Time for a new Open Thread, where you can spit on the floor and call the cat a bastard.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I just commented over at DrugMonkey's on a question he re-posed on behalf of a question posed by blogger, Lorax:
However, I am concerned about message. I do not want the interesting and important science to be diluted (to some potential readers) by the fact that I am an opinionated bastard. So, I…
This is supposed to be the Carnival of the Elitist Bastards, a celebration of excessive arrogance and bare-knuckle commentary, where smart-assed brutes with swords for tongues receive their rightful acknowledgment. I have received two dozen requests for inclusion in the rolls of the Elitist…
By the time this appears, I should be on my way home from the AACR. For some reason, the meeting this year didn't get me all fired up the way it usually does. Perhaps I'll post in more detail about why that may have been after I get home.
In the meantime, here's something I've been meaning to try…
CHECK IT OUT!!! CLICK HERE!!!! CLICK HERE!!!!
I am rolling of the floor laughing (ROFL). If you didn't see it, watch the YouTube Video.
(He totally made up for it with the speech, of course.)
You may also note two precious moments earlier in the day:
1) When George Herbert Walker Bush was…
The Madness of the Afghan Adventure
Jim Molen on ABC (Australia) the other morning asserted that 180,000 or so troops were required to avoid failing the mission, but this can scarcely be reconciled with the US Army's Counter-Insurgency Field Manual which, authored in part by Petraeus insists on a ratio of 20 counter insurgency trained troops for every 1000 civilians. On a population of 33 million in Afghanistan, that works out not to 180,000 troops but ... 660,000 troops. Remember also that these can't be any old troops but specially trained counter- insurgency troops.
How much would these cost to keep in the field? Figures are hard to come by but we can hazard a ballpark guess. During the whole period of the US occupation of Afghanistan, during most of which time the US had far fewer troops than now, the average annual cost of the war was $US38 billion, yet as late as April this year the US only had 34,000 troops. Simple maths tells us that this is nearly 1.2 million per year per troop in the field, even at this rather larger number. Costs for the war this fiscal year are up to $US55 billion with 64,000 troops for most of the year, so that's a little cheaper at $860,000 troops each. The Canadians 2300 troops present between November 2001 and March of 2006 cost a little over $CAN600,000 each (about $US552,000 on today's conversion) for each year. Again simple maths tells us that even if we accept this low figure -- improbable since we are now not merely fighting and holding but doing capacity building -- that
amounts to $US3.643 trillion dollars annually. IOW, for each of the ten years optimists think it will take to win, the world would spend about 5% of GDP on Afghan counter-insurgency, in addition to what has already been spent. Even at Jim Molen's super optimistic 180,000 estimate for a landlocked country with very porous borders its near enough to $US 1trillion per year. It is worth noting that no nation in history has ever gone from feudalist/tribalism to modern governance in ten years, or anything like it. No nation has ever done this at gunpoint.
It's deceitful special pleading to say that if we don't increase resources we won't win when even increasing resources to unsustainable levels can't confidently predict such an outcome, and indeed predicts nothing more than throwing good resources after bad.
Currently of course there are about 100,000 troops in the field. A whole bunch of the non-US troops are looking for an early exit â Berlusconi has been explicit. The Dutch aren't renewing and itâs likely the Germans will also pull out shortly. So even on the most optimistic of estimates Obama is going to have to find and maintain most of 120,000 extra troops in addition to the 64,000 he already has there. Since many of these have to be redeployed from Iraq and redeployment is also more expensive than coming home, we have another expense. If you want to allow the troops 4 weeks annual R&R you can add an extra 1/12 of however many they have there. Allow for 2% casualty rate (dead and indefinitely incapacitated each year) and there's another 3600 for 180,000 that you have to allow. And this is all very optimistic, because if Petraeus is right (and if he's that far wrong, what is he doing in charge?) they are going to need most of 600,000 extra US troops -- for ten years.
Currently, most Americans think the occupation has been a failure and that the US should exit as soon as possible, which rather suggests that escalating would not be popular. Ditto the UK.
But if you can't escalate and can't win, why be there at all? Why sacrifice one dollar or even a flesh wound in pursuit of the unrealistic? Obama may feel that withdrawing would make him look weak, but actually I suspect withdrawal at this time would be greeted with relief amongst people who might vote for him and even amongst a few that wouldn't.
And here in Australia, AIUI, you could save about $AUS1bn from the budget if we pulled out of Afghanistan.
To continue with his project would be mad on an epic scale.
If only that were true Tim.
Your censorship of me is more than just random.
Nothing like having 'open' discussion with incorporation 'other views' is there ?
I am surprised at the naivety of the people who are campaigning for reductions in carbon emissions. It doesn't matter whether we modify the ETS or have one at all. It doesn't matter whether we introduce a carbon tax. Emissions are not going to drop, people. Get ready to deal with the consequences. The latest bit of political bastardry is the precisely targeted campaign by the Australian Coal Association. They have the money to buy the result they want and the result they want is that they will continue to sell more and more coal every year.
Alan
Perhaps you can explain your reasoning.
I can well accept that in practice whatever scheme and regulatory framework is adopted, it is unlikely to be robust enough to reduce emissions, precisely because the major parties are beholden to the big polluters. If this is what you are claiming, then I agree, especially if by emissions, you mean jurisdictional emissions but surely you are not claiming that no scheme and regulatory framework could hope to acheive such an object.
I think the whole train of thought justifying the invasion is pretty tenuous. Supposedly it is to remove terrorist training activities that are directed towards attacks like the one on 9/11. It appears to me that Al Quaeda had very little need for training in Afganistan to carry out the attacks on 9/11. If anything, most of the training for 9/11 was done in the USA. Any planning that was needed could be done anywhere in the world. And any training that Al Quaeda does (which had very little to do with 9/11 anyway) can be done in lots of places, e.g. Pakistan. I just can't see any real value in invading Afganistan. 9/11 would have happened anyway even with Afganistan in its current state.
I have no intention of spitting on the floor, but this study has done 4EOF.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N3/C1.php
Chris,
I suggest that you read up the work of Pepe Escobar who has written extensively about the REAL reasons underlying the Afghan adventure. And it has nix to do with "democracy promotion", "nation building" and the mythical "war on terror". It does have everything to do with blue and black gold: natural gas and oil. The US is desperate to connect the vast resource rich countries of the Caucasus with pipelines that bypass Russia and Iran: the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline does this but crosses 5 conflict zones (bad news for Dr. Zbig [Zbignieuw Brezinski] who was behind this from the beginning). Now the Nabucco pipeline - there is another story. The thrust of US foreign policy in the region is based on ther fact that Afghanistan lies in a geopolitically vital area. As Brezinski pointed out in the "Grand Chessboard", any country cotrolling the region has critical leverage over the global economy. The other concern is that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a kind of alter NATO, includes China and Russia as full members, with Pakistan, India and Iran enjoying "observer" status. Get used to the acronym SCO. It`s gonna be around awhile. If, as it seems likely, Iran becomes a full member of the SCO, then that changes the dynamics of the region completely.
So forget all the lies and crap about the war on terror or democracy building; the show is all about pipelines, the central Asian energy grid and who controls the flow of oil and gas. And that is why Afghanistan is a vital cog in the wheel of US foreign policy. And of course, all of the countries in the region know this too, even if our corporate MSM has to keep the conveyor belt of lies in full gear.
el gordo, Tim already commented on this a long time ago, so let me add [this criticism](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/08/multiscale_analysis_of_global.php)
The NYT has an interesting story on developments in the US:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/business/energy-environment/23utility…
Seems (quite) a few US companies are jumping ship on the 'skeptics'.
Hey Gordo,
Actually, linking to that site and spitting on the floor are pretty much on a par with one another.
Thanx Marco
The original Afghanistan invasion should have been only about getting hold of the head of the snake, as it were. The USA knew where Osama bin Laden was, approximately, even before 9/11. They blew it because Bush & Cheney wanted to keep several hundred thousand troops ready for an invasion of Iraq. Too few troops were deployed to seek out ObL, and they were forced to depend upon the "honesty" of tribal leaders and the information they exchanged for cash.
If the invasion of Afghanistan had been limited to capturing or killing ObL and his generals, and if they had deployed 300k to 400k troops to lock down the escape routes from Tora Bora, the US might have succeeded. Even if they failed, they could at least have extracted the forces rather than becoming embroiled in dictator-swapping politics. The Russians gave up in Afghanistan for a reason.
But America is presently not that country. It is, at best, only able to prevent another nation from becoming that nation.
In any case - the much-needed shift away from fossil fuels, if it happens, will greatly reduce the utility of said leverage.
America and its allies would be far wiser to abandon the area, and focus their (our? Ha! what say do I have in the matter?) efforts on abandoning fossil fuels as well. $55 billion a year would build a lot of low-carbon power plants and infrastructure.
