Open Thread 31

Wow. That has to be a Deltoid record - it was 10 days ago when the [countdown for a BBH thread began](http://tinyurl.com/kqzpwa)...

Thanks Tim. And I was just about to congratulate you on keeping your forum here truly open and democratic.
But I guess the habits of true bolsheviks die hard.

Relax Billy Bob, you still have an open thread to enter your...um...wisdom?

Nobody has taken you for a "little walk" bolshevik style...
yet.

By the way, has anyone seen my Tokarev? I seem to have misplaced it.

OK, so the DMCA is the Gettysburg Address of Liberal Fascism, and Open Threads are the Gulags of Liberal Fascism.

FormerSkeptic, Billy Bob hasn't yet been elevated into the ranks of those with a named thread...that takes hard work and perseverance.

Billy Bob is correct, as a knowledge of USSR history shows.

In 1924, Sergei Kirov was Stalin's major competitor for the top spot in the Soviet heirarchy. Stalin arranged for Kirilev's blog comments to appear only on open threads.

In 1937, Stalin decided to purge the Army of all officers perceived to be a threat. Within a few weeks, he had confined their blog comments to open threads only.

In 1953, Stalin fabricated a "Doctor's Plot" of Jewish physicians who allegedly wanted to assassinate him and other Soviet leaders. Only his timely death prevented all Soviet Jews from having their blog comments restricted to open threads only.

Wake up, America!

BPL@6

Dear Sir,

I hearby proclaim that you have won teh internetz...

Eleventy One,

Chris C

So 'dear leader' Tim, does this mean you are going to delete anything I might have to say about your other threads in this so called 'open thread' too ?

Billy Bob,

Did you believe you had more to offer? I've witnessed what I perceive as an emptiness to your comments. I hope it is not that you have little to offer on the topics except empty jibes? I hope you can demonstrate to reassure me that this is not so?

No matter Janet, 'I'll work with what I've got' :-)

Did you see this ?

http://striky.ece.jhu.edu/~sasha/Public/APS.open.letter.09.pdf

I know how much you guys like "Authority' in the 'debate'. There might be some 'Authorities' listed here... ?
'Authority' (except the long arm of the law), means nothing to me of course. Especially in Science.

Billy Bob,

Did you [see this?](http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm)

Billy Bob Hall:

> 'Authority' (except the long arm of the law), means nothing to me of course.

Eh? Because you just used that open letter as an authority.

>'Authority' (except the long arm of the law), means nothing to me of course. Especially in Science.

That's why Billy Bob feeds his pets melamine, gets his local Scout group to sand down his asbestos shed and goes unprotected with sex workers in South Africa.

Authority shmorety!

I would suggest the difference between legal authority and scientific authority is the laws of science cannot be broken.

Yes I have Janet (#11), and of course this organization (AP Soc) collectively speaking as well as with the CSIRO for example are wrong.
'It will all come out in the wash'.
And bi--IJI (#12)didn't I just say 'Authority' (in science) means nothing to me. I can spell it out in other ways, but only if you 'authorize' me to do so ! ;-)

Billy Bob Hall:

> didn't I just say 'Authority' (in science) means nothing to me.

You can say that a million times, but guess what, you already used that open letter as an authority.

You didn't try to critically look at the claims in the open letter.

You didn't try to ask "can the content of the open letter be wrong?"

You simply threw it out as 'proof' of... something.

That is Argument by Authority.

Obamacare looks to be dead. I'm almost relieved.

> I'm almost relieved.

Why?

bi--IJI (#16) ç¶å±ä»ä¹é½å¨ç§å¸ä¸æå³å°æ.
As clearly you are having a bit of trouble with English.

>"this organization (AP Soc) collectively speaking as well as with the CSIRO for example are wrong. 'It will all come out in the wash'."

Wow, thank goodness Billy Bob is here to lend his authority to these assertions!

Thanks for expressing your faith based beliefs Billy Bob, I'll stick with the overwhelming evidence and keep working for deep emissions cuts.

Billy Bob,

Argumen Anda dari otoritas, adalah logis kekeliruan.

No worries. If you think I'm an "Authority' Janet, then we are all truly doomed.

