Eli Rabett has written a how-to guide for climate trolls. If you think of some troll tactics that he missed, add them in comments.
Advertisment
Eli Rabett has written a how-to guide for climate trolls. If you think of some troll tactics that he missed, add them in comments.
I see Eli was afraid to mention Galileo, whose mere existence totally pwns the warmist religion.
Insist that the only thing that matters is whether the climate science is correct, right before (or right after) talking about something that's not climate science.
Insist that every mention of right-wing think-tanks, oil and coal funding, etc. is an ad hominem attack, even if none of these mentions are actually used to disprove inactivism.
THIRD WORLD KLEPTOCRATS!!!!! (Gosh, I'm in love with this phrase.) No, there never was any conspiracy theory. You didn't hear anything. Word of the day: "agenda".
Say that you don't believe in AGW because the arguments behind the AGW theory aren't "convincing". Repeatedly refuse to state exactly what will count as "convincing". Meanwhile ignore all the climate bets etc. that show that AGW is falsifiable. Word of the day: "convincing".
Whatever the discussion thread topic is, insist that the thread talk about something else. Word of the day: "censorship".
If the word "skeptic" is used in discussion, whine that it's being used as a pejorative. If the word "denialist" or "denier" is used, whine that it is a pejorative. If the word "inactivist" is used, just whine that people are using the word. However, the word "alarmist" is a perfectly dispassionate, neutral, and balanced descriptor.
Keep pointing to the supposed "growing" "evidence" that AGW is false, which is only "growing" in the sense of being repeated ad nauseam.
...well, ad nauseam.
Can I suggest the addition of:
Within the same thread, preferably within a few comments of each other, make use of mutually exclusive arguments.
Jody
Quibble like a solipsist when presented with pro-AGW evidence, because the science is not settled. If "I think therefore I am" is presented in support of AGW, dispute even that. At the same time approach anti-AGW evidence with the faith of a child (the Oregon petition is proof of no consensus, any shortcomings can be overlooked and no audit is necessary).
For extra points do both with the exact same evidence...e.g. the temperature record is fatally flawed, fudged, contaminated, and fiddled when it shows warming, except when it shows cooling for a couple of months at which point it becomes gospel. Ignore questions as to where the UHI went or why the conspiracy forgot to fiddle the records those months.
Claim that the temperature record is fiddled and in the next breath claim it shows cooling for the last 10 years.
Claim that the reason that there are no peer reviewed 'sceptic' publications is because dissenting scientists are persecuted and excluded. At the same time claim to cite peer reviewed 'sceptic' publications to show that there is no consensus.
If 'reductio ad absurdum' is used to trash your argument, act like it is the other person that said something ridiculous rather than you. e.g.:
Eco fascist: If we accept your argument then I have shown that we must also accept that I am the queen of sheba. Therefore your argument is invalid.
Denialist: This jerk thinks he is the queen of sheba. I have never heard anything so ridiculous.
Act like AGW is a theory that Al Gore came up with on his own.
When all else fails, point out that Al Gore is fat. This is an argument that nobody has been able to refute.
argue with every bit of scientific mechanism, no matter how well founded. CO2 absorbs IR? No it doesn't! Just because it does in the lab doesn't mean it does in the atmosphere!
then on the other hand, argue that the most abstruse piece of delicate specialized scientific oddity is obviously going on all the time around us. "Of course cloud formation is absolutely dependent upon cosmic rays the intensity of which is determined by our position vis a vis the galactic plane; look at nuclear physicists' use of cloud chambers!"
Claim that anyone who has done a science degree or any degree knows more about the climate than climate scientist. After all, climate scientist are part of the big business climate science industry.
Even better, claim that you work at a company that has some scientific component to it; therefore you must be an expert.
"Atheist communist eco-Nazi's"
This is what trolls think of all those whose beliefs are different from theirs.
Of course, this would mean that all trolls are religious capitalist Holocaust deniers.
We know this is true because their beliefs are different from ours.
And we know that their beliefs are based on nothing, because ours are based on facts.
Our beliefs are based on factual probabilities.
Our beliefs are based on factual speculations.
Our beliefs are based on undisputed historical facts that are generally agreed upon to be reliable to a certain degree and go as far back as a very short span in the history of the earth.
Our beliefs are based on the fact that the climate is changing.....and the fact that it used to be consistent.
Our beliefs are based on actual possible future events.