But that would make too much sense.
Spits on the cat
Calls the floor a bastard.
"I am surprised at the naivety of the people who are campaigning for reductions in carbon emissions. It doesn't matter whether we modify the ETS or have one at all. It doesn't matter whether we introduce a carbon tax. Emissions are not going to drop, people."
The real question is why we shouldn't campaign for reductions in carbon emissions. Cap-and-trade will have almost no negative effect on the economy - and possibly even a positive one by sparking innovations, as has been the case with all other environmental regulations. Global warming, on the other hand, has guaranteed, devastating consequences. If the costs of doing SOMETHING are essentially zero, there's no reason we shouldn't at least try. Here's a visualization that should help illustrate just how small the costs of CO2 reductions are:
http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/09/visualizing-costs-of-cap-and-trade.ht…
#13
>But that would make too much sense.
Sense has got nothing to do with it. The plutocrats and corporations that are enriched by the status quo have everything to do with it. There are almost 40,000 lobbyists in Washington DC.
Jeff Harvey,
"As Brezinski pointed out in the "Grand Chessboard", any country cotrolling the region has critical leverage over the global economy."
Is this some kind of perversion of Mackinder's 'Heartland Theory'? Times have moved on since the early 20thC and you obviously don't have clue what you are talking about.
Jeff Harvey,
At last I understand where you are coming from. Nothing to do with biodiversity or ecology, "its all about oil"
Out of curiosity I did a straw poll last night amongst half-a-dozen school teachers and discovered none had heard of the ETS.
If a double disolution election was held around Easter they will have to be brought up to speed by the msm or democracy will falter.
John Broder of the New York Times looks at "suppression" of Alan Carlin by the EPA:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/science/earth/25epa.html?hpw
Not bad, but it could have gone a lot further - so I did (with links back to my previous three posts).
http://deepclimate.org/2009/09/25/john-broder-of-nyt-the-epa-fights-bac…
Meanwhile, in Canada, Friends of Science are putting the finishing touches on Lord Monckton's upcoming tour of the colonies, with likely funding via the usual channels.
http://deepclimate.org/2009/09/22/friends-of-science-behind-moncktons-m…
Short Dave Andrews @17:
>Jeff you might have long and credible record, you might have read the planning documents, but I know better, I need no evidence thus it is clear that *you obviously don't have clue what you are talking about.*
Shorter Shorter Dave Andrews:
>I have no credibility so I can say what ever I like.
Dave Andrews, speaking out of his ass as usual, takes exception with information that does not fit his jaded elementary school world. That world says "we is the good guys, they is the bad guys, and our foreign policies reflect that".
Guffaw, guffaw.
Unless you can debate on vaguely intellectual terms, Andrews, I won`t waste too much of my breath on you.
Ever hear of the SCO smart man? Or the pipelines I described? Why the US cozied up with Islam Karimov in full knowledge tyhat he was a human-rights violating monster? Why China signed a lucrative pipeline deal with Uzbekistan in which they ensured that the contract excluded "any third parties" (meaning no US military bases allowed in the country were it to be binding)? Why the US state department called the middle east " A source of stupendous strategic power" and the "greatest material prize in history" in 1950? Why planner George Kennan said that any country controlling the region had "veto power over the global economy"? Given that Brezinski is a very influential public figure in the US (both with the neocons and with the Obama administration) OF COURSE its bloody well about oil and natural gas. We virtually eat the stuff; the whole global economy revolves around it. It is not about access but about CONTROL. To have one`s hand on the spigot. Brezinski is a disciple of the Harold MacKinder school of thought. He isn`t stupid - he helped to set the "Afghan trap" for the Russians and he is well aware, as are other government planners, of the vital importance of the Caucasus region in addition to the Middle East in maintaining US hegemony.
Andrews, before you make any other pithy ignorant remarks, read a little, will you? And I do not mean the MSM; try some of Escobar`s work, and perhaps even Brezinski`s "Grand Chessboard". On top of that, read what the government and corporate planners have written. Many of the declassified documents are i public lib, written about them in his books "Web of Deceit" and "Unpeople" and they pretty well back up everything I have said.
Hey, let's all talk about Dave Andrews.
It'd be exciting! New! Consciousness-raising! Innovative!
A chance to give attention where attention is due.
After all, that's what an open thread is for, right?
Because dagnabbit even after trashing all the prefs and reinstalling Greasemonkey .... sigh ....
Time to start the lovely old ritual of looking for an extension conflict by halves.
Ross Gittins talks about the elephant in the room, aka increasing global population. It isn't that discussion of the subject in mainstream Oz media is noteworthy (although...) so much as that Gittins is an economist. I mean, what next - an Opposition with a credible environment policy?
El Gordo asserted:
Straw polls are a logical thing for people who rely on strawmen to make arguments, since the basic matter is the same and these lend themselves well to those who like grasping at straws.
While this straw may be fit for El Gordo to lie on, it's the last straw any of us should accept from El Gordo, and only then for those of us have a barn and some cattle who could crap on it.
Six teachers who haven't heard of an ETS? Laughable.
And even if it were true this would be good news for the government, since it is the opposition who need to demonize the ETS to stay in the game. Most people support the government version of the ETS -- the CPRS. People who haven't heard of it aren't going to vote against it.
Gittins is alarmed, but it sounds more like a Saturday morning beat up.
An opposition with a credible policy on climate change would be a good start.
Fran,
It's an informed society, not just an opinionated one, which is the backbone of our democratic way of life.
It's not fair to say the 'opposition need to demonize the ETS to stay in the game', you know Turnbull doesn't have the bottle. Barnaby Joyce, on the other hand, is a true opposition leader.
This is an interesting read, with some lovely graphs, but the author says the CO2 record out of Vostok is nevertheless thought to be dubious. Not sure where that leaves us.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-from-icecap.html
"... you don't need to be a professional scientist to recognize many of the errors from some sources. Once you do, it's time to move elsewhere, I think. It's hard enough to understand the world when you're reading good sources ...."
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/08/unreliability-at-icecap…
We all have to be conscious of partisan blogs masquerading as science, because personal bias may have an adverse effect on our critical faculty.
Your faculty was so critical it decided to head for greener pastures, leaving you to function on your own ...
Thanks for the link to Icecap el gordo.Doesnt this suggests that the CO2 driving temperature idea is seriously flawed?
Frank, that's their argument and its obviously a close run thing. There has been some discussion around the traps that the Mauna Loa CO2 readings are 'iffy', because the Antarctic readings have been relatively flat over the past century.
I have no idea where the fault lies, but will do a search in the hope of an honest answer free of bias.
Looking at big climate movements there are indications that CO2 lags temperatures anywhere from 600 to 1200 years.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V3/N37/C1.php
Once again, I have no way of gauging the correctness of these findings.
Thankgod we have el gordo here to regurgitate hoary old denialist tripe while proporting to be a disinterested observer searching for the truth.
Such a novel thing.
el gordo:
So where, pray tell, did you get this bullshit from?
Whoa. That's some grade 'A' snark from one of the least snarky commenters. Not only is it exceptionally well done, it's also well-deserved. I'm very impressed!
A hatchet job of a review has been posted up on Amazon about Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. The review can be found here.
Jeff Harvey,
I don't deny that oil and the Middle East are very important geopolitically. But you have subtely shifted the ground here. Your original argument was that Afghanistan was all about oil and access to the resources of the Caspian region.
The Unocal proposal for a pipeline across Afghanistan and Pakistan was never more than a 'pipedream'. It withdrew in 1998 and, of course, 9/11 changed everything as far as Afghanistan was concerned.
Also,Jeff I read the MSM with a very sceptical eye and do not rely on them for any serious information.
PS: did you notice I still called you Jeff, isn't that nice.
Hank Roberts,
I'm not asking you to 'talk about me'. Its up to you how you respond. I will say, however, that across the many blogs I have come across you you never seem to respond directly to anything a person says. You often post lots of relevant links but never tackle the person head on.
> Your censorship of me is more than just random. Nothing like having 'open' discussion with incorporation 'other views' is there ?
> Posted by: Billy Bob Hall
And that is nothing like what you bring here, BBH.
You're just a lame-arsed fuckwit. You have no view, just regurgitated factoids you must spout.
I like relevant links.
Instead of just simply saying a person is wrong, it's far better to know why that person is wrong.
When I've come across Hank and his relevant links on different blogs, I take note that he is far too polite to call somebody an idiot...he just proves they are with those nice relevant links.
TomG
"he just proves they are with those nice relevant links."
Er, no he doesn't. Some of the links are relevant (I was being polite), many are not and often they may not actually say what he implies they do.
You followed up the links Hank provided, Dave? Yeah, sure you did, as you'll now demonstrate by giving some examples of these "many" irrelevent and "often" misleading links.
Take your time.