You just keep on sticking with the overwhelming evidence there, I'm going to try to stick to the small facts. :-)

And (#21), I didn't know the 'precautionary principle' had been around so long !? ;-)

Billy Bob,

A closer look at the petition you attached shows that none of the scientists are in fact, ecologists. Many physicists cannot tell a mole cricket from a giraffe, yet somehow they can confidently predict that the effects of a rapidly warming climate and increased carbon dioxide on complex ecological systems and communities will be positive?

Conclusion: none of these people are actually authorities where it counts. They can be safely dismissed. Moreover some of these people are known contrarians and have links with right wing think tanks and lobbying groups.

So much for BBHs desperate attempt to find voices of authority. Try again.

Fear not Billy Bob, I doubt that many would take you a credible authority. It's just that your authority was the only thing at all to backup your claim- it lacked evidence (which is the word used to describe the associated facts).

Re. #21, try again.

The only person who thinks Billy is an authority on anything is Billy himself.

Or people Billy say is an authority.

So Billy Bob, those facts that are absent, and hence fail to backup your assertions, combined with the supreme confidence with wich you proclaim your assertions: are the very reasons your position is described as 'faith based'.

Did someone say voice of authority?

[Visser et al.](http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1689367&blobtype=…)

[Parmesan et al.](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6736/abs/399579a0.html)

[Epstein et al.](http://www.decvar.org/documents/epstein.pdf)

Who'll be the first to christen Billy Bob a 'Parus major'?

Billy Bob Hall #19:

Feeding an English sentence to a machine translator is an extremely bad idea.

(As a side note, it's unfortunate that Google Translator supports neither Basque nor Tibetan, the two languages which featured in Marion Delgado's (?) seminal finding of the prestigious climate journal Euskal Klimazientzia. But I digress.)

BBH at #19.

Nothing do do with science means anything to you.

You take as much care with scientific factuality as you do with automatic translators, which is to say no care at all.

But then, your aim has never had anything to do with fact, nor with care in constructing a defensible argument.

You are simply a little troll, who turns to stone when the light of science shines on you. Keep on spouting your nonsense though - it's a lovely catalogue, for posterity, of how ignorant and ideologically-driven those such as yourself are.

And as this is the open thread, didn't Australia have some [interesting weather last week](ftp://ftp.bom.gov.au/anon/home/ncc/www/temperature/maxanom/week/colour/…)? Records were broken like plates at a Greek wedding, apparently...

No worries guys. I really don't know why it is so hard for you all to understand that I am not an 'Authority' especially in Science.
I'll say it again. I am not an authority. I have never proclaimed to be, and never will.
I am surprised so many of you have authoritatively decided that I am. This is all just getting too surreal for me now. Just like the whole anthropogenic CO2 and 'global warming' con.
Where is Tim ? Am I 'allowed' to comment on the other following lame threads now ?

Comment 31 at Open thread 31: there are 31 pairs of vertebrae nervesin the human body (and 12 cranial nerves), an octave can be split into 31 (or 12 or 5) equidistant tones with pleasant sound quality, an icosahedron has 31 great circles and Baskin Robbins is famous for 31 flavors.

> I am not an authority. I have never proclaimed to be, and never will.

> Posted by: Billy Bob Hal

How does that gel with you saying that AGW is wrong for reason X and expecting to be thought right?

If you are no authority, you have no ability to make a statement on the validity. The only thing you can be an authority on is what you believe.

Not on whether AGW is wrong or right. Not on whether there's consensus or not. Not on whether there is evidence of something or not.

Since they are, without authority on the subject, opinions and no indication of the truth.

>I really don't know why it is so hard for you all to understand that I am not an 'Authority' especially in Science.

Keep kidding your self Billy Bob, its evidently all you've got.

No worries Janet. I am happy to admit I have some limitations. Even Gough Whitlam knew he had limitations.
Do you ?

Moving right along. I am surprised to see this :-

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/paperncgtsealevl.pdf

Particularly when considering some of the remarkable alarmist statements around.

I like the citations Billy Bob "NZCLIMATE AND ENVIRO TRUTH NO 181". If it wasn't for the "Truth" in the title we would know if it was correct.

>"Vincent Gray explained in his newsletter...that something had to be done to maintain rising sea level alarm"

Get me more of this stuff Billy Bob. Its just golden!