Our beliefs are based on factual imperfect models and empirical methods with factual drawbacks.
Our beliefs are based on factual worst case scenarios and factual ranges of temperatures.
Our beliefs are based on zero doubt and certain accuracy.
Our beliefs are based on factual best guess estimates.
Our beliefs are based on data that can't ever be second guessed or questioned.....by anybody at any time.....ever.
(Except those that shared our previous facts before the facts were changed)
Our beliefs are based on a consensus of people with many backgrounds and professions, hand selected by countries with no biases or preconceived notions, as all pure beliefs should be based.
Our beliefs are based on factual future disasters, death, havoc, catastrophes, destuction, floods, drought, famine, loss of habitat, loss of species, disease, food shortages, fires, societal breakdowns and the end of the world as we know it...and other horrible things that may happen...for sure.
Our beliefs are often exaggerated by the media, but we are ok with this, because we believe it helps the cause, which is to believe our factual beliefs.
Our belief is that all school children should be made aware of the fact that all the adorable cute Polar Bears are drowning and that using both sides of a sheet of paper is one way to save these cuddly hopeless creatures.....factually speaking.
Our beliefs are based on the fact that there are too many people using to many things.....so we need to protect all the people from themselves by having them use less things, this way there will be more people available to use those things.....less.
Our beliefs are based on the fact that the real cause of AGW, comes from those who don't tow the line 100 percent with our beliefs......they are the ones emmitting the most C02 with their negativety towards our negative facts.
Shorter Betula: GALILEO!!!!! THIRD WORLD KLEPTOCRATS!!!!! NAME-CALLING!!!!!
We know the drill already. Nothing new.
Can we also now add stream-of-conscioussness posts in the style of Joyce?
Make up a list, claiming that it represents the viewpoint of those who belive in AGW, then decontruct it, claiming that you have proven that AGW is a lie.
"Our beliefs are based on a consensus of people with many backgrounds and professions, hand selected by countries with no biases or preconceived notions, as all pure beliefs should be based."
Gee I never realised the US National Academy of Sciences, the Swedish Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society were government-appointed political stooges hand-picked for their ideological commitment to the destruction of capitalism.
Actually in an illustration of the stopped clock effect, Betula is correct that there was political interference in the IPCC reports.
We know this because the hundreds of changes to understate the likelihood of warming and its likely impacts that the Chinese, Saudi and US governments insisted on in the draft reports delivered by the scientific authors.
But I'm sure that just a case of "correcting errors" and "providing balance".
I love how climate trolls claim that one of the most scientific conservative bodies out there is biased in its finds... anyone say ironic.
Currently there is an abundance of cheer in the climate-science-is-wrong camp over some cool noise in the signal, a less noisy and less spotty than usual Sun. Getting them to change their minds about stopped warming is an unproductive excercise. But most people, even now, are uninformed enough to be persuaded for a time by such arguments. It's still pretty half-hearted in the Real Climate Policy dept and it will take the next el nino at least - a taste of hot noise in the signal - to persuade the majority that it's a serious matter of real urgency. Oh, and please someone start mass producing cheap peel and stick solar cells and batteries that can run cars and ships and trucks and planes soon. Unless they do and can compete against thoroughly entrenched energy and transport industries GHG emissions will accelerate.
Eli strongly recommends Neil Craig to Betula, a Straussian, libertarian industro-loon after her own heart.
Were the Nazis not Holocaust deniers?.
"Eli strongly recommends Neil Craig to Betula, a Straussian, libertarian industro-loon after her own heart."
Betula is a woman?
More speculation by the famous Eli.
"Were the Nazis not Holocaust deniers?"
Your a quick one Chris.....on one hand the trolls call those who disagree with them eco-Nazis, on the other hand trolls are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.......that's your thought process, not mine.
Now maybe you can go argue with yourself.
Betula proves Frank O'Dwyer's point:
> If 'reductio ad absurdum' is used to trash your argument, act like it is the other person that said something ridiculous rather than you. e.g.:
> Eco fascist: If we accept your argument then I have shown that we must also accept that I am the queen of sheba. Therefore your argument is invalid.
> Denialist: This jerk thinks he is the queen of sheba. I have never heard anything so ridiculous.
I guess O'Dwyer can now call himself a Junior Goracle.
Perhaps a natural assumption to make, rather than speculation, given that the birch tree is considered feminine in many cultures. But it is much less egregious than a similar assumption recently made by someone, about Jody Aberdein.
