you refuse to even mention any evidence or acknowledge any supplied to you.

    I suspect it is because you are too ignorant to know what scientific evidence is, to lazy to look it up, to stupid to recognize it and too clueless to realize why it matters.

  153. #153 syteman
    May 16, 2010

    You know, it surprises me to find a bunch of people here who try to appear intelligent, yet can’t understand any concept that doesn’t align with your view. I’ve made points which many of you have completely failed to understand, and no doubt will continue to do so. The only thing I can attribute this to is a distortion of your perception caused by hatred – hatred of anyone or anything that can be antagonistic to the GW religion.

    The simple fact is that John Morales made a simple 3-word statement in #114 that encapsulated the points I was making and gave intelligent discourse and reasoning about the points. The videos (I watched the entire series) made good points, gave me some new insights, and got me thinking and doing more research. I still don’t think enough information was given about the effects of water vapor – the whole positive feedback / negative feedback argument was again glossed over a bit. But it’s given me more to chew on. With 3 simple words (and a hyperlink), John Morales made a better argument than the lot of you.

    You wonder why you encounter so many closed minds in your discussions and arguments on forums? Perhaps it’s because it’s YOUR mind that’s closed. It’s hard to perceive an open mind with a closed one. And you will NEVER open a closed mind with vitriol, hatred, and personal attacks. Hopefully, that will give YOU something to chew on.

  154. #154 Zetetic
    May 16, 2010

    @ Al B:
    If you bothered to do any research on Gore’s home you’d find that it’s in the hills near the sea, not directly on the seaside.

    Next lie please…

    —————————————————————————————————

    @ syteman:
    Complaining about the tone others use in response to long discredited (yet still constantly repeated) arguments does nothing to advance your position. The reason for the vitriol directed at you and Al is because you two have been repeating the same old discredited arguments even after they’ve been explained to you before while ignoring many of the counter arguments/evidence.

    I’ve made points which many of you have completely failed to understand, and no doubt will continue to do so.

    Actually they did respond to and refute your arguments (repeatedly over several posts), that you refuse to comprehend/acknowledge that is not their fault. Additionally they have made several points that completely undermine and refute your position, but it’s you that hasn’t been addressing their arguments and evidence.

    There’s a term for what you’re doing…”projection”.

    For what it’s worth…
    A while back I didn’t accept the AGW position either, but the accumulation of evidence and clear scientific consensus became overwhelming. That’s the difference between a true skeptic and a denier.

    I can understand the desire to not want to accept the situation (I really do, I HATE the implications of AGW), but denial doesn’t change the reality of the situation. Just dismissing the peer reviewed (and often cited) evidence because it come from a source that accepts AGW isn’t rational. Ignoring data like Stratospheric cooling accompanied by Tropospheric warming (all during a time when solar output was diminished) just isn’t rational.

    One of the things that pushed me toward re-examining my position against accepting AGW was how the arguments on the anti-AGW side began sounding more and more like the exact same rhetoric and logic as that employed by creationists, anti-vaxers, and so on. I found that troubling and so I began to more fully examine the evidence.

    Reading the comments of yourself, and Al, they’re almost indistinguishable from creationist rhetoric. You (syteman) at least attempt to make arguments, but ignore what contradicts your position. While Al just throws out one lie and inflammatory statement after another. Neither of you has made an admission of being wrong on any of the several points you’ve been corrected on, and you attempt to ignore that which you can’t respond to.

    Just like creationists.

    Another example, Al B’s misrepresentation of Phil Jones’ work (even when it was already pointed out as a misrepresentation) is just like how creationists still misquote and misrepresent the words of Darwin (about the eye for example) and Gould (about transitional fossils), even though they know it’s a lie. Was there any admission of being wrong even though the page Al linked to refutes Al’s own position?
    Nope. It’s classic creationist behavior.

    Now we have AGW deniers hacking email systems looking for something to quote-mine rather than providing credible peer-reviewed counter data. Doesn’t that bother you even just a little bit syteman? If you really care about intellectual integrity and honesty, it should.

    So no syteman…. it’s not the AGW science backers that have been closed minded here, it’s you.
    Chew on that.