Unfortunately global [sea level](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6638) doesnât know about ""NZCLIMATE AND ENVIRO TRUTH", it just keeps [trending up](http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/).

The NZ Climate 'Science' Coalition -- yet another authority whose words Billy Bob Hall unquestioningly accepts as gospel.

"Authority means nothing to me" my foot.

Ha Ha Janet now you are just too funny.

Are you claiming like the the green alarmists that we now have (using their words) 'catastropic sea level rise' ?
'Trending upwards' my foot. It is trending up-wards and downwards, and at such a small scale, we can effectively say it is static.

You should probably go and have a long cool drink with say Robyn '100metres' Williams just to name one of the great 'upwards trendy's'... :-)

Billy Bob, Thanks for demonstating clearly that you do not understand what you are talking about.

[This](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6638) is "*It is trending up-wards and downwards, and at such a small scale, we can effectively say it is static.
"*

You are gold Billy Bob, I'm starting to wonder if you really might be an excellent Poe.

Bill Bob,

I'd say we're on course for [catestrophic consequences](http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/water2/page/3291.aspx) with our current tend in sea level rise. And this is before factoring in the considerable risk of high impact non-linear changes.

No worries bi-IJI, (#37), I can re-state my view on Science 'Authority' all the live long day if you like - until you 'get it'.
I am not claiming the "NZ Climate Science Coalition' as any Authority. Where did I say that ?

Regardless, just say this paper was written by Oxfam or the WWF just for arguments sake, would you then say it is OK ?
Just so I am clear on what sort of papers constitute 'Authority', because this will go towards helping clear up something I am definitely not sure about. That being where is 'Authority' mentioned in any 'mainstream' definition of Science.

Getting back to sea levels, what I will quite happily claim however is that this paper presents a clearly different point of view compared to inalienable 'consensus' that seems to have infected the media. As such I was convinced in my small feeble mind that you guys might like to know about it.

I know you think the paper is 'bad, but wouldn't the correct Scientific response have been to analyze the data, and try to repeat and test the analysis, even with newly acquired data if possible.Rather than just question the publisher ?
But no, I'm sure you will have a great reason why not.

No worries Janet (#39). Tell me, how do you know this NASA data and the associated analysis is correct ?
Fear not, I don't know the 'NZ Climate Science Coalition' analysis is correct either.
The two sets appear to conflict ?
What do we do about it ?
Are you starting to see my point ?

"I know you think the paper is 'bad, but wouldn't the correct Scientific response have been to analyze the data, and try to repeat and test the analysis, even with newly acquired data if possible."

Yes, Bob. Scientists should be scanning the internet for every crank claim they can find, then spending their time analyzing and testing them. If someone doesn't expend the time and effort to examine and study every paper you've taken 2 seconds to cut & paste, your cut and paste wins!

>Are you starting to see my point ?

Yes, I've understood your game for sometime now. You think all science is equivalent and that we can pick the answers that we prefer, before we read or understand the evidence.

You are hoping that an article in a newletter that looks at a small region over a small time frame, is in conflict with global sealevels measured across the globe.

Billy Bob, you are doing for sea-level what tamino sees others do for [glacial growth](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/graph-jam/). (That is without even considering the quality of the newletter article you cite).

Billy Bob Hall:

> I am not claiming the "NZ Climate Science Coalition' as any Authority. Where did I say that ?

Great, so BBH says he's not guilty of Argument by Authority, because he never explicitly stated "I claim that the NZCSC is an authority". Yeah.

Even though he just mindlessly accepted the NZCSC's stuff as gospel.

> Just so I am clear on what sort of papers constitute 'Authority', because this will go towards helping clear up something I am definitely not sure about.

You, Sir, are an idiot.

Let me put it in plain words: Whenever you unquestioningly parrot some guy X's words as infallible gospel, you're using X as an authority.

It. Is. That. Simple.

Got it?

"The two sets appear to conflict ? What do we do about it ?"

Nice try Bob, but you're "authority means nothing to me" lie hit a dead end when Janet disemboweled it in comment 13.

>how do you know this NASA data and the associated analysis is correct ?