Not that the assumption of Jody's gender was of itself a problem - rather, in completely slandering his reputation and denying his bona fides, said person demonstrated that he hadn't bothered to pursue even a cursory search of Jody's background. If he had searched, he'd have discovered that Jody is a male.
In Jody's case the misapprehension was evidence of shooting (inaccurately) from the hip without careful preparation. In Betula's case, it simply reflects the fact that we only have one psuedonymous word with which to identify him, aside from his bonnet-bee about a teacher who linked polar bears to tree-felling.
Betula, if you're going to take on Eli you'll need to be similarly better-prepared than said slanderer of Jody was, and I doubt that strawman insinuations of 'more speculation' on Eli's part constitute adequate preparation.
If you're offended by being misidentified, say so, but don't use it in a clumsy attempt to lever Eli. His assumption is not comparable to the incorrect identification of Jody's gender, and you're just taking a cheap (and insignificant, really) shot.
This is a public service anouncement to enlighten the innocent, who may have stumbled into this thread and not understood the context of this circumstance.
More troll tactics!
Say that, because environmentalists don't all travel by bike / embrace nuclear energy / kill themselves, therefore they're hypocrites.
Keep asking for a "debate" on AGW. However, the "debate" is only fair if it excludes a priori the possibility that the inactivist position is bogus.
Harp on a single talking point for 10 long paragraphs.
Say that it's ridiculous / blasphemous / hubris to even think that humans may have an effect of global climate. Who needs science, when we already know that the AGW theory is a thoughtcrime?
Say that more research is needed. Then, when climatologists proceed to do more research, say that he's just greedy for government funding.
Any time a scientist goes on record to say that AGW is real, denounce him as an "activist". Alternatively, claim that he said what he did because he was threatened by Ninja Inquisitors under the command of James Hansen.
I speculate that Betula is a genderless troll-bot with a buggy bogon-generating bad joke program.
When responding to an argument in favour of AGW, ignore the line of argument so that you can claim that the conclusion is unreasoned.
Say that you're a staunch support of driving less, using energy-saving light bulbs, etc. (as long as governments Do Nothing, but don't tell anyone that).
Claim that AGW "believers" are just waxing sentimental over polar bears and obscure species.
s/support/supporter/
Oh shucks, I forgot the trolls' invincible secret weapon:
Clinton Did It Too!!!!!!!!!!!
AGW is a religion...always a favourite.
Hi, first post here. I thought you might like my HTBAGWS guide, which I've been adding to for a while now.
****
How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic
--
**You might wonder if you should be a Global Warming Sceptic and I thought it might be useful to show you how easy it is.**
**Just choose any combination of the following beliefs.**
**Don't worry if you choose the "wrong" ones to start with: you can change any time and as often as you like.**
**Don't worry if your choices contradict one another or any that you had previously.**
**If any of your claims are shown to be false or irrelevant, don't apologise or even admit it: just move onto another one!**
**Go back to ones previously discredited whenever you like.**
****
Global Warming is a creation of the media and they keep ramming it down our throats.
Global Warming is just a scare tactic thought up by governments to make us use less coal and oil.
Governments don't really believe it or they would ban thirsty cars.
Belief in GW is a religion with fanatical followers. It is almost impossible to reason with them.
The high priest of GW is Al Gore. He is a failed presidential candidate trying to make a name for himself after his failure in politics. He's a hypocrite because he's got a huge energy-guzzling house so we can't trust anything he says.
Anyone who believes in GW is an enviro-fascist who hates freedom and hates America. Most of all, they hate the freedom that the car has given to so many.
GW believers claim that the scientific consensus is on their side but science is not about consensus. It's the evidence that matters and it only takes one person to disprove a theory.
Anyone who doesn't believe in the GW consensus is a heretic. Heretics are usually right in the end. Just look at Galileo and Darwin..
Over 31,000 people with science degrees have signed a petition refuting the so-called GW consensus. This shows where the real consensus lies.
Hundreds of climate scientists have doubts about the science of GW. When lists of them are made public, some complain that they didn't agree to be on the list but this just shows that they are afraid of losing their jobs because they would lose favour with the GW priesthood.
In the 1970s climate scientists said that we were heading into an Ice Age. Why should we believe them now?
Weather forecasters can't predict the weather a week in advance so how can anyone predict the climate 10, 20, or 50 years ahead?