Dave Andrews, again employs the caged monkey assault, flinging faeces everywhere. *'Look at this pooh I put on this wall.'*
>Don't ever wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will enjoy it.
-*(Cale Yarborough)*
.
>Don't ever argue with a fool, You both would look stupid but remember he has the 'home ground advantage.'
-*(Thana Ramayah)*
I'll toss out "Chamber of Commerce wants a Scopes Monkey Trial on Cimate"
Dunno whether their advocates are pushing Intelligent Warming or Special Clouding.
Regarding El Nino, Can anyone explain what is happening off the coast of Ecuador and Peru? Do I have things twisted around? I thought the sign of an El Nino was warm water off the coast of Peru? I have been watching this site for a long time www.wunderground.com/MAR/ Cool water is moving westward. Even this site, weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html shows a cool water anomaly off most of the west coast of South America.Is this what El Nino is supposed to look like? Cool water keeps coming to the surface just south of the Galapagos Islands.Even some cool anomalies are showing up at the unisys site just above the equator. I know how they arrive at designating an El Nino event but......... there is still an upwelling of cooler water just off the coast of Peru.
Can we be officially in an El Nino event even when the shift has occured?
Donald Oats above said:
Actually they blew it because their primary ally, Pakistan, was helping the US's target, the Taliban, because Pakistan's agenda (manifest in the ISI) was wrapped up in ensuring a pro-Pakistan/ISI state in Afghanistan. They rescued Mullah Omar and OBL virtually in front of the CIA.
So close were the links in the operation between the US and Pakistani forces, that when the US state department client Karzai went into Afghanistan, he wisely didn't tell anyone in the US, snuck into the place in secret and only called for help from the US when he'd linked up with the NA and could do so without the ISI finding out through backchannels. Had he not done so, he'd not have made it.
Dave, OK, let us be civil. That is better.
You UNOCOL observation is appropriate but redundant. Afghanistan lies in one of the most geopolitically strategic places on Earth. The Russians knew it; the American more so. This is why the US, Russia and China have gone out of their way to cozy up to several atrocious regimes in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan, most of which border Afghanistan. This area is not only laden with natural gas, but it lies at the apex of the east Asian energy grid. If the US wants to control energy flows in the region, it is vitally necessary to bypass Russia and Iran. It would be far easier for gaining access to natural gas and oil if many of the pipelines from the "...stans" went through Iran to the Persian Gulf. But of course, Iran is not a client state, at least not yet, and the aim has been to build pipelines that would necessarily have to pass through Afghanistan (e.g. the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan and Nabucco do so) and exit in the Balkans region, more precisely Armenia (this explains also a lot of the US-UK posturing in that region). Afghanistan allows Russia and Iran to be bypassed. This is vital, as Dr. Zbig has made clear on many occasions.
The war last year between Russia and Georgia was a major irritant for the Baku pipeline because it runs through Ossetia and Chechnya, as well as through Kurdish parts of Turkey. Ouch. The pipeline was shut down for two weeks during the war which cost the Azeri economy some 500 million dollars. Their leadership was not at all pleased at this development and closed ranks with Russia, distancing itself from Washington.
There have been all kinds of diplomatic initiatives on the parts of Russia and the United States to strengthen ties with the stan countries, on the basis of their enormous economic and strategic importance. This has not been lost on China either, as China desperately needs energy, and vast amounts of it, to power its burgeoning economy. The formation of the SCO in 2001, hardly covered by the western media, is likely to be of vital importance in coming years. If Iran becomes a fully-paid up member as seems likely, then any attack on Iran, by Israel or the United States, will be seen as an attack on an SCO member country which will mean that other senior members (Russia and China) will be obliged to enter the fray on behalf of Iran. Collective security, just as exists within NATO.
As for the Taliban, one has to remember that the Clinton and Bush administrations dined (but did not wine) senior Taliban officials up until 2001, at US taxpayers expense no less. When a Clinton aide was asked what he thought about Taliban atrocities in 1995, he replied "we can live with that". It appears that in 2001, the Bush administration was negotiating transit costs for oil and natural gas across Afghan pipelines with the Taliban, and were outraged that the Taliban apparently was slapping huge charges (tens of millions of dollars) for this service. Although the MSM says little about this, it appears that this was a major factor in the US invasion of Afghanistan later in the year and the subsequent war there, with 9-11 and the "war on terror" as a very suitable pretext for public consumption.
Pepe Escobar, a roving reporter in the region, has written about this extensively in his two books "Globalistan: How the World is Dissloving into Liquid War" (2006) and, more recently, in "Obama does Globalistan" (2009). He also has an on-line web column. It is well worth a read.
> emissions are not going to drop
Want to place any money on that bet? Say for the end of this year? What kind of evidence would convince you that you are wrong? In all fairness, you should consider reading the news, e.g. the New York Times
Emissions of CO2 Set for Best Drop in 40 Years
Published: September 21, 2009
Global carbon emissions are expected to post their biggest drop in more than 40 years this year
Of course you may be right and it won't happen.
It won't take long to find out.
Yay. Removing all the Firefox addons, installing Greasemonkey and Killfile alone, and Killfile works again.
Then after adding all my other addons back, one at a time, and it still works.
I had no idea how many Tralfamadorians* there were on the Web til this brief episode of viewing all the stuff they put up there. Thank goodness for AdBlock, and NoScript, and Ghostery, and BetterPrivacy, and TACO.
______________
* Tralfamadorians, Vonnegut tells us, communicate by tapdancing and farting. On Earth, they're known as advertisers.
Dave at 44...
Er, yes he does.
I used to double check what ever Hank put up because I tend not to trust anybody.
I tend to double check everything and everybody.
Except when they earn my trust.
Hank has never steered me wrong with his links.
Sometimes the links make you think before you understand what the link is all about.
Is that where you have a problem with Hank's links?
The thought process?
Or is your problem the fact you're only looking for what you want to see and ignoring the gory details?
Are you merely a headline reader?
Are you looking at all?
Over at WUWT they think Mann's hockey stick has finally been broken by those darn tree rings.
> never tackle the person head-on ...
Before I learned to read, these stories were read to me:
http://www.en.utexas.edu/amlit/amlitprivate/texts/remus.htm
The lesson's relevant.
Nothing new there.
el gordo: "Over at WUWT they think..."
Well now, there's novel.
Well, at least you have read their argument and found it wanting.
No el gordo, the climate change denial camp are the equivalent of out-and-out creationists. They hardly do any of their own research; they spend most of their time trying desperately to find flaws in the work of bona fide climate scientists. Since Mann`s Nature paper generated a lot of interest, it was an obvious target.
Creationists similarly do little empirical research. They try and pole holes in evolutionary theory, as if by default this confirms their ideas. The climate change denial mob are quite similar in this respect. Sure, they get the odd paper published here and there, but the bulk of their efforts are spent trying combing through papers in support of AGW to find weaknesses in analysis or interpretation.
Basically, many, if not most, of the contrarians fall into the anti-environmental camp as far as I am concerned. Those who deny human impacts on the biosphere have been that harmful, those who downplay biodiversity loss and its implications, those who claim that various chemical pesticides are not bioaccumulative and thus do not harm food webs and the like. As I have said before, their job is not to prevail in the scientific debate because they never will; it is to create doubt amongst the public and policymakers. This doubt is then used to forestall any actions meant to deal with the problem.
I have been attacked a number of times over the past ten years for saying this by a number of what I consider to be anti-environmentalists who are promoting their own political views, using science as a tool to do so. I have been attacked on think tank web sites, in books and in internet sites. Still, it seems pretty clear what the agenda of the well-funded contrarian groups is as far as I see it and if it isn`t, it should be.
Kent above (Sept. 26) refers to:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
and asks:
> is this what El Nino is supposed to look like?
That pattern looks like this one:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=39574
Temperature:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/s…
Anomalies:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/s…
The images'll you find illustrating El Nino events favor the stronger ones and usually show their peak times.
Herer's a series from the last really big one:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/elnino/topex_popup.html
More:
http://images.google.com/images?q=Peru%20coast%20ocean%20temperature%20…
Could we just concentrate on climate change and forget about big oil and tobacco
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7138
As a global warming denier I believe global cooling has begun, so you can imagine the abuse I get everywhere and not just on the blogosphere.
I just visited James Hoggan's DeSmogBlog and found a very stimulating debate happening over there. Jeff, Steve, Chris and Hank, let's hope you're right about global warming, but I fear there is no escape from natural global cooling over the next 20 years.
Yes El Gordo,
We've already seen your evidence for global cooling very impressive. Would you care to present it again?
BTW, we'll stop talking about big oil, and big tobacco when they stop funding junk anti-science.
PS, El Gordo, you still owe Chris O'Neil some evidence to backup your claim of flat CO2 records from the Antarctic.
el non sequito:
Yes I listened to the boy-who-cried-wolf's argument the third time and found it wanting.