It is supported by the equivalent data from leading accadamies reseach institutes around the world. It is supported by direct gauge measurses and satilite measures. It is consistent with the observed loss of ice and thermal expansion.

BBhall,

Oxfam (???) and WWF do not conduct scientific research. What WWF does do is cite the results of research performed by scientists at university and government institutions that is published in rigid scientific jounrals that appear on the ISI Web of Science (WOS). The WOS cites only credible scientific journals.

Your problem is that you exhaustively surf the internet looking for any tidbit of information to feed into your anti-AGW views. It doesn't matter how appalling or disreputable the source is, but you look for it. Why don't you expend the same energy more usefully looking for the primary literature in scientific journals? Go to an academic library; do a source check on Google Scholar or (if you can access it) on the WOS.

Those pseudoscientists (or in many cases non-scientists) generating the crap that you constantly dish up here must love people like you - the ones they are trying to dupe through their mendacious propaganda. Nils put it beautifully on another thread when he said that the sceptics are muddying the water so much that the general lay public cannot see the bottom. Given that you admit that you know virtually nothing about the field of climate science or science in general, why do you expend such effort defending those few who are mangling it to promote their pre-determined worldview?

bi-IJI,

Just checking, have you [read this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/jim_lippard_on_plimer.php#comme…)

>Yes 'TrueSkeptik'. I haven't got the faintest knowledge of the subject, but so long as I have wasted a few seconds of your precious time... well that's good enough for me. ;-)

>Posted by: Billy Bob Hall | July 24, 2009 4:18 AM

No bi-IJI, (#45), I think it is you who are starting to look like the idiot.

Not once have I invoked some supreme 'Authority' especially one with the name of 'X' and never have I invoked the gospel.
Still stands though, please tell me where 'Authority' is mandated in Science.

And well spotted Janet (#49). I am somewhat impressed, for even though many of you clearly think so little of little ole me, especially because I might just be questioning the 'consensus', I am truly surprized to see so many diligently 'hanging off my every word' ! ;-)

And thanks Mark Byrne (#47), Good work. I am taking heed of your assertion there ! :-) You are 'invoking' scientific method and analysis. I appreciate it. I will consider.

Ah, Billy, what a pratt you are.

Nobody here has said you said you were an authority.

Why then are you proclaiming people have said that?

> "Authority means nothing to me" my foot.

> Posted by: bi -- IJI

Technically, could be true.

Therefore any time he produces some proof, just cut n paste his commend about there being no authority and state that that statement shows his cite has is no authority on the subject therefore a priori considered worthless.

He now has two statements that can be used to shut the twonk up: "I want to waste your time" and "There is no authority".

> That's why Billy Bob feeds his pets melamine, gets his local Scout group to sand down his asbestos shed and goes unprotected with sex workers in South Africa.

> Posted by: Janet Akerman

You may have that mixed around.

Feeds the scouts melamine, gets SA sex workers to sand down asbestos ...

PS Billy is a commie pinko anyway. He thinks that "the people" are as good as those who specialise in something. Which would include "be the owners of all means of production". After all, a site manager has no authority, therefore "the people" are as good as a site manager at running the factory. etc.

Normaly, I enjoy a bit of poking fun at the stupid troll, cruel as it it, but clearly this thing is only interested in wasting your time and repeated his stupidities as many times as possible.

Mark:

> PS Billy is a commie pinko anyway. [...] After all, a site manager has no authority, therefore "the people" are as good as a site manager at running the factory. etc.

Nope, because in this special case, the site manager is actually "the people", while his workers are actually the pork-barrel urban elite who don't pay taxes.

Yes, it's profound. You'll probably understand it better if there's a Liberal Fascism joke here.

Denial Depot is back! All Hail!

Billy Bob:

Are you claiming like the the green alarmists that we now have (using their words) 'catastropic sea level rise' ? 'Trending upwards' my foot. It is trending up-wards and downwards, and at such a small scale, we can effectively say it is static.

Actual measurements seem to disagree with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Well Barton, that's your problem isn't it.

Relying on measurements will lead you astray - in the brave new world of the post-post-modern denialists all you have to do is wish your desires into reality.....

The rising trend in sea-level is so small it's going down.

See?