Eco-fascists have killed more people than Hitler. They banned DDT, causing tens of millions to die of malaria. Now they intend to cause the deaths of many more millions by denying them cheap energy. Anyone who denies this is like a holocaust denier.
GW is a conspiracy created by the left-green elite to tax and control us all.
Climate scientists are part of this conspiracy. They all know one other so they can get away with this quite easily.
The scientists invented the GW theory so they can keep getting research grants.
A few climate scientists produced a graph called the Hockey Stick to scare us all, but they were shown to have used the data incorrectly so we can say that the stick is broken.
Other scientists, and especially the national bodies such as the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, are part of the conspiracy.
Most scientists are honest. The real conspiracy is in the IPCC, which distorts and misrepresents their work for ideological reasons. There is no real scientific consensus.
Climate models are just a collection of formulae tweaked to produce results that are close to measurements.
Climate models might be based on physics but it's all so uncertain that the results are meaningless.
It's not getting warmer at all. The figures and graphs produced by the climate scientists are all doctored and can't be trusted.
The figures don't need to be doctored: lots of weather stations are unreliable and in any case the Urban Heat Island effect corrupts the data. Garbage in, garbage out.
The figures show that warming has levelled off so it can't have been caused by CO2. It hasn't been any warmer than in 1998 despite continued increases of CO2.
Many places have had the coldest winter for 50 years so obviously GW can't be happening.
There is no such thing as average global temperature. It's a meaningless concept.
Average global temperature dropped by 0.7 deg. C during 2007 so we can see that GW has stopped and we can now expect global cooling.
It has got warmer but it's nothing to do with us. It's all to do with natural cycles.
It was much warmer millions of years ago and we weren't around then so how can we be the cause now?
The Medieval Warm Period was at least as warm as it is now. The Vikings colonised Greenland and grapes were grown in Britain.
Mars has been getting warmer too, so it must be something outside the Earth.
It's electrical heating caused by the solar wind interacting with the Earth's magnetic field.
It's caused by increases in the sun's output.
It's all to do with sunspots. Or cosmic rays.
The so-called greenhouse gases don't cause warming. It's a lie told by the scientists. What really happens is that the temperature rises first and the CO2 follows.
It can't be caused by greenhouse gases because they are only a minute part of the atmosphere and can't have much effect.
Cows produce more greenhouse gas than anything we do.
CO2 is measured on Mauna Loa, an active volcano that spews out CO2, so how can the measurements be accurate?
Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all the factories and cars and planes and other sources of man-made carbon dioxide put together so how can we make any difference?
Even if GW is happening and it's mainly caused by CO2 increases, doing something about it will cost far more and cause far more hardship than dealing with the results of increased temperatures.
Greenhouse gases are the cause and global warming is a good thing. More CO2 means that plants will grow faster and who likes being cold? We should increase CO2 output!
GW is happening but we have no idea if it will be a good or bad thing. We should just wait and see.
GW is happening and it's mainly our fault but we can't do anything about it anyway. Even if we cut our emissions, China and India will more than make up the difference.
****
I hope this comes out right. Preview here does not show what I see when I convert the text at the Markup site.
Collect hundreds of newspaper articles. Even if they all contradict each other, then claim that it proof.
Claim that the peer review is flawed (only in climate science)
"Collect hundreds of newspaper articles. Even if they all contradict each other, then claim that it proof."
You mean like insisting that there's no evidence of warming AND that warming stopped in 1998 AND that warming after 1998 supposedly observed on Mars proves the same mechanism is at work there as on Earth AND that global warming is the product of an interaction between cosmic rays and clouds that couldn't operate on Mars because there are no clouds of water vapor there AND that apparent warming is an artifact of the Urban Heat Island effect without explaining why the UHI would produce the purported downward trend of the past decade.
Oh and there's no possible downside to global warming but reducing carbon dioxide levels even slightly will produce an Ice Age. Believing that one BTW doesn't make you an alarmist.
Then there is the one -
Exaggerate the number of 'errors' in Inconvenient Truth, telling people it is full of lies and then point them to watch The Great Warming Swindle to get the 'real' story
And anyone that points out the hundreds of errors in swindle is a big fat c**k
Ah, Betula is a David Gelernter fan. Shudda noun.
'Note this staggering remark from one GOP stalwart: "If there's one thing poll after poll indicates, it's that the science is not settled on this issue."'