[kent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/open_thread_33.php#comment-1965…)
>I thought...
Get back to us in December.
I am a psychologist, trying to understand the âculture war.â We live in remarkably contentious times, and it strikes me that reason has very little to do with the cacophony of both sides yammering their talking points related to their pet issues.
I am interested in the DDT/malaria controversy as one example of the âculture war.â I would like to understand what drives both sides of the issue.
While I will call into question the motivation of the environmental/scientific side of the DDT/malaria controversy, I might note that I have strong environmental leanings. I live in Montana, a place where one is relegated to being a nobody, but the environmental amenities easily compensate for that. I understand the environment in ways that no armchair environmentalist can.
From a lay perspective, several conclusions seem quite clear about DDT/malaria. First, the initial use of DDT resulted in a stunning drop in the incidence of malaria, and, conversely, the partial ban of the stuff correlates with a resurgence of the disease. As much as Iâve read, the claim that it is carcinogenic remains unproven (stand open to correction). It is referred to as a âpossible carcinogen.â I have no idea what that means. Third, having read both sides of the POP issue, the information strikes me as mixed, really not settled science at all, but the broad bottom line seems to be that there are compelling arguments against the kind of broad agricultural use that took place in the early years, and such use is long-ended.
I can appreciate (but only vaguely understand) some of the technical information related to resistance. But it strikes me that, from the broad âso whatâ perspective, itâs very difficult to extrapolate from the details of research (e.g., field studies on effects of various repellants, genetic findings on resistence/mutation) to the big picture question related to the ultimate utility of DDT, in view of vector resistance. It seems similar to the big-picture questions related to global warming: in view of some of the grossly erroneous predictions by climate scientists thus far, I donât see how anyone can accurately predict the consequences of a rise in atmospheric CO2, an increase of about 25 ppm to about 387 ppm. Science has pretty good tools from a microcosmic perspective, but the big picture is often anyoneâs guess, and, of course, muddled by the infusion of values and politics.
I appreciate the environmentalist point that DDT is no silver bullet, that the struggle against malaria is remarkably complex and multi-faceted. That said, it also seems clear that itâs been a dramatically effective tool. The fact that folks like Ralph Nader begrudgingly acknowledge its usefulness strikes me as compelling.
Laying aside any of the histrionic Rachael Carson/antichrist invective, it strikes me that, had I been a part of a movement to severely restrict an effective tool against malaria, for reasons that now seem shaky (i.e., it doesnât appear that limited usage in homes is likely carcinogenic, or broadly injurious to the environment), I would be wracked with guilt, and would wish to undo the harm I had contributed to. I donât see that at all. Rather, there seems to be a siege mentality within the environmental camp, to continue to beat the drums of resistance, âpossible carcinogen,â and speculation about the bogeyman of broad environmental degradation (the latter concern certainly not to be taken lightly, of course). Indeed, one frequently sees rather childish ad hominem arguments bolstering environmentalist views. I think that those who pride their scientific acumen are hopefully much too smart for that, yet it happens all the time. What gives?
I guess I just donât see a lot of reasoned balance, on either side. The âpro-DDT trollsâ (to echo a term one sees in these discussions) gleefully trash the environmentalists as a bunch of kooks, and the science-is-everything side takes this huffy âweâre scientific and much smarter that you idiotsâ stance. It strikes me as not unlike adolescents arguing about whose high school is the coolest.
And so my question to any of you is, what really drives the DDT/malaria controversy (or any number of similar issues)? Iâve hung out with enough âscientistsâ (again, being generous to my field) to know that reason/truth isnât their bottom line. Somehow, I think that the various venues of the âculture warâ have become infused with a pernicious venom that has taken on its own life, and all weâre accomplishing is to hurl more gasoline onto each othersâ flames. Contemplating the breadth of issues being shouted about, the future seems unsettling indeed.
Anyway, Iâd appreciate any reaction any of you might offer to any of this. I really want to understand what is going on.
Mark M
[Gordito,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/open_thread_33.php#comment-1965…)
>Once again, I have no way of gauging the correctness of these findings.
I'm sure you've heard this explanation many times, but since you are apparently a very, very slow learner, I'll repeat it once again;
The glacial/interglacial cycles over the Quaternary period are initiated by changes in the Earth's axis in relation to changes in the Earth's orbit called the Milankovich cycles. CO2 as a natural feedback, necessary to explain the interglacial warming beyond the small component from the Milankovich cycles, is slow to develop (as compared to water vapor feedback, which is near instantaneous in geologic time). It takes centuries for the oceans to heat up, sufficiently reducing the solubility of CO2 to begin significantly outgassing, and, likewise, for vegetative matter trapped under the ice to be exposed to the air by the slowly receding ice sheets and decompose into methane which oxidizes into CO2. This lag was predicted by James Hansen, among others, long before ice core records became available.
Re-read this a few hundred times. Maybe it will begin to sink in.
Mark, since you're a psychologist, maybe it would be better if you used your training to suggest possible mechanisms to us. Over on the left of this page there's a list of categories. If you click on "DDT" you'll be able to study all of the discussions with that topic on this blog.
I'd appreciate your professional opinion of what motivates the people on these threads.
Mark Mozer writes:
>*It seems similar to the big-picture questions related to global warming: in view of some of the grossly erroneous predictions by climate scientists thus far, I donât see how anyone can accurately predict the consequences of a rise in atmospheric CO2, an increase of about 25 ppm to about 387 ppm.*
Mark, perhaps you would be willing to share some of what you call *grossly erroneous predictions by climate scientists*?
Secondly, 387 minus 22 ppm? What is this in relation to? Why 22 ppm CO2?
Mark M,(http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/open_thread_33.php#comment-1967…)
>in view of some of the grossly erroneous predictions by climate scientists thus far, I donât see how anyone can accurately predict the consequences of a rise in atmospheric CO2, an increase of about 25 ppm to about 387 ppm.
What grossly erroneous predictions? Can you be more precise? You might check your facts. Pre-industrial CO2 was ~270ppm. An increase of about 117ppm, or over 40%.
As to DDT, the salient fact is it has never been banned for use in vector disease control. One side tells lies. Splitting the difference between one side that uses empirical fact and reason and another side that makes things up and characterizes those they reflexively oppose with straw men enables the pathological liar. Something you should have learned in becoming a psychologist.
>Iâve hung out with enough âscientistsâ (again, being generous to my field) to know that reason/truth isnât their bottom line.
With all due respect, Cognitive Science is a soft science in which the fundamental object of study, consciousness, has yet to be rigorously defined, allowing dithering contentiousness a free reign.
Physics, Chemistry and Biology and the sub-categories of the Earth Sciences; Geophysics, Climatology, Ecology, etc. are a different story.
Don't know how I gained the impression that CO2 levels have been relatively flat compared to Mauna Loa. Seems I was wrong.
http://zipcodezoo.com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Atmospheric%20Carbon%20Dioxi…
You all know the old scientific maxim, if the theory doesn't fit observed reality, change the theory. I accept that CO2 has continued to rise around the world over the last 150 years.
Eldo,
And your evidence that fits your believe in global cooling? Care put that forward again?
MB
We are cooling because the sun is cooling.
http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C00F2616F39D0B2B!720.entry
Then there is the extra cloud cover.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/26/the-2007-2008-global-cooling-even…
Eldo,
Thankyou for your blog science links. We are aware that we are in period of solar minima, but that is cyclical, we are at the bottom of that cycle and yet temperatures are close to record highs.
What evidence do you have that a 5 year trend (solar wind flow pressure) in a solar cycle, and a 2007/2008 year event (cloud cover) will continue, or even reduce forcing further?
And why is the global temperature still so hot given this cooling under way?
There is overwhelming evidence that the majority of warming in the last 50 years is AGW. That [is continuing](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/to:1880/t…).
Is this true ?
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/09/breaking-news-cherry-picking-of-histor…
'a very carefully selected set of data'....
*Iâve hung out with enough âscientistsâ (again, being generous to my field) to know that reason/truth isnât their bottom line*
The you have been "hanging out" with the wrong people. I am a senior scientist and I can say in all honesty that your view of science and scientists is different from mine, and I speak from the inside. Moreover, truth is an elusive concept in science. Scientists set out to test hypotheses, and then to accept or refute them according to the empirical evidence they generate from experimentation. Your problem as I see it, is you are trying to rationalize science within the concept of human emotions.
I would also like to say that you are training your guns in the wrong direction. Whilst saving up some of your ire for those who criticized the excessive use of ogano-phosphate or organo-chlorine based pesticides, as well as for those who find a strong correlation between climate change and atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, it seems to me that you are giving a free pass to those on the other side of the divide who are manipulating science to downplay the threats these may cause to the environment. You thus ignore those who are abusing science to downplay environmental problems.