  155. #155 Kel, OM
    May 16, 2010

    Perhaps it’s because it’s YOUR mind that’s closed.

    Perhaps it is. I worry about this, perhaps climate change is one area where I’m barking up the wrong tree. The fact of the matter is that I’m not a climate scientist, I’ve had no formal training in climatology, so I really can’t do anything other than trust climatologists in the same way I trust cosmologists when it comes to big bang theory or nuclear physicists when it comes to nuclear power.

    I put my trust in the scientific method, and I feel that my way of having an open mind on this issue is that if the climate scientists move away from the notion that humanity is affecting the climate, then I won’t hold the belief any longer. And I think as a sceptic this is the best I can do. Otherwise I’m pushing my own personal beliefs in an area where I have a lack of expertise, and that is a red flag more than anything. If I’m going against the consensus opinion in an area I’m not an expert, I better have a damn good reason for doing so.

  156. #156 MetzO'Magic
    May 16, 2010

    syteman, did you even bother to watch the video at the top of this page? In it, it becomes clear that 1995 was chosen as the starting year because, in Motl’s own words:

    Link to Motl’s blog

    So why 1995 was chosen as the beginning? Yes, it’s not only because “15 years” sounds nicer than “16 years”. It was chosen because it’s the maximum recent period in which no statistically significant global warming may be seen, even with the most modest definition of “statistical significance”. For “16 years”, the answer would already be messy: it would depend how you exactly define statistical significance.

    The conclusion about a “trend” since 1994 would still fail to be “robust”, because a change of 1994 to 1995 would destroy it, but some people could already argue that the trend was there. For 1995, it’s indisputable that the trend is statistically insignificant.

    So was it cherry-picking when we chose 1995? Of course that in some sense, it was. The goal was to find the maximum period of time for which even the 95% statistical significance test fails. For the UAH data, the answer turns out to be 15 years. For periods longer than 15 years, we can see some glimpses of statistically significant trends. We can show that the white noise doesn’t explain the data well if the intervals are longer than 15 years.

    They (the ‘skeptics’ who got to frame some of the questions asked by the BBC in the Phil Jones interview) chose 1995 as the starting year *precisely for the reason that* if you pick any year previous to 1995 as the starting point, then a warming trend is present and significant to the 95% confidence level.

    So… they are admitting to being *completely disingenuous*, and yet you pseudo skeptics still unquestionably buy into it! If you can’t even recognise blatant deception like this, than how can we expect you to read the scientific literature for comprehension, even stuff that is written for laypeople by scientists? No. Instead you only hang out at the denialist sites and suck up all their bullshit.

  157. #157 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 16, 2010

    yet can’t understand any concept that doesn’t align with your view.

    What a lie. We look at the overall evidence, including you evidence you ignore. That makes you the loser, and the non-authority.

    I’ve made points

    Arrogance on your part. Solid scientific points you have made, zero. Welcome to real science.

    I still don’t think enough information was given about the effects of water vapor

    That has been in the climate models since the ’90’s. Do try to keep up. And reading the peer reviewed scientific literature, versus anti-AGW propergander would help you.

    Perhaps it’s because it’s YOUR mind that’s closed.

    Nope, our minds are open, as they must be. But new ideas must have evidence. Good hard solid evidence, and you obviously don’t understand what is and isn’t evidence. Inane questions isn’t evidence. They’re just inane questions.

    And you will NEVER open a closed mind with vitriol, hatred, and personal attacks.

    And you won’t “open” ours without the proper evidence, presented with the proper rigor from the peer reviewed scientific literature, that actually is relevant, versus seeming to be relevant. Idjits like you don’t know the difference. We scientist do.

    Oh, and quit trying to pretend to be an authority on the subject. You aren’t, and that is obvious to even a most casual observer. You just make yourself look stoopid by trying. Your tone complaints means you know you lost the intellectual argument, but can’t shut the fuck up since you lack integrity to do so. Only losers use the tone argument.

  158. #158 Al B. Quirky
    May 16, 2010

    Kel’s a skeptic (clap-clap, clap clap)
    Kel’s a skeptic (clap-clap, clap clap)
    Kel’s a skeptic (clap-clap, clap clap)

  159. #159 John Morales
    May 16, 2010

    ABQ’s regression towards infantilism proceeds apace, I see.