MikeB, please note that if, after the vast majority of scientific experts on climate tell you that AGW is real you insist it isn't, that is faith/religion/dogma.
"Ah, Betula is a David Gelernter fan"
Yet more speculation by Eli.
"MikeB, please note that if, after the vast majority of scientific experts on climate tell you that AGW is real you insist it isn't,"..........
Then you are going to hell.
Taking a look a this posting (it's a economics blog) and see what you find:
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/06/global-warming-costs-another-view…
Yet more troll tactics!
Interpret every statement affirming the AGW theory as an instance of witch-burning / persecution of Galileo / oppression by jackboot thugs. (Thanks to Betula for yet another prime example.)
Speak of AGW not as a "theory", but as a "belief". AGW inactivism, on the other hand, isn't a theory or a belief; it's "legitimate facts". (Are there "illegitimate facts", and what are they?)
Keep asking questions, and ignore the answers. Then when someone calls you on it, say you're just asking questions and maybe your question was probably just Politically Incorrect.
MnDean, what I find is somwone accepting at face value Pielke's interpretation of a report which they admit they haven't read.
Oh and looking through the comments I see blogger coRev buying into denialist nonsense like "the colling of the past decade" (which he thinks is to blame for food shortages).
Seeing as food production is at or near an all-time record, I conclude that CoRev is a jackass.
Oh and looking through the comments I see blogger coRev buying into denialist nonsense like "the cooling of the past decade" (which he thinks is to blame for food shortages).
Seeing as food production is at or near an all-time record, I conclude that CoRev is a jackass.
I run into these postings in economic blogs occasionally, and I find that they'll usually contain a lot of alarming figures on cost. They don't need to read and understand the reports (and to assume a frozen technology baseline, as Pielke does, is just ridiculous - CO2 mitigation technologies are hardly mature), they just intuitively know it's economically disastrous and any benefits are never worth the cost. I was interested in the fact that he wasn't attacking AGW directly (at least until the comments, where the mask finally comes off). I'm seeing this new tack more now.
Another net.crank tactic -- though I suspect this guy's not a deliberate troll, just someone who's gone too far down Crankville. Here goes:
> Just the mere fact that there might be other causes should be enough to put a shred of doubt into the hubris of the Global warmers who think we can not debate this topic. [...]
> My point which you cannot understand and neither can your fellow cult members is that we can work together for a common goal even if we are on different sides of the fence without attacking each other and making the divide and hatred greater- [...]
My reply:
> [...] you insist on having a debate, and now that there's a debate, you whine that people are "taking sides". News flash: Taking sides is exactly what happens in a debate. Proposition, opposition... and debate. A debate can only happen when there are sides. You can't ask for a debate and then complain about "taking sides".
> Do you want debate, or do you not want debate? If you want debate, then pick a side and debate like a real man. That means backing up your points with facts and evidence, and quoting the evidence, and putting forth real lines of argument starting from the evidence.
> If you don't want debate, then please shut up and get along.
> If you don't like that, well, too bad.
Yeah, I actually bothered to write so much...
Probably not too on-topic, but... John Coleman is still talking about suing Al Gore.
"I run into these postings in economic blogs occasionally, and I find that they'll usually contain a lot of alarming figures on cost."
And they usually fail to consider what percentage of world GDP over the forty or fifty year period they're talking about those figures actually represent.
In a world economy of $30 trillion growing at 3-4% per annum, $45 trillion (which is likely an overstatement of the cost in any case) over 42 years probably represents less than 1% of total GDP.
(My time is short at the moment so I'm not going to do the math.)
Sounds like the very techniques the warmistas use to justify their religion. Project much?
Someone squeeked at #47... Not worthy of response, but:
"Warmistas"? "Religion"?
Oo, I think that you have just single-handedly demolished the edifice of climate science propaganda.
Clever you.
I only comment on this drivel in order to emphasis the purile level of GWIAS's capacity for engagement.
> Oo, I think that you have just single-handedly demolished the edifice of climate science propaganda.
That's because in that single sentence there are 3 climate troll tropes rolled into a single ball of bogus:
1. Clinton did it too;
2. AGW is a "religion";
3. The word "warmistas" is a neutral, informative, dispassionate descriptor.
I wonder how long it took Mr. GLOBUL WARMINS A SCAY-UM to come up with that. Probably not very long, since these people are peer-reviewed experts in their field (climate trolling).