Answer me this: if it is the "truth" that you seek, why focus on environmentalists and not also focus on infinitely more powerful and better funded groups that are mangling science to promote a pre-determined worldview and political agenda? Also try to evaluate which of the two camps has more influence on public policy. While you are at it, you might wish to evaluate the psychology of denial and guilt, link this with the immense disparity in wealth that characterizes our world, and see how this affects the way people in the developed world relate to environmental issues. It may also help you to understand why people who downplay threats to the environment - like Gregg Easterbrook and Bjorn Lomborg - become such influential individuals. Can you tell me of any people who lack scientific qualifications like Easterbrook and Lomborg who have become highly influential in the environmental movement? If not why not?
MB
A cool PDO and NAO, neutral IOD, still born El Nino, should see temperatures stop rising.
CO2 will continue to rise for many years, regardless of what happens to temperatures. David Archibald believes temperatures will fall by 2.2C and this, I believe, is realistic.
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf
el gullibo:
Every month with the mild El Niño that has passed since May has reduced the "cooling trend" in HadCrut3 from the blatantly cherry-picked 1998. As long as this mild El Niño continues, in a couple of months there will no longer be any "cooling trend" since 1998. This might shut-up the "cooling since 1998" morons for a short time but as we've seen with Steve Fielding they'll just come up with something even more brain-dead.
el Gordo,
Archibald`s feeble paper appears in Energy and Environment, a publication which does not appear on the Web of Science. If his science was rigid, he would publish it somewhere else, and not in a weak contrarian journal. The Wos is the source of all journals in which sound science is published. Virtually everything appears in there, but not E & E. Why do you think that is? They may excuse themselves for arguing that is a social sciences journal, but then they should not venture into earth science.
You believe crap in E & E because you *want* to believe it, not because of the science. What the hell do you know about "realistic scenarios" anyway? What innate wisdom enables you to say that a paper in a journal like E & E is correct? Moreover, I looked for papers by Archibald on the Wos and could not find a single one. None. Nix. El zippo. So much for expertise.
You have played your contrarian hand. You would believe a paper written by anyone and published in *Compost Weekly* if it fit your world view.
Gimme a break.
> I am a psychologist, trying to understand ...
...
> It is referred to as a âpossible carcinogen.â
> I have no idea what that means.
Do you mean to say you actually have a MA or MS level degree in psychology and you don't know how to look that up?
Seriously?
Do you know how to find a library?
A librarian?
A _Reference_ librarian?
Oh, to heck with this Socratic Method shit.
Here, drink this:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22possible+carcinogen%22+def…
Eldo,
Oceans donât generate heat, they shift heat around. The ocean cycle index measure cycles that change the distribution of heat, how do you explain that the ocean has been absorbing [more and more heat]( http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/) at the same time that the [atmosphere also warms](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:100/plot/jisao-pdo/scale:…).
Weâve identified the external driver of heat for both. This driver means we are at near record temperatures despite a âcooling sunâ and oceans taking heat down into its depths.
We are not facing cooling, we are experiencing global warming.
MB
Good argument. I have been baffled by the unusually warm Pacific.
If warming continues I will have to concede defeat, unless I can prove its a natural signal as opposed to AGW.
Just lovely, Mark @ #42.
Instead having a concern about my posterior, which I certainly would prefer you do not, how about proving to all and sundry here that I am indeed what you claim. I dare you. :-)
MB
Over at WUWT they are saying NOAA's August SST excursion is unreliable because they took out the satellite data. They may just be splitting hairs.
The satellite data has apparently been adjusted for some time to eliminate bias, so I am not sure why they left it out.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/17/noaas-august-global-record-is-the…
Someone suggested in the comments thread that 'ocean heat content rises during La Nina events and decreases during El Nino events.' Which is probably why BOM is unsure where its all heading. Check out their ENSO Wrap-up.
El gordo, is your main source of information the anti-environmental web site WUWT? Do you not think its time you sought out the primary literature, instead of think-tank linked groups anxious to downplay AGW? It seems to me that most of your information links here are web logs and not published articles. Let us do a "so far" check.
Here is the score of sources cited by el gordo so far in this thread:
C02 science (contributors linked with Western Fuels Association) = 2
Whats Up With That (members linked with American Enterprise and Cato Institutes) = 2
Louis Hissink (known contrarian) = 1
David Archibald`s E & E piece = 1
Climate Audit (members with links to George C. Marshall Institute) = 1
David Stang weblog = 1
The only piece that looked at all reasonable was the Stang piece. But note that all of the literature here is not primary; its published data being interpreted by another party. In the examples el gordo sites these are mostly from known contrarian individuals or web sites.
El gordo, have you ever heard of the library or the web of science? Fancy giving that a go?
Mark Mozer at [#66](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/open_thread_33.php#comment-1967…) said:
You are making assumptions about the 'hard' science that are not based in any evidence. There are several points that you should consider Mark, before you jump the guns and attempt to profile the hard science in too poor a light.
Firstly, when DDT was first used, it was a novel insecticide and thus all species would have had complete naïvety in their physiological resistance to it. Thus there would quite naturally be a "stunning drop" in the incidence of malaria, because the vector mosquitoes would have been (and were) extremely vulnerable to the broadcasting of DDT.
Secondly, most insects are prolific breeders and have short generation times, and malaria-vector mosquitoes are certainly not an exception to this. It does not take many years of persistent exposure to a physiological challenge, such as DDT was to them, for resistant morphs to breed to large numbers and thus to represent a significant proportion of the population.
Coupled with the fact that DDT was used in many agricultural applications, and was therefore widely distributed through the environment, it is only to be expected that resistant would appear â as it did â in many insect populations. Anopheles mosquitoes certainly showed the classic development of such resistance.
The "resurgence" that you speak of was largely the consequence of the development of this resistance. Other factors, such as mismanagement of breeding habitat could be postulated to be involved, but the fact that DDT was not banned as a vector control relegates your mention of "partial ban" to the '"completely irrelevant and spurious argument" bin.
As a psychologist, if somebody offered you $1 million to feed a spoonful of DDT in olive oil to your child, what process of literature review would you undertake in order to assess whether you would accept the challenge? And as a psychologist, what literature review would you undertake to establish the veracity of the research that demonstrated that DDT has a significant effect on the formation of the egg shells of raptors, amongst other serious ecological impacts?
As a psychologist, how would you go about rating the impacts of DDT on the non-human species in the biosphere, and how would you justify its continued use in the manner that it was initially used?
Quick Question - Can anyone explain briefly what the Garnaut Report meant when it said that the 'optimum mitigation is zero'?
Connor asked
Garnaut addressed the concept of Australia as a free-rider in Chapter 12, part 6. Does Australia matter for global
mitigation?
Garnaut was critiquing Australian government policy to date as a policy of subversive free-riding.
Thanks!
One of the problems Rachel Carson warned about:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=DDT+flood+sediment
Mr Harvey.
Unlike you, I am not a scientist. So its fairly hard to follow a lot of the technical discussion even on Jennifer Marohasy's blog.
Give me a few pointers and I'll give it a whirl.
el Gordo,
My point was not meant to insinuate that you are not interested in the ongoing discussions on AGW. I just am saying that there is a lot of good information available on the internet and a lot of dross. For their part, the denialists do not have to do their own research, but to take existing research and distort it to support their own conclusions. A few years ago a colleague at my institute had a paper published in Nature. Within a few months an article appeared in C02 Science (the Idso site) that was distorting the conclusions of her paper to suggest that increased atmospheric C02 enhanced primary productivity is both the rhizosphere and above ground ecosystem compartments. Her paper had nothing at all to do with that, and she and her-coauthors were surprised to say the least that C02-Science (actually C02 anti-science) was distorting her study in this way. Besides, their views on climate change are much in line with mine.
The bottom line is that weblogs and sites are easy to set up and thus separating the wheat from the chaff is difficult for the lay reader to do. But that is the point of the climate change sceptical blogs - they realize this and can misinterpret and mangle the empirical science all they like knowing that a lot of the audience - their target audience in fact - cannot understand what they are doing. So I would read CA, C02, WUWT, anything in E & E, Greening Earth Society, Maharosey etc. with a very large grain (e.g. bag) of salt. These people rarely is ever publish in the empircal literature because their arguments would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. But they can write pretty much whatever they like on the internet - and they usually do. The aim is to sow confusion and doubt, and not to win the scientific debate because they never will.
If I were you I would get hold of the primary literature through books by reputable researchers or through Google Scholar, typing in key words. Some of them you will I think be able to access. Or write to the authors themselves for copies of their articles.
Tim'
I'm home renovting @ present. So I spat on the cat and called the floor a bastard. Hope that's ok too.
Thanx Jeff, I will source Google Scholar regularly from now on.