  160. #160 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 16, 2010

    I feel that my way of having an open mind on this issue is that if the climate scientists move away from the notion that humanity is affecting the climate, then I won’t hold the belief any longer.

    That doesn’t sound like an AGW denialist to me. Just someone respecting the real scientific experts and their conclusions. And makes ABQ more of a fuckwit than ever for his inane and delusional attempt to make Kel into a loser denialist like he is.

    ABQ’s regression towards infantilism proceeds apace, I see.

    Can’t argue that point, except that maybe he never progressed beyond infantilism.

  161. #161 MetzO'Magic
    May 16, 2010

    Kel’s a skeptic (clap-clap, clap clap)

    As alluded to earlier, these fuckwits can’t even comprehend what they read. Almost everything from them is a knee jerk reaction, prompted by their twisted ideology. Kel never said he was anti-AGW.

    What he in fact said was that if the scientific consensus went away from there being any GW caused by human activity, that he would follow the consensus because he’s not a climatologist himself, but he trusts the climatologists to do proper science.

  162. #162 a_ray_in_dilbert_space
    May 16, 2010

    Syteman, the problem is that the evidence does not support your “points”–nor do the articles you link to. We know there is natural variability in the system–the models reflect this. However, natural variability is extremely unlikely to give rise to a 30-year trend of rising temperatures.

    Perhaps it would serve to further the discussion if you specified what exactly you do not find credible in the evidence.

    1)What is it about 4 independent time series of temperature, plus 2 trillion tons of lost ice in 5 years, plus tons of phenological evidence that you find inconsistent with the existence of a 30 year warming trend?

    2)Do you dispute that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere? If so, how do you explain the downward trend of the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon 12–indicative of a fossil source of carbon?

    3)Do you dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

    4)If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, why should it magically stop being a greenhouse gas a 287 ppmv?

    5)Do you dispute the strong greenhouse signature of the warming mechanism? (e.g. simultaneous tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, polar amplification, more evident in spring, fall and winter than summer…)

    That will do to start. If you are serious about this, here is a chance to engage substantively. Or you can be a tone troll and whine about what meanies we are. Your choice.

  163. #163 a_ray_in_dilbert_space
    May 16, 2010

    Actually, Kel is a skeptic. He is going with the most credible approach and information available to him and trying to learn as he goes. I applaud that, and would happily help him out by answering any questions he has to the extent of my ability and knowledge.

    Al B. Assclown on the other hand is too stupid to even rise to the level of denialist. His latest post shows he’s not regressed to a preverbal state.

  164. #164 Knockgoats
    May 16, 2010

    The denialists care very much about him, because he’s the basis of their core argument: I hate Al Gore, therefore global warming is a myth. QED. – Epikt

    Now Epikt, that’s just unfair: deducing that GW is a myth from their own subjective feelings would be obviously invalid. The argument hey actually use is: Al Gore is fat and lives in a big house*, therefore global warming is a myth.

    *New variation, courtesy of Al B. Fuckwit: has bought a house near the sea.

  165. #165 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    May 16, 2010

    If that’s so, why did warming preacher Al Gore recently purchase a sea-side property, does he not believe?

    You’re an idiot.

    Argument ad “BUT AL GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE”

    Is the hallmark of dumbfucks

  166. #166 a_ray_in_dilbert_space
    May 16, 2010

    Ever notice that the quickest way to shut up a climate denialist is to offer to engage them based on the evidence?

    [crickets chirping...]

  167. #167 Kel, OM
    May 16, 2010

    Kel’s a skeptic (clap-clap, clap clap)

    Yep, I’m sceptical of those who claim contrary to the scientific consensus. Perhaps they may be right, but they have to show this scientifically. If there are theoretical models and causal mechanisms that show AGW-supporting climatologists are wrong, then these should be the focus of any sceptical attack.