I'm just not sure why, when presented with evidence that, at the very least, calls into question the pillars that AGW stands on, that so many 'scientists' on here are so closed minded in really vetting this thing out.
There has been recent observational and clinical research that has pointed in the other direction. Instead of saying that one is a troll, denier, denialists, or the like, why not just use that scientific background to address the data and refute the data. When we here reports about how 'scientists arent sure about the feedback between clouds and temps', or 'scientists are calling into question the reliability of tree ring data in predicting future climate'?
When research comes out and calls in question the very hypothesis and data that AGW rests on, instead of calling people names why dont you comment on the facts????
If this way of thinking makes me a denialists than so be it. It is 'you' that refuses to be objective. Seems to fly in the face of the scientific method.
Sorry if this adds amunition to the library of 'climate trolling techniques'. I just am baffled by the refusal of self proclaimed scientists to explain the major holes in the theory.
Monsoonevans, why not just say this:
GALILEO!!!!!
It'll save our time reading your 3 paragraphs of the usual ululations.
Has AGW become a Religion?
1. If you don't believe in the dire future consequences, you are a denier......BLASPHEMY.
2. The IPCC reports are fact and can't be disputed....BIBLE.
3. What the IPCC reports state.........GOSPEL.
4. "And the Lord God of the spirits of the prophets sent his angel to show his servant the things which must be done shortly"......AL GORE.
5. Apocalypse, Catastrophes, famine, death and destruction........HELL.
6. A place where all people and nations are equal and overseen by one divine government, and the air is always pure and the weather always constant......HEAVEN.
7. Predictions of things to come......unless we change our ways.......PROPHECY.
8. Stop emmitting excess C02.......SIN.
9. Buy Carbon offsets.........OFFERING.
10. Watching An Inconvenient Truth.......BAPTISM.
11. Many on this site.......DESCIPLES.
12. People are to act a certain way and follow certain rules and believe certain beliefs......or be looked upon as ignorant, depraved reprobates..........RELIGION?
"And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire"
NOTE - I personally don't see any correlation here and condemn all those who do.....this list was compiled solely as a way to inform and prepare the Desciples for the sort of nonsense they may be confronted with.
Seems a coincidence that it would have become a particularly narrow interpretation of Christianity. I mean, what must the chances be of that happening?
"Seems a coincidence that it would have become a particularly narrow interpretation of Christianity. I mean, what must the chances be of that happening?"
I wouldn't know, I am neither religious nor a Holocaust denier, but interpreted as both by people on this site....simply because I disagree with them on some level. I mean, what must the chances be of that happening?
I said:
> Harp on a single talking point for 10 long paragraphs.
What Betula's arguments lack in quality, he makes up for in quantity. If you don't have 10 strong arguments, just come up with 10 mutations of one argument, and hope that people don't notice.
Betula says, GALILEO!!!!!
Monsoonevans says, GALILEO!!!!!
Betula says again, GALILEO!!!!!
These, of course, constitute 3 arguments against AGW.
= =
jodyaberdein:
> Seems a coincidence that it would have become a particularly narrow interpretation of Christianity. I mean, what must the chances be of that happening?
Given that inactivism's strongest in America where fundamentalist Christianity is quite big, I'll say it's pretty high.
And you're a slow one Betula. If you're going to use antonym logic at least try to stick to antonyms.
The "thought" process on display above was yours, not mine.
Monsoonevans said at #50:
in trying to say that AGW has been contradicted.
Firstly, 'recent' is just that, and what you refeYes, even in larger climate trends there are short-term temperature drops: many on Deltoid have pointed to exactly this over the last month if you care to look. Perhaps someone more patient than I am at the moment will repeat the detail for you, or you could be a big boy and find the material for yourself.
If there were a longer term trend that contradicted the basis for AGW, I would happily jump onto that bandwagon, for reasons I have detailed on these pages in the past. For now I see no refutation of AGW being plausibly presented.
And 'clinical'?!
I worked in clinical research for many years, and I can't say that we ever applied it to climate science. But if, Monsoonevans, you can show me how clinical research is directly applicable to climate research, I'd be happy to add the moniker "climate researcher" to my CV.
Oops, my 'puter seems to be burping.
I'll try again soon.
Galileo says, BI!!!
Chris...
So all trolls aren't religious capitalist Holocaust deniers?