Re: the word 'Authority'

The word authority is largely linked to knowledge. The Catholic church I guess is probably a source of the corrupt meaning when the knowledge of the bible was centralised and the church started using the press to standardise the way the religion was conducted by sending out written instructions. Hence the church became the 'authority' of knowledge, yet at the same time effectively dictated the way the knowledge was used and acted upon.

So i think in the more broader and older context of the word,
scientists are generally an authority on the subject they research, because they are an accepted source of information and are cited as an expert on a subject.

'Authority' is an appropriate word for someone that knows a lot about a subject. Einstein was an 'authority' in the field he worked in.

Unfortunately all words are polarised into a meaning that the user of the word wishes.

55 bi-IJI,

Thanks for the tip-off for [Denial Depot](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/). Wonderful stuff.

If there is no authoritative body of science, then it follows that science is whatever Billy Boy believes it to be.

This is a symptom of a pathological liar.

Get help, Bill.

> If there is no authoritative body of science, then it follows that science is whatever Billy Boy believes it to be.

Incorrect.

If there is no authoritative body, science is whatever YOU believe it to be.

Ergo, Billy has to accede to your version.

Or set himself up as an authority... which he doesn't believe exists...

Paul UK: Says Merriam-Webster Online:

> Main Entry: au·thor·i·ty [...]

> Etymology: Middle English auctorite, from Anglo-French auctorité, from Latin auctoritat-, auctoritas opinion, decision, power, from auctor

The relevant senses of the word when one talks about "authorities in science" are probably these:

> 1 [...] c : an individual cited or appealed to as an expert [...]
> 4 a : GROUNDS, WARRANT authority for believing the claim> [...]

Wikipedia:
>Auctor in the sense of "author", comes from auctor as founder or, one might say, "planter-cultivator".

Charlton T. Lewis, An Elementary Latin Dictionary:
>auctor, origination, production

In religion, the Pope would be the auctÅritÄs.

If you have knowledge then you are cultivating something or founding something. That suggests authority.

Knowledge is power.

Mark,

If is a pretty big word. Is your comment not one reductio ad absurdum gone too far?

Billy Boy doesn't have to cede a whit. He's a pathological liar. The tangled forest of semantic confusion is his lair.

>In religion, the Pope would be the auctÅritÄs.

Not my religion.

Paul UK: Well, if we trace the origins of the words further back, we get

> Main Entry: 1 au·thor [...]
> Etymology: [...] from augÄre to increase â more at EKE

:-)

Unrelated:

http://www.igormarxo.org/

Either that Mark@61 or BB can assert that all truths are equally valid, that mutually exclusive propositions can coexist.

That way you can doubt eveything, including that BB is even posting or making claims and the whole notion of knowable reality could iterate its way up its own relativistic epistemically nihilistic rear end, assuming such existed of course, which err ...

> that mutually exclusive propositions can coexist.

Or that is a load of horse-puckey.

Which Billy can't refute because there is no such thing as authority.

However, sane people DO realise there is such a thing as authority. We don't have to accede an actual lack of authority.

Ergo anything Billy brings up is brought up as non-authoritative. And therefore ignorable.

But people who believe there is such a thing as an authoritative source can bring up what they consider an authoritative source. And such a source would be of no worse and possibly much greater accuracy than the non-authoritative sources Billy brings up.

His stupidity can be used for good or evil.

Billy's got the "evil" one covered, why not put Billy's stupidity to good use?

> Billy Boy doesn't have to cede a whit.

> Posted by: luminous beauty

He does unless he wants to get caught out proffering an authoritative source.

So any source he brings up say "it is not authoritative" and dismiss it. He can't counter that without saying it IS authoritative.

He still has to argue your points or proofs without that avenue for dismissal.

You can put even stupidity to good use?

Wow ... how renewable ... use of a waste product that is in abundant supply

Sorry I've been away a bit. Out planting potatoes on the 'collective' farm maybe :-) - [Thanks Mark (#52)]

Anyway, I was just wondering if you guys can be or are trying to be 'balanced', (and you may cite any of the 'Authoritative' literature sources here if you like).

Can any of you show me what you would consider demonstrates a legitimate counter to the 'consensus' of Anthropogenic CO2 causing 'catastrophic' climate change ?