    Instead they take the creationist approach of anomaly-hunting, taking the medieval warming period for example (a red herring) to argue against what’s happening now. They allege conspiracy (Yeah, Greenpeace is keeping climate scientists rolling in Ferraris), or that it’s the left-wing media pushing the idea. Or that it’s a cult of personality around Al Gore. Yep…

    But like I said, if the scientific consensus switches around then I’ll change my mind. What would it take for you to change your mind Mr Quirky? What about you syteman? To ask a question of both of you, what made you both doubt the scientific consensus in the first place? I’m going to wager that you’re both not climatologists, so I’m wondering why it is you feel you know better than them.

    I applaud that, and would happily help him out by answering any questions he has to the extent of my ability and knowledge.

    Thanks for that.

  168. #168 Ichthyic
    May 16, 2010

    Kel’s a skeptic (clap-clap, clap clap)

    …and Bingo was his name-o.

    oh wait, were we not singing elementary school songs?

  169. #169 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 16, 2010

    Yeah, Greenpeace is keeping climate scientists rolling in Ferraris

    Dang, my checks from Big Pharm, AGW, and Evilution keep being held up in the mail, and never arrive. Maybe that is why I drive a 16-year old Ford Probe to work. No classic car there. Just an old beater kept going by changing the oil and other fluids, and some adjustment to belt tensions. About time for a new timing belt. That should get me through to retirement in a few years…

  170. #170 Al B. Quirky
    May 16, 2010

    What would it take for you to change your mind Mr Quirky?

    See #127.

    I’m skeptical of madmen who say the seas will rise, or have already risen – where have we heard that before? The last time I went down the beach, I didn’t notice – maybe it was low tide?
    I’m skeptical of madmen like Climate Crusader Lewis Pugh, who believed the polar ice caps had melted, and set out in a kayak to paddle to the North Pole (to raise ‘awareness’ of GW) but fell short by 1000 km (too much ice, you see).
    I’m skeptical of Climate Scientists who encourage such loony behavior, thereby endangering peoples’ lives.
    I’m skeptical of failed politicians like Al Gore, who gets paid to fly around in planes so he can tell everyone else not to.
    I could go on, but suffice to say, nearly everyone understands the science behind the theory of AGW, but have noticed the variance between CC predictions, and observed phenomena. And it’s Green Believers like dilbert ray who need to re-associate themselves with reality.
    Science is not decided by a vote, so it’s meaningless to suggest ACC is real & true because a majority of scientists believe it, but it’s what we do about it (politics) that is the only meaningful point of the debate. I say we do nuffin’ (see #127).

  171. #171 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 16, 2010

    The last time I went down the beach, I didn’t notice – maybe it was low tide?

    Or it will take several years to notice. Fool and loser.

    Science is not decided by a vote,

    Correct, it’s decided by evidence, which you can’t provide any off, just idjit unevidenced allegations. Loser.

    I say we do nuffin’

    Proving ignorant loser status to the world. Just confirming your liar, loser, and bullshitter status ABQ. Nothing cogent said, just like always. LOSER.

  172. #172 syteman
    May 16, 2010

    Actually they did respond to and refute your arguments (repeatedly over several posts), that you refuse to comprehend/acknowledge that is not their fault.

    No, they responded to the perception that I was denying global warming. And that IS their fault – I’ve never denied that the earth is or will get warmer – it’s almost inevitable based on the preponderance of historical data going back thousands of years. My skepticism is based solely on the impact of man upon that warming.

    I am a scientist, although my areas of expertise are chemistry and computers, but meteorology is a hobby of mine. I know how uncertain climate models are. The models are only as good as the people who design them and constrained by the data that goes into them (or doesn’t go into them). The models vary widely in sensitivity, some ignore equilibrium effects, and none of the models are CERTAIN.

    And consensus opinions are nice to have, but are not the end-all be-all. After all, the consensus opinion at one time was that the earth was the center of the universe. We’ve since wised up and realized that it isn’t the earth; rather, it is Obama.

  173. #173 a_ray_in_dilbert_space
    May 16, 2010

    Good job, Al. You actually had a couple of comprehensible sentences in there.

    No science.

    No actual evidence.

    No clear logical reasoning

    But, hey, let’s celebrate the small victories.

    So, Al, Buddy, you claim “…nearly everyone understands the science behind the theory of AGW,…).