Browsing on Google Scholars in search of ENSO material I found 'the post 1940 period alone accounts for 30% of the total extreme ENSO event years reconstructed over the past five centuries.'
http://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00296927/
This is a multi-proxy study. Anyone like to hazard a guess on the implications.
Jeff Harvey - yes weblogs are easy to establish but it's extremely hard to obtain a world wide audience. Just look at the number of blogs around - only the best survive.
Your advice to El Gordo:
"So I would read CA, C02, WUWT, anything in E & E, Greening Earth Society, Maharosey etc. with a very large grain (e.g. bag) of salt. These people rarely is ever publish in the empircal literature because their arguments would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. But they can write pretty much whatever they like on the internet - and they usually do. The aim is to sow confusion and doubt, and not to win the scientific debate because they never will."
OK Jeff - let's look at these people:
Climate Audit:
Steve McIntyre:
Here's his wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre#cite_note-2
He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics from the University of Toronto.[1] He studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford
CO2 Science:
Sherwood B Idso
President.
Bachelor of Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy degrees are all from the University of Minnesota.
author or co-author of over 500 scientific publications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwood_B._Idso
Watts up with That.
Anthony Watts.
Iâm a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)
Jennifer Marohasy
Bachelor of Science and a PhD from the University of Queensland, Australia.
Published over a dozen scientific papers in International and Australian scientific journals and two book chapters including on weed biological control, insect and plant taxonomy, insect behavior, animal ecology and risk management.
Wrote the first commodity specific code of practice endorsed under the Queensland Environment Protection Act 1994 and coordinated development of the sugar industryâs first best management practice manual.
Columnist for NSW rural weekly The Land and has written many articles for the IPA Review, e-journal On Line Opinion, and while with the IPA was published by the Age, Herald Sun, Courier Mail, The Australian and Quadrant magazine.
Energy and Environment.
Editor Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Emeritus Reader : Dept. of Geography
University of Hull, UK
Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen teaches 3 modules at the University and is the author or co-author of numerous peer-reviewed journal articles on energy and environmental issues related to political and policy matters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonja_Boehmer-Christiansen
So what makes you an authority on who people should read about climate change Jeff, your few months stint as a co-editor of Nature or the fact that you are an ecologist?
BTW I'd reconsider the last statement if I were you as Steve McIntyre just won his scientific debate.
Sounds like a good question for [Gumbine](http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/). One hypothesis might be that a warming ocean and radiative imbalance effects currents and ocean indices.
Janama, I can't believe you left out Marohasy's seminal work on the [Myths about the distress of the Murray](http://www.ipa.org.au/library/IPABackgrounder15-5.pdf).
Still at least you mentioned that Watts was *a television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air*, thats the important thing. The rest was a pretty good summary, though I think a link to Idso's 500 'sciency' publications would have helped.
Janama, You've also short changed Idso, you didn't mention the [Petr Beckmann award](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Petr_Beckmann#Petr_Beckmann_…) for *"courage and achievement in the defense of scientific truth and freedom"*. [It was given](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sherwood_Idso) *"for his work demonstrating the fertilizing effect of increased carbon dioxide on the biosphere"*.
An excellent award we can agree, as it is given by the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. And we know this excellent instution for its association with another front group, The [Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_…).
Re #97 and this comment:
"BTW I'd reconsider the last statement if I were you as Steve McIntyre just won his scientific debate."
If he had something worthwhile to say, he would seek publication in the peer reviewed literature (and E&E doesn't count).
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Janama,
What a useless response. But one I would expect from a contrarian like you. I suppose that your credentials in science stand out? Or are they about as thin as those from most of the contrarian community? At least I have over 90 publications on the Web of Science since 1993 which is considerably more than all but the senior Idso and he started way back in 1968.
None of the "luminaries" you cite - with the exception of the elder Idso - publishes much in the way of papers or has many citations for what they do write. They rely on their intellectually bankrupt blogs to promote their nonsense. McKintyre has won debates all right - in a pig`s eye. And E & E, which promotes itself like a comic book? ("The journal that broke the hockey stick!". Utter rubbish, of course). Can one imagine the journal Science promoting itself as "The journal that published the human genome!" Hardly. This explains why E & E is not on the Web of Science which is a measure of its lack of credibility.
I would not trust any of that lot with a barge pole. C02-Science is a joke site. It is or has been closely linked with the Western Fuels association, a coal industry lobbying group. It should not take someone of even your limited brain capacity to determine that WFA is not anxious to see levels of C02 regulated. I am sure if the Idso clan drew different conclusions WFA would give them a wide berth.
Maharosy has links with libertarian think tanks like the IPA. I wonder how long she would stick around there if her views differed from what they do.
And a retired weatherman? Gimme a break. Puh-lease.
In my view the whole lot are anti-science shills. You are scraping the barrel if this lot is the elite in terms of the denialist cause. I will stick with universities and research groups, the ones that actually conduct empirical research, and steer very clear of non-peer reviewed web sites in many cases associated with polluting industries, think tanks or corporations with axes to grind.
Greenfyre had an interesting post in February of this year in which he discussed the spinmeisters:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/climate-denier-science-bought…
Well worth a read.
Hey janama, we don't see many refugees from Jen's blog of nonscience these days.
Is cohenite still around?
He was set a stat's homework problem here a few months ago, he went off promising to consult the Marohasy brains trust, but we've hardly seen him since. Perhaps he's burning the midnight oil on his abacus?
IPA dumped Jen
Eli,
Perhaps the IPA are looking for a more effective antiscience ideologue?
With Marohasy's [published record](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/open_thread_33.php#comment-1971…), they might need a less tarnished name to push their anti-science a little longer.
On a slightly different topic, does anyone have a view on the imploding hockey stick?
All the contrarian blogs are elated, but elsewhere the silence is deafening.
I guess the claim might carry more weight if they same contrarians hadn't already proclaimed the hockey stick broken many times before.
There's every chance that this won't be the last claim either.
Dear oh dear, the deafening defense of the hockey stick is weak here lads, (peer review is not all it seems to be when you are an incestious induster such as AGW. I even think Deltoid Tim must agree with SM, Briffa cherry picked his data fair & square. Why do you think the data was hidden for all this time? Realclimate deleting of posts help confirm they have problems. I beleive 'the team' are having a penalty play with 4 members in the 2 minute penalty box, praying for the time to blow over while the opposition do not score. Eli Hare et al are just loony sicophants in their support of the HS. Their contributions are about as worthless as a body board in a Tsumami as they quote what they have been led to beleive.
Ah, the incoherent ranting of the denialist in full cry.
Yet more premature self-congratulation no doubt.
El Gordo,
[Unexcited](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/seasons/#comment-35859) is a predictable response one gets when the same person makes the usual claims with the same bluster with which he made similar assertions in the past.
I'm sure If there something substantial that McI will publish his critique.
el gullibo:
There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"
The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill,
oh never mind.
P:
Briffa cherry picked his data fair & square.
You appear to be in direct disagreement with McIntyre, who has stated on his blog that -
I don't wish to unintentionally feed views that I don't hold. It is not my belief that Briffa crudely cherry picked.
(Currently post 252, you know where)
I suggest you take up your disagreement with Mr McIntyre, who I'm sure just really, really, really didn't want to feed the sort of scurrilous defamations you are promulgating. Like really and truly and honestly and everything.
el gullibo:
Yes those yawns are pretty deafening. The Vaganov proxy is number 19 out of 25 in the list of proxy weightings going into the 1450 proxy set of MBH98 so I'm sure it'll make a HUGE difference to the outcome, not to mention making absolutely ZERO difference to reconstructions producing similar results that use ABSOLUTELY NO TREE RINGS WHATSOEVER. Macintyre must spend his days going through every last one of MBH98's proxies to check every bit of data is correct, totally ignoring every other type of reconstruction done since. What a sad, pathetic case of obsessive-compulsive disorder or whatever mental illness he is suffering from.
What are opinions here about McIntyres posting about the Briffa/CRU data?:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168#comments
Link should have been:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
Steve McIntyre makes earth shaking discovery. Adding complacent tree ring data to climate sensitive tree ring series reduces their sensitivity.
This on top of his discovery that comparing North American proxy correlation to PCAs of instrumental data by including European 18th century and earlier measurements mostly taken indoors from thermometers that were often calibrated by researchers putting them under their armpits, reduces the correlation significantly.
Science driven to its knees, I tells ya!
One thing is for certain, there's no runaway warming at Yamal.
I wrote about the Yamal thing over at Tamino's place, but he seems uninterested in discussing it (and he's having some health issues) so I'll cross-post it here:
The latest brouhaha regarding Yamalâs supposedly censored data that âerasesâ the blade of the hockey stick is particularly baffling. Are they under the impression that nobody bothered to record temperature any other way than via tree rings in the 20th century? As far as I can tell, the excluded data follows along with everything else until the second half of the 20th century, at which point it goes bonkers â deviating wildly with what we know is true.