Anything at all will do. It may relate to anything that is still not explained and perhaps shows 'on the balance of probabilities' that not all data 'points in the same direction'.
[Leave 'the abundance of skeptic's is still unexplained' type jibes out please :-)]

Anyway, keep up the good work guys, you might turn' me into a 'FormerSkeptic' yet ! :-)

64 Luminous,

I think Billy Bob is incapable of telling truth from falsehood. Is that pathological or something else?

68 Fran,

Believing mutually exclusive propositions is standard for denialists. I really must revisit my HTBAGWS one of these days.

71 Fran,

Sure. Just set the Stupids off against one another. Fortunately we don't need to do that as people like Watts do it for us. :)

Billy, you've had your "answers" many times and have "accepted" them.

Why are you "querying" for them again?

Go and "find" them again, comrade.

> Can any of you show me what you would consider demonstrates a legitimate counter to the 'consensus' of Anthropogenic CO2 causing 'catastrophic' climate change ?

Something that's not merely mindless linkspam will be a good start, but it seems you'll have a problem even with this.

Or in other words, a theory that is at least consistent with the data known.

Billy Bob:

Can any of you show me what you would consider demonstrates a legitimate counter to the 'consensus' of Anthropogenic CO2 causing 'catastrophic' climate change ?

Sure. A demonstration that CO2 wasn't really a greenhouse gas, despite all the lab work that shows that it is--maybe some unknown physical effect was making it look that way.

Plus an explanation of the atmosphere's energy budget without a CO2 greenhouse effect.

Plus an explanation of the high surface temperature of Venus without a greenhouse effect from CO2.

Or you could demonstrate that CO2 hasn't been rising, despite the measurements from around the world that shows that it has been. Maybe we've got some unknown physics affecting the instruments again.

Or you could show that temperature hasn't been rising, despite the evidence from land-based temperature stations, sea-surface temperature readings, borehole readings, balloon radiosond readings, satellite readings, melting ice caps and glaciers, tree lines moving toward the poles, earlier hatching dates for eggs of fish, frogs, insects, and birds, earlier blooming dates for flowers and flowering trees, rising sea level, movement of tropical diseases into temperate zones, increasing drought in continental interiors, more violent weather along coastlines, etc., etc., etc. Maybe all the evidence there is wrong, too.

OK. I think you have all answered my question. The answer is clearly no. Summarizing the comments of those who have responded I get the distinct impression that we are unable to countenance the possibility that the science relating to climate change is perhaps not necessarily 'settled'. I wish I had such supreme confidence and could achieve such a 'state of grace'.

Surprizing, considering the alarmism about 'catastrophic global warming' because of the trace gas CO2, while we are currently in a global cooling trend. Of course I expect the cooling trend will not last forever (I accept climate does change). I recognize trends of cooling and warming have both have occurred in the past and will do again.
I also accept that there is some 'correlation' between CO2 and average global temperatures, (as Bart has previously pointed out) but my view is that there is far too many other complicating 'modifying factors' that can affect climate as well.
Some of the other possible 'modifiers' are not being given much thought in the 'debate' I don't think.

Of course I have absolutely no idea when the next warming trend will begin again. Computer models I don't think are going to narrow this down either.

Such perplexity there is !

Billy Bob Hall said,

> Can any of you show me what you would consider demonstrates a legitimate counter to the 'consensus' of Anthropogenic CO2 causing 'catastrophic' climate change ?

I replied:

> Something that's not merely mindless linkspam will be a good start, but it seems you'll have a problem even with this.

BBH now says,

> OK. I think you have all answered my question. The answer is clearly no.

Well, I was right. BBH has a problem with anything that's not mindless linkspam.

Billy Bob,

You've [already demonstrated](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/two_weeks_from_blog_post_to_pa…) your supreme confidence.

And again in [this thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/open_thread_31.php#comment-1849…):

>of course this organization (AP Soc) collectively speaking as well as with the CSIRO for example are wrong. 'It will all come out in the wash'

Now your trying projection. What a funny fellow.

And the striking thing is Billy Bobs supreme confidence is combined with lack of facts, or even willingness to read.

But from reading Billy Bob, it seems he beleives making up assertions and misrepresenting others is much quicker and eaiser.