Or they are religious capitalist deniers, yet call people eco-Nazis?
Is their denial of the Holocaust a defense of Nazis?
Or is their use of the term eco-Nazi's mean't to be a comparison to the evils of Nazism?
Perhaps if they are Holocaust deniers, their use of the term eco-Nazi is actually a defense of AGW theorists....which would mean they are troll deniers.
Which is it?
Please enlighten me with your wisdom.
Waiting patiently.
Betula posts a long rant about AGW theory as a religion, ending with:
Yeah, yeah, they twisted your arm. By the way, it's "disciples."
My religion is Christianity of the evangelical Protestant variety (PCUSA). I can't speak for others on the board. I don't think anybody in the real world regards AGW theory as a religion.
And what's wrong with religion anyway? Are you assuming that anyone interested in science must be an atheist? Poor assumption if so.
bi posts:
And crime is highest in heavily black areas, bi, so I guess it's black people that cause crime?
You missed, I take it, where 86 leading evangelicals, including Pat Robertson and Rick Warren, signed a document saying Christians should do more to combat global warming.
BPL...
"And what's wrong with religion anyway? Are you assuming that anyone interested in science must be an atheist? Poor assumption if so."
I don't "assume" anything. That's why I don't "assume" there will be only negative catastrophic affects "if" a warming trend continues.
I also don't have anything against any religion....I am not religious, however, my wife is very religious.
I do have an objection to people who want to force their religious beliefs on others and I do have an objection to people who "assume" someone is a religious right wing neo-con because they disagree.
It is those people that "assume" people are Holocaust deniers or "assume" people are flat earthers or "assume" those who disagree are denialist twerps or "assume" someone who disagrees uses the most C02.
I point out the simularities, as I see them, of a religion and the AGW theorists for several reasons:
1. Because some people don't see the simularities
2. Not because religion is bad.... but because people that attempt to force their beliefs or theories on others who disagree is bad.......and if you don't agree you are a blasphemous heathen that will burn in the eternal flames of sacrosanct AGW.......or even worse.... a denialist twit.
simularities
Great neologism.
Not similar, exactly, but a simulation of similitude.
It's like a photo-shopped picture of the inside of the denialist twit's mind.
BPL:
> And crime is highest in heavily black areas, bi, so I guess it's black people that cause crime?
Maybe you can reread jodyaberdein's words and my words again, instead of going all knee-jerk whenever you see any hint of the word "Christianity"...
Bleh.
If you don't like any mention of the word "Christianity", maybe you can tell us which alternative word won't make your blood pressure go all the way up, and maybe we'll use that instead.
No, I'm just pointing out that your attempt at antonym logic above failed to show that they are.
"It's like a photo-shopped picture of the inside of the denialist twit's mind"
That would be a picture of a Holocaust denier chastising an eco-Nazi.
Chris, that's ok....I really wasn't expecting you to answer the question anyway.
Betula,
I'm on your side of the AGW issue but for Christ's sake (apologies BPL for using your Lord's name in vain) use a spell checker. It kind of weakens your argument when you make obvious misspellings and use non-words like "simularities".
Also it wouldn't hurt to think out your posts a bit more thoroughly. You needn't respond tit for tat in real time.
also:
n+1) although George Bush may have been deluded into invading Iraq with best intentions by defective intelligence, anyone who believes and/or espouses AGW is doing so for selfish reasons in full knowledge that it's a complete lie.
bi, it's not the mention of Christianity that disturbs me, it's your attempt to drag your negative views about it into every forum.
BPL:
No.
Z:
This is the thesis for Pielke's column today.
Best,
D
Betula that's OK....I really wasn't expecting you to realize that "Holocaust denier" is not an antonym for "Nazi", unlike "religious" being an antonym for "atheist" and "capitalist" being an antonym for "communist". I'm already well aware how ignorant and unintelligent you are.
Hi folks,
I wonder what the opposition to the "scientific level" of various IPCC reports and the AGW hypothesis has to do with denying the holocaust. Such parallels are absurd.
When James Hansen, for instance, described "continued coal burning as akin to sending untold species to their destruction in "death trains" and crematoria", then he only gives evidence that he has no knowledge about the industrial machinery of the German 3rd Reich to murder nearly 6 millions innocent people especially in its Extermination Camps like Ausschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Majdanek etc.
Climate projections are the results of numerical solutions of partial differential equations. Their scientific level is low and, therefore, their relevance is highly disputed.