The take-away point for denialists: all methods of ascertaining temperature that are not âcensoredâ tree ring data are wrong.
WTF?
Pough,
Hope the heath issues are not major?
el gordo/gullible:
One thing for sure, el gordo/gullible is a font of strawmen. The 11-year-old version of the hockey stick is still a hockey stick, even without the 18th most important proxy. By the way, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"
A substantial share of the planet's warming over the past 50 years took place in the coldest air masses in the dead of winter. This is exactly what the models predicted would happen with greenhouse warming. I don't have a problem with that, but there is something wrong with the hockey stick.
When you look at Mann's reconstructed temperature history for the past 1000 years, it looks like we were sliding into a serious ice age before the industrial revolution saved us from an abysmal lifestyle.
Looking back over the past 10,000 years there is no other cooling trend quite so steep or smooth as Mann's little effort and then the hockey stick comes into view.
Amazing coincidence!
Which [temperature reconstructions](http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/006333.html) are you referring to el gordo?
The recent ice ages were produced by [Milankovitch cycles]((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png). I'm not aware that the next glacial was upon us. And if it were, why would this make Mann wrong?
el gordo/gullible:
We are well aware that gullible people like you think it's an amazing co-incidence (natural cycles etc). Fortunately, for people who don't blindly believe in co-incidence, scientists have come up with an explanation for this warming. Try to read about it. You may still remain gullible but at least you won't be so ignorant.
MB
WCR is big coal and oil but...
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol4/v4n13/fe…
Our interglacial still has quite someway to run, but Mann's reconstructed temperature history appears to ignore the Medieval Warm Period and has us on a slippery slope.
El Gordo,
Perhaps you should follow Jeff's suggestion and gather an interpretation from Google scholar? The "big coal and oil" you cite conveniently take the MWP as the norm and trajectory down from there as a slide into an iceage. Yet the MWP was abnormal, the result of an unusual extended period of low volcanic activity.
Temperature decline from the MWP with normalisation of volcanic activity, saw a return to the mean temperatures of the [2000 year reconstructions](http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/006333.html).
>*Mann's reconstructed temperature history appears to ignore the Medieval Warm Period and has us on a slippery slope.*
Mann does not ignore the MWP, Mann's reconstructions simply tell [part of the story](http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/006333.html) which puts the MWP into perspective.
el gordo, most of your quotation simply tells us you're an idiot.
MB
This paper supports the argument that the last 30 years have been 'unprecedented' since the time of Christ.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v8142168646v3520/
It's peer reviewed and should be taken seriously. If no rebuttal can be found it will have to stand.
Chris, you are behaving like a boofhead.
Looks interesting, but if it is limited to the Southern Colorado Plateau, it would need to be reconstructed with other regions to build a global picture, which is what many such as Mann have done.
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
luminous beauty,
Oh my that's Mann, Briffa and Hansen that Steve McIntyre has found to be wanting!
You must be reeling right now.
And we'll bow down and join you in homage to the great man......when he publishes his findings in a real journal.
I await hell freezing over.
Yes, another 15 minutes of infamy for McI. Five years from now, he'll be proving the same paper wrong again. And five years later, again.
Funny how his "proofs" never stick, isn't it?
Briffa and RC both have preliminary responses up. I'll take science over penny-stock peddler McI for $500, Alex.
el gordo (108): "All the contrarian blogs are elated, but elsewhere the silence is deafening."
Then YOU NEED TO GET THE DOCTOR TO GIVE YOUR EARS A GOOD SYRINGING, YOU SEEM TO BE GOING A BIT DEAF.
Briffa responds to McI's own goal, politely, pointing out that McI himself "...qualifies the presentation of his version(s) of the chronology by reference to a number of valid points that require further investigation" In other words McI himself recognises his own "analysis" is not exactly sewn up tight.
And how do you reconcile "deafening silence" with an entire thread on the Yamal yammerings at RealClimate?
Not that McI's "revelations" haven't been seen and debunked before.
And lastly, McI's piece is yet another post on a blog somewhere in cyberspace; if it truly has the significance you and DA and Tilo and janama & co on here claim, and WTFWT, ClimateFraudit & co exaggerate, then all McI has to do is get a paper together and published in a respectable journal. Unless and until McI publishes, it's raised some dust, but once that's settled the net effect on the science will be blot.
Dave Andrews (132), want some toast to go with that egg on your face?
And they said the debate was over. Considering the amount of traffic the topic is getting I would say that the debate is anything but over. If anything it is reving up for the meeting in Copenhagen. Which will generate a lot of promises but not much action.
Kent:
No-one said the political debate is over, mister strawman. It's the scientific debate, as demonstrated in properly reviewed journals, that is over, bar the uncertainties.
We will see Chris O'Neil (#137). My suspicion is the debate will still be going on in 1 years time.... and even longer.
I am sure however that in those 'hallowed halls' of the UN the 'debate' may well be over.
Then again maybe the debate probably never started, after all, do 'zombies' ever engage in 'debate' ?
MB
This study looked at northern Swedish Lapland pines and reconstructed climate going back 7,400 years. 'The relatively warm conditions of the late twentieth century do not exceed those reconstructed for several earlier time intevals...'
That's a relief.
'although replication is relatively poor and confidence in the reconstruction is correspondingly reduced in the pre Christian period, particularly around 3000, 1600 and 330 BC.' Five thousand years ago the world was still enjoying the afterglow of the climate optimum. Too bad they had little confidence in those early results.
Just a casual observation, to attract O'Neill's attention: Why are the names of Jones and Briffa on this study?
http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/6/657
EG,
Looks interesting, same [caveates apply](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/open_thread_33.php#comment-1973…).
BTW, re Brifa and Jones: perhaps some contrarians (and even perhaps some denialists) might be surprised that the cabal of greedy scientists let this one through?
"I do not believe that McIntyre's preliminary post provides sufficient evidence to doubt the unusually high summer temperatures in the last decades of the 20th Century",
K.R. Briffa
30 September 2009
kent,
>[And they said the debate was over.](http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm)
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Dave A,
Yes, I'm reeling from laughter. Your learning curve has long gone negative. All McIntyre has proven is he knows [how to lie with statistics](http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728).
No, luminous, he's also learned how to let others lie for him, so he can say "I didn't say he was wrong, that was other people saying it...".
Someone pretending to be a communicator who so easily and widely "misconstrued" (if you take the idea that Steve is telling the truth and didn't intend to be construed that way) needs to find another job.
Billy Bob:
Promises, promises.
What do you mean "still"? What does it take for you to realize that there is no debate in scientific journals that humans are causing most of the climatic warming?
The usual ignorant crap we expect from Billy Bob. The scientific debate went on for a long time.
What a hypocrite. Imagine, Billy Bob calling someone else a zombie. If anyone wants an example of a zombie debating they don't need to look any further than Billy Bob.
"Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth" as the saying goes.
http://www.google.com/search?q=briffa+illness
Excerpt from the top result follows
-----------------
Modesty prevents me from making too much emphasis on my part in the investigation....
You are right to raise the possibility of Briffa genuinely being ill. It would be quite a coincidence, but it is not a possibility that can be ruled out. To me it looks like he's hiding.
September 30, 2009 | Registered Commenter Bishop Hill
... I've been told that Briffa has a serious kidney illness that arose in the summer. I suggest that you edit both the post and references accordingly. Cheers, Steve
September 30, 2009 | Unregistered Commenter Steve McIntyre
... I read on WUWT a post from Anthony Watts saying that he has it on good authority that Briffa is genuinely ill with a serious kidney illness. But given the enormity of the deception raised by him and Jones, I still harbour your suspicions. If true it will be the only genuine thing about this whole sordid drama.
September 30, 2009 | Unregistered Commenter Richard
----------------
el gullible @123:
Ah, news flash for el gullible: we were.
Earth's temperature has indeed been generally cooing for the last ~6000 years, ever since the Holcoene Climate Optimum:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-reverse…
based on paper in Science, 4 September 2009 here:
Kaufman et al,
http://science.samxxzy.ns02.info/cgi/content/abstract/325/5945/1236
William Ruddiman makes the case that humans began forestalling the cooling when we began cultivating rice, thereby increasing atmospheric CH4 and CO2.
The case for human causes of increased atmospheric CH4 over the last 5000 years
Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issue 18, December 2001
pdf: http://www.uvm.edu/~pbierman/classes/gradsem/2008/ruddiman_2001.pdf
The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands of Years Ago
Climate Change, Volume 61, Number 3 / December, 2003
pdf: http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~avf5/teaching/Files_pdf/Ruddiman2003.pdf
The early anthropogenic hypothesis: Challenges and responses
Reviews of Geophysics, 2007
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006RG000207.shtml
Hmmm... thanx Jim, I will look at this idea. Hopefully its peer reviewed and has nothing to do with Gaia.