Billy Bob, you keep kidding your self and making your own baseless assertions, you've showed us again that this is the best you've got.

Billy Bob writes:

>Can any of you show me what you would consider demonstrates a legitimate counter to the 'consensus' of Anthropogenic CO2 causing 'catastrophic' climate change ?

BPL [responds](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/open_thread_31.php#comment-1858…) with a list of evidence that would need to be invalidated or countered.

Billy Bob retorts:

>OK. I think you have all answered my question. The answer is clearly no.

Mmm. Perhaps Billy Bob would give us his new novel defintions of "clearly" and "no"?

Re #81,
As I have [observed prviously](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/open_thread_31.php#comment-1853…), Billy Bob thinks "*all science is equivalent and that we can pick the answers that we prefer, before we read or understand the evidence.*"

So Billy Bob conducted and little experient and picked the answer he wanted, regarless of the observed evidence or limites of his experiment.

It's so easy to do Billy's sort of science.

Ah, so the answer is clearly 'yes and no' is it Mark ? (#81).

Yes, Barton has listed a bunch of things that line up with your case.

But do you have any doubts at all ? Have you seen any empirical evidence at all that might cause you to say 'I might just have another closer look at that'... (ie question your previous assumptions, ie consider the null hypothesis) ?
Do sunspot numbers concern you for example, or the fossil record ?

Interesting concept there too Janet 'all science is equivalent. (#82). I'll have to think about that....
I do not see why I cannot 'pick an answer that I prefer', so long as the hypothesis that underpins my selection is tested thoroughly and continually if necessary until it breaks down. This is definitely not happening with many of the 'positions' put forth in the IPCC 4th assessment.

Finally, I will not mention 'authority' again. I think this concept (having no place Science) is unduly frightening a few of us. :-)

Billy Bob:

we are currently in a global cooling trend.

No, we are not:

http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/VV.html

http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Ball.html

http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Reber.html

>"I do not see why I cannot 'pick an answer that I prefer', so long as the hypothesis that underpins my selection is tested thoroughly and continually if necessary until it breaks down."

from the same person who wrote this:

>"of course this organization (AP Soc) collectively speaking as well as with the CSIRO for example are wrong. 'It will all come out in the wash'"

and this:

>"This chapter 6 [AR4] has been demolished already. Where is the approx ~800 year lag of temp leading CO2 increase for example ?"

and this:

>"I think you have all answered my question. The answer is clearly no. "

Billy, better go back and start testing your hypothesis, or you might start to look foolish!

:)

Billy Bob Hall continues to show that he has a problem with anything that's not mindless linkspam.

>Ah, so the answer is clearly 'yes and no' is it Mark ?

Try again Billy Bob! (But that's closer than your first try).

COORDINATED LOCAL ACTIVISM!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK Mark (#87), third time lucky. So clearly the answer is yes ?
If so, what is the evidence that is most troubling you that anthropogenic CO2 is not the prime cause of 'climate change' ?

Ha ha, yes.... and bi--IJI, just for you :-

http://www.minimalgovernment.net/media/mg_20090528.pdf

I am pleased to see The Sun is getting a bit more attention too.

And finally, I have 1 more question on atmospheric CO2, if anyone would care to speculate. What is the upper 'safe' limit for CO2 in the atmosphere ? Would 1000ppm be too high ?

>âWhat is the evidence that is most troubling you that anthropogenic CO2 is not the prime cause of 'climate changeâ?â

"Troubling me" is not the right phrase in this context. I have a yearning hope that the very strong evidence of AGW is somehow wrong. But reading of the evidence leaves me to conclude that is extremely unlikely.

Given our empirical knowledge of the heat trapping effects of CO2; combined with the current rise in temp associate with the rise in CO2, my best hope for a while was that the logarithmic relationship between temp and CO2 would see the temperature rise converging on a temp at the bottom of the predicted climate sensitivity.

Unfortunately paleo-climate observations indicates that is also unlikely. The PETM (55Mya) saw a rise in temp of 5-9 K. That was produced by the emission of a similar amount of CO2e that we are projected to emit from fossil fuels by 2100.