    Which of the following do you take issue with:

    1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    2) CO2 has increased by about 40%.

    3) Humans are responsible for the increase.

    4) An increase in greenhouse gasses will increase temperatures.

    5) Temperatures have increased by roughly 0.6 degrees in 30 years.

    6) The warming has the signature of a greenhouse gas (e.g. tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling…)

    And do tell what are some of the predictions of climate science that have proven wrong. I can’t think of any major ones. You?

    You also might want to find out what scientific consensus means. You are right that it isn’t a vote. However it’s the best guide to truth about the physical world. Science, it works.

  174. #174 a_ray_in_dilbert_space
    May 16, 2010

    Syteman, I call shenanigans. That post is so vague and lacking in any information content, as scientist could not have written it.

    How about you check out post #162 and answer my questions if you are really interested in science?

  175. #175 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    May 16, 2010

    My skepticism is based solely on the impact of man upon that warming.

    No evidence, just allegation.

    I know how uncertain climate models are.

    I don’t think so Tim. They are much more accurate than you wish to acknowledge.

    I am a scientist,

    Frankly, as a 30+ year practitioner of science, I don’t think so. Real science is totally lacking from your posts.

    And consensus opinions are nice to have,

    But then, that consensus disagrees with your politics. TOO FUCKING BAD. It doesn’t make the science wrong, but rather your politics…

  176. #176 Zetetic
    May 17, 2010

    syteman @ #172:

    No, they responded to the perception that I was denying global warming. And that IS their fault – I’ve never denied that the earth is or will get warmer – it’s almost inevitable based on the preponderance of historical data going back thousands of years.

    Still wrong. In fact they not only refuted and referred to evidence that the Earth is warming but they repeatedly pointed out evidence that it is man-made, as I earlier pointed out. I didn’t misunderstand what you said, I was refuting it. Go back and read again posts #118, #120, and #150 (and these are just before my first post on this thread). Go back and read the parts about the isotopic ratios of Carbon in the atmosphere, or the warming patterns and how they point to greenhouse gasses as the mechanism.

    That you don’t acknowledge that have countered your position indicates that either you’re not understanding what they said, you aren’t actually reading what they said, you’re attempting to ignore it and hoping that we won’t notice, you’re lying, or you’re in denial.

    You tell us which it is. Either way it’s your fault, not theirs.

    Additionally, they also refuted your claim that water vapor wasn’t accounted for, which I notice you still haven’t admitted to. Also, they refuted your claims about farming, which you’ve also ignored (such as at post #119 and others).

    Why haven’t you admitted to the error in these claims yet? Why haven’t you answered my question as to whether the so-called “Climate-Gate” antics bothered you, or not?

    How about Al B and his/her constant lying and repeating false claims? Doesn’t that bother you from an standpoint of intellectual honesty? How about the deliberate deception mentioned in the video this post is based on? Doesn’t that bother you syteman?

    My skepticism is based solely on the impact of man upon that warming.

    I felt that way too once. But it still doesn’t change that the evidence points to the current global warming being caused by greenhouse gasses, and that the evidence points to a human cause. It was when I realized these facts, that I changed my position on the subject. As noted above the others have already addressed this point, but you have ignored it. Why?

    Why have you ignored a_ray_in_dilbert_space’s questions in post #162, specifically questions #2,#4, and #5 (which directly counter your claim that no one here is countering your position)?

    I know how uncertain climate models are. The models are only as good as the people who design them and constrained by the data that goes into them (or doesn’t go into them). The models vary widely in sensitivity, some ignore equilibrium effects, and none of the models are CERTAIN.

    Even if the climate models are unreliable doesn’t magically make the evidence the humans are warming the planet go away. You can argue about the reliability of predicting the severity of future change all you want, but it doesn’t change the evidence that humans are making the planet get warmer much faster that in the past.

    How is it rational to deny that human activity is warming the planet just because you disagree with how much damage it may do? Those are two separate questions, even if they are related. It’s like a creationist arguing that evolution can’t be true because they think that scientists overestimate the importance of an understanding of evolution to modern science/society.