JE
Noticed Briffa's name appears on 'Recent warming reverses long-term Arctic cooling'. He's a brave man because what they are saying is that about the time of Christ the weather turned decidedly nasty and this last quarter century has stopped the inevitable ice age in its tracks.
'A pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the LIA. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century...'
What, no Medieval Warm Period?
Ruddiman has a very fertile imagination when he says bubonic 'plague-driven CO2 changes were also a significant causal factor in temperature changes during the LIA,' but is probably on more solid ground when he suggests an increase in methane after rice growing became a mono-culture 5000 years BP.
'Anomalous increase' in CO2 about 8000 years BP has me interested and will see where it leads.
... who spent 25 years on the air ...
Sorry, janama, I spent 26 years on the air.
I think it's pretty clear who you should be listening to.
JE
It appears that Ruddiman and Mann are old friends, so its only natural that there has been some cross-fertilization of ideas.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=672
Mann believes the cooling trend from 1940-1970 was caused by the release of aerosols into the atmosphere, whereas I thought it was a cold PDO which caused the cooling.
So I'm not convinced by the argument that the human destruction of forests began the anomalous CO2 increase 8000 BP.
fat boy,
The PDO is an oscillation in the pattern of sea surface temperature distribution and lower atmospheric wind speed and direction in the temperate zones of the Pacific. The cold phase is called such because one element of that pattern is a broadening of the California Current in the far Eastern edge of the North Pacific. The characteristic pattern for the rest of the temperate regions of the Pacific is warmer sea surface temperatures. The PDO is not a cause of global heating or cooling, or even any significant amount of fluctuation around the global mean surface temperature as is evident from ENSO. That requires a forcing, i.e., some physical characteristic that changes the planetary radiative balance.
It was the 'great climate shift'.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm
el gordo/gullibo:
a.k.a. the McLean fraud.
I don't know anything about the 'McLean fraud', perhaps you could enlighten me.
Apart from that, there is some evidence to support the proposition that Victorian animals fart less than Queenslanders.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26165272-11949,00.ht…
Didn't McLean show that if you take steps to remove the trend from a signal, the trend goes away? Revolutionary stuff. I call him the Nigel Tufnel of climate science since it reminds me of that scene from Spinal Tap where Nigel keeps folding the small pieces of bread so that the meat sticks out the sides.
Once more, global warming 'skeptic' Anthony Watts focuses on the science.
Gordo is new here? Or hasn't got a google?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/ahh_mclean_youve_done_it_again…
oh, dagNABbit ...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/ahh\_mclean\_youve\_done\_it\_again.php
Yeah, I'm new here. Thanx for the link.
El gordo/gullibo:
Funny how he knew about the so-called "great climate shift" but nothing about the McLean fraud, i.e. he'd been sucked-in by the McLean fraud.
I was never much good at political science CON.
Hank...it's a bit technical, but I caught the drift of the argument. Armed with this knowledge I will seek other opinion on Google Scholar.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
el gordo:
or any natural science.
Following the dust storms last month, scientists from the University of Sydney found that the nutrient rich topsoil has done wonders in reducing CO2.
'We estimate that as a consequence of this the extra phytopplankton in the Tasman Sea will be capable of capturing eight million tonnes of carbon dioxide, about the equivalent of a year's CO2 emissions from a coal-fired power station, or a month's worth of emissions for the Munmorah Power Station on the Central Coast,' says Professor Jones.
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20090710-19943.html
re 164. Great.
So now with all that topsoil gone, what are the foodstuffs we humans eat to survive going to grow in?
It's OK, it came from central Australia.
I think the Chinese might be interested in a commercial venture to employ 'dust ships' (with our dirt) to wander the oceans and reduce their carbon footprint.
Fish stocks would also improve.
> It's OK, it came from central Australia.
So when the coast of Australia moves inland...?
And this dust never blows out and replenish the soil nearer the coast?
Gobal warming is definitely going on in Australia:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/archive/200908.summary…
Another all-time temperature record beaten.
Despite "there being a cooling for the past 11 years"...
According to [Broken Hill locals](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/23/2694419.htm) its not all right:
>*"We also sold a lot of our stock because of the drought and most of the little bits of grass that were trying to grow and herbage that was trying to survive will be destroyed with the wind from last night. It was just a cutting wind that took everything with it."*
>*Stephen Cattle, a senior lecturer of soil science at Sydney University, says that is a real concern for agriculture.*
>*"The top soil is often some of the better soil because lower down the soil becomes a bit more salty, a bit more sodium rich and not so hospitable for plant growth," he said.*
>*"So by losing the top soil in particular, where most of our organic matter resides, most of our organic carbon resides, it represents quite a loss to the potential productivity of that soil."*
BOM is also predicting above normal temperatures in the coming months, right down the eastern half of the continent.
This will be a good test of their modeling.
"has done wonders in reducing CO2...the equivalent of a year's CO2 emissions from a coal-fired power station, or a month's worth of emissions for the Munmorah Power Station"
That's a pretty low bar for a "wonder".
> This will be a good test of their modeling.
> Posted by: el gordo
Well the model having predicted that there would be a new maximum or near-maximum in 2009 didn't impress you, did it, gordo?
Why will this be any better a test?
Based on past performance, you'll just go on to another "test" and wait for that one to fail (and make up another "test" if it doesn't, ad infinitum).
Fatso.
Firstly, the paragraph in the Science Alert piece [that you reproduced](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/open_thread_33.php#comment-1983…) said, in its entirety:
I am puzzled as to why you chose to delete the capacity of the first (generic) power station referred to by Jones... unless it is to make an imputed output for such a station appear to be greater that it actually is. Your omission also renders the comparison of "a coal-fired power station" to "the Munmorah Power Station on the Central Coast" incongruous to anyone who knows of Munmorah, because Munmorah is also coal-fired.
I should know: my dad worked there for extended periods, and I've observed the effects of its firing on many occasions.
What weird though is that [Munmorah is a 600MW station](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munmorah_Power_Station,_New_South_Wales) - how such a station can emit as much in a month as a 1GW station emits in a year is quite puzzling...
Back to the point however: it appears to me that you are implying that there is a simple solution to CO2 emissions, and that is to 'fertilise the oceans'. If so, you are naïve in your promotion of such, as any serious analysis of the field would reveal.
Although I don't know anything about Jones, I suspect that he shares sympathies such as those I alluded to in the previous paragraph. The article you quoted goes on to say:
Together with Jones' apparently dodgy figures for power station outputs, I smell a sales pitch in this, not the least because the claimed boon to fishing industries is greatly exaggerated.
Accepting for the sake of argument that the "2 million tonnes of phytoplankton" is an accurate figure, one needs to consider the reduction, by approximately 90%, of biomass as it moves from one trophic level to a higher level. Thus the "2 million tonnes of phytoplankton" would at best provide for about 200 thousand tonnes of (commercially irrelevant) small pelagic invertebrates and fish, which would in turn provide for about 20 thousand tonnes of (possibly useful, in part) higher trophic level carnivorous fish, or about 2 000 tonnes of top predator fish such as sharks, tuna, or somewhat smaller commercial species.
This ignores of course the 'leakage' of biomass into non-commercial higher-trophic level biomass.
Oo, and this all spread out over millions of square kilometres.
And that's assuming a 10% passage of biomass from the planktonic trophic level to a higher one. In the open ocean, I would rather expect that the actual efficiency of planktonic biomass transfer would be somewhat lower, simply for the reason that much of it would probably drop to subsurface regions before being consumed by a plankton-feeder.
The open-ocean benthic communities might benefit somewhat, but as the deep sea floor is not an easily trawled cornucopia (orange roughy, Patagonian toothfish, and other fisheries notwithstanding), I doubt that there is a legitimate argument for encouraging oceanic fertilisation with biomass accumulation in this region in mind...
Unless, of course, one is trying to sell something that would salve the consciences of carbon emitters.
All-in-all, I rather suspect that there will be little in near-future headlines raving about the wildly increased catches resulting from the fertiliser effect of the dust-storm.
It sounded like a good story though, didn't it?
Roy Spencer has just put up his anomaly figure for September and it's pretty warm. It shouldn't be very long now before the HadCrut3 trend (which ignores the fastest warming part of the world) from January 1998 to the present goes positive.
This should shut-up a few of the idiots but of course there's plenty more where they came from.
Greenfyre's latest is a corker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khikoh3sJg8
Next time someone says that both sides are lying, so they're both as bad as each other, point them there.
When next someone comes quote-mining, use that as an example of how badly the deniers need to mine quotes.
Greenman (Peter Sinclair)
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610
>*"This should shut-up a few of the idiots..."*
Chris, I love your belief in rationality!