The double whammy being that that was on top of an already warmer world with already higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2e. Hence providing evidence that the convergence temp in the CO2e vs temp relationship is high.

The triple whammy being that weâll be losing a lot of ice (dropping albedo) which will accelerate warming.

The quadruple whammy being that the fossil fuels we are liberating were safely sequestered 55 Mya. So the potential feedback rise in CO2e is greater.

The quintuple whammy is we are releasing the CO2e at between 10-100 times faster that in the PETM. Which reduces the ecosphereâs adaptive response time.

The hextuple whamming being that when are on the verge of the 6th great extinction due to clearfelling and carving up the living world and displacing it with concrete, tarmac and enforced monocultures. This combined with the population at an unprecedented level of 6 billion which is rapidly depleting resources; together means that the loss of the climate that we are adapted to, will have large consequences even if the change is relatively small.

> If so, what is the evidence that is most troubling you that anthropogenic CO2 is not the prime cause of 'climate change' ?

> Posted by: Billy Bob Hall

Billy Bob, why are you asking for Mark to do your work for you all the time?

Come up with a theory that explains the recorded FACTS and can be tested to see if it is true (e.g. the idea that it's the sun can be tested: the stratosphere should warm relatively as much, the daytime should warm and the nighttime much less and the poles warm less than the equator. The evidence then can be tested against that theory. In this case, the evidence shows it isn't the sun).

Billy Bob Hall:

> Ha ha, yes.... and bi--IJI, just for you :-

Yep, more mindless linkspam.

I guess, since we won't simply accept BBH's mindless linkspam, and mindless linkspam is all that BBH has, therefore this somehow makes us closed-minded. Yep.

You know, I thought the whole idea about "having no authority" is that you're supposed to think for yourself. Which means, you know, using your own brain, instead of constantly demanding that other people exercise their brains for your sake.

Mark is right:

> Billy Bob, why are you asking for Mark to do your work for you all the time?

No worries bi-IJI.
I am using my own brain, I apologize for it not being 'as good' as yours.
Never mind any 'link'. May I please be the humble beneficiary of your opinion ? What in your opinion is a safe upper limit' for atmospheric CO2 ?

And thank you Mark Byrne (#90) for your opinion on these matters. It is appreciated.
I'll take one of the 'Voltaire prerogatives' on this for now.
('I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it').

Interesting that the old record-high for Brisbane (Australia) in August (32.8°C) was absolutely humiliated today, 2009/08/24, by the new record, 35.4°C. A bit like what will happen to science denialists as the world gradually gets hotter and the nasty effects of global warming become more obvious.

Nonsense Chris. It's just weather. Is this 'record' temperature one that you know has not been reached before in say last ~2000 years ? There is absolutely nothing to worry about. Trust me. :-)
As Mark Twain was once reputed to have said : 'Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get'.

Billy Bob Hall:

> What in your opinion is a safe upper limit' for atmospheric CO2 ?

The fact that you can't even be bothered to do the sums yourself shows that you are not using your own brain.

> I am using my own brain, I apologize for it not being 'as good' as yours.

No, BBH. It's not about your brain being 'as good' or 'not as good'. It's about you not using it.

Here's the thing: When you keep insisting on throwing out mindless linkspam, it is not proof that you are using your brain. In fact, it is proof to the contrary.

It is that simple. But I know you simply won't get it.

OK bi-IJI. I've done some sums and done a bit of my 'worst case' scenario 'analysis'. I reckon at 1000ppm everything will still be ok. And 1000 is a nice 'round number' as well.
I don't think you would even notice 1000ppm.

By the way, I was assuming a 'linear' relationship between CO2 and temperature from 350ppm and up (as ole Barton demonstrates). I know this is probably a wrong assumption, but it is at least not 'conservative'.

Can you tell me anything else useful regards why my estimations might be 'wrong' ?
Use 'linkspam' to prove your point if you like. :-)

And correct me too if I am also wrong on this one, don't many of the commercial tomato growers in the cooler parts of ye olde Europe in their glass-houses bump up the levels to 1500-3000ppm for optimal plant growth ?

A bit of extra CO2 doesn't seem that 'scary' to me really.

Billy Bob Hall:

> I've done some sums

Then why are they invisible?

They are not invisible, they are right here in front of me.