Since the German extermination machinery was real, any parallel of such a kind is nothing more than the derision of the people murdered by the Nazis.
During the last years James Hansen lamented that NASA administrators have tried to influence his public statements about the causes of climate change. If this is true, these NASA administrators have made a big mistake. They should not stop him. Some more of such parallels and James Hansen will become a joke for boring AGU and AMS sessions on climate change.
Best regards
Gerhard Kramm
Shorter Kramm:
tap tap tappity tap
tappity tap tap tap!
tap tap tap taptap tappity tap
tap tappity taptaptap!
Best,
D
# 76
Hi Dano,
impressive comment. Unfortunately, your contribution to climate science was submitted too late for sharing the Nobel Peace Prize 2007.
Sincerely yours
Gerhard Kramm
Gerhard writes, "Climate projections are the results of numerical solutions of partial differential equations. Their scientific level is low and, therefore, their relevance is highly disputed".
By whom? You and a few other sceptics? By libertarian think tanks and astroturf lobbying groups who receive bundles of cash from industry and who despise any forms of regulation that might limit their profit margins?
So what do you suggest? If you dispute the models, then there are countless biological and ecological signs revealing that there are currently quite significant regional changes in climate. Bernard has alluded to phenologival processes. I also work with some of these species and systems, and the empirical evidence is huge and growing. Each year the community of sceptics is pushed farther and farther from reality. It makes me wonder how even the most critical scientist would remain standing on ice that is metaphorically growing thinner every year.
But Gerhard, your contribution to the Mendacity Nobel or the Mischaracterization Nobel or the Dissembling Nobel was submitted in time.
However, the "create a totem and then bash it, then demonize it by conflation" Nobel is still open. I'll submit your name and #75 forthwith.
[killfile]
Best,
D
# 78
Dear Jeff Harvey,
please start to read the Chapter 8 of the 4th report of the Working Group I (WGI) of the IPCC. This chapter is dealing with the evaluation of global climate models.
You may also take a look into the scientific literature to find articles dealing with the evaluation of such models. Many of these peer-reviewed articles are not cited in the chapter 8 of the WGI, even though they were published in world-renown journals like Physical Review E.
The use of multi-model means, for instance, as favored by the WGI (see chapter 8 of its 4th report) is congruent with the oath of manifestation in science. All these climate models are deterministic models and contain a lot of empirical information. There are long reports in which model bugs found by users are listed. We must assume that averaging over climate projections means in practice also averaging over programming errors and/or compiler errors. Has this something to do with scientific standards? Certainly not. Another aspect should also be discussed. Even though numerical weather forecast models are based on sophisticated scientific knowledge, the predictions for the next couple of days provided by such models cannot be assessed as scientific results because they do not satisfy commonly accepted scientific standards. I wonder why climate model projections should have a higher scientific level than weather predictions.
Sincerely yours
Gerhard Kramm
Gerhard Kramm writes:
So, I take it you think the stellar evolution codes used by astrophysicists aren't science either? After all, no one has been able to watch a star evolve in real time; it takes billions of years for most main-sequence stars. These codes undoubtedly contain errors, so when astrophysicsts average over programming errors and/or compiler errors to, for instance, predict the future evolution of the sun, this has nothing to do with scientific standards. Right?
I'm interested, too, in what you mean by "compiler errors." An error detected by the compiler usually means the program won't compile. A machine-language program produced by a compiler, if it contains errors in the machine language, will usually crash the program or even the operating system (especially if running on Windows). How do "compiler errors" affect climate models?
TrueSceptic, if you don't have a blog of your own, you should.
That was an impeccable listing.
Dear Barton,
compiler error means a programming error in the compiler. Also compilers can be erroneous.
Best regards
Gerhard
82 Marion: Thanks. TBH I was surprised that I got so little response to it. I've been adding to it for some time and have already posted earlier versions in other forums such as Channel 4 Science (it was C4 that broadcast TGGWS) and JREF. What's funny, and possibly what you'd expect, is that GWSceptics either don't get it, or claim that it is just a stack of straw men. Please use the list whenever and wherever you like.
Own blog? I don't really have anything to offer that isn't already being done by Tamino, Stoat, Pharyngula, and Deltoid of course, and I couldn't do it as well anyway.
(Sorry about the delayed reply. I stopped monitoring this thread a while back.)