    And consensus opinions are nice to have, but are not the end-all be-all. After all, the consensus opinion at one time was that the earth was the center of the universe.

    And here we see another tactic commonly used by creationists and others that attempt to counter science with emotional arguments…
    Trying to undermine the importance and value of an evidence derived scientific consensus of experts (in the respective fields) by means of a false analogy that deliberately attempts to instill a mistrust in science.

    First of all, the notion that the Earth was the center of the universe was a pre-scientific concept, not the product of a scientific consensus derived from decades of detailed evidence collecting and testing of competing theories. Like the idea that the Earth can’t be warming (because God won’t allow it) it was a position primarily driven by religion. If you really are a scientist you should have appreciated the difference, yet you still employed such a false analogy…why?

    The second problem with such an argument is that it dishonestly tries to ignore that often the scientific consensus is correct, or at least is a lot less incorrect than the non-scientific public opinion. “Evolution? Germ Theory of Disease? Quantum Mechanics? What do those experts know!” Again if you really are a scientist you should know this, so why such a fallacious argument?

    Why do you, an admitted non-expert on the subject, think that you know better that the people that actually are experts on the subject? Where is your credible evidence to the contrary?
    Dunning-Kruger anyone?

    Sorry, but consistently ignoring the evidence pointed out here that global warming has an anthropogenic cause and then claiming that the others haven’t attempted to answer your points won’t work. Neither will attempting to ignore the questions asked of you. Again…it’s another classic example of a creationist’s argumentative style.

    Doesn’t that bother you that you have to keep ignoring the points that others are making, and pretend that they haven’t been made?
    Think I’m being unfair?
    Then start answering the questions posed to you. Maybe just the ones on ARIDS’ post #162 for starters?

  177. #177 nelc
    May 17, 2010

    ABQ @170:

    The last time I went down the beach, I didn’t notice – maybe it was low tide?

    The vacuity of this remark astounds me. I can’t comprehend the insensibility of faculty of someone who could think that crack was even a witty answer, let alone a worthwhile point. I am almost dumbfounded… but only almost.

    You know that there are such things as tides ? which is something, I suppose, for a mere scrub of a landlubber ? but you don’t seem to grasp how the vagaries of wind and tide would make even an extended series of observations (say, for the entire length of your seaside holiday (this is a joke at your expense, btw)) quite unreliable, let alone how pointless a single observation of sea levels would be.

    Let us be clear: we are talking of changes that are taking place over generational periods of time. Is there any reason to take seriously the idea that you measured the sea level at your holiday destination thirty years ago, and compared it to the sea level “the last time” you visited the beach, whenever that was? Do we have any reason to suppose that you are sharp-eyed enough to spot the evidence of such changes taking place while simmering in the sun, recovering from your hangover and pretending to read the latest Dan Brown? Should we take your findings more seriously than those whose business it is to measure the seas?

    Perhaps the problem was in the beach? Perhaps the evidence of sea-rise was obscured by many decades of development. Maybe you should visit a beach in a less-developed area of the world, maybe one at Suparibhanga, or one at New Moore Island? Well, if the islands were there any more, you could visit them, that is. There are a number of other islands disappearing in the rising seas, in the Maldives and the Marshall Islands; admittedly already low-lying islands, but then, that is where one is going to notice the problem first.

    Doubtless, you’re now going to come up with some graceless non sequitur to explain why islands disappearing under rising sea levels isn’t evidence of rising sea levels. Perhaps something to do with tectonics, if you believe in continents moving around the surface of the Earth like sailing boats? (No reason why you should; after all, you’ve never seen a continent moving, on holiday or at home, have you?) Or maybe you’ll just ignore this. I await your reply with breath abated.

  178. #178 Zetetic
    May 20, 2010

    Hmmm…
    Well it’s been a few days now and syteman still hasn’t bothered to answer any of the questions (at all) that pertain to his/her claim that global warming isn’t caused by human activity.

    I was sort of hoping that syteman would show more integrity than that and at least attempt to answer them. We already know that Al B has had no integrity on this enter thread (right from the start), but I was hoping that syteman would show some.

    Instead we just get the standard creationist cut-and-run when confronted evidence that contradicts dogma.

    Too bad.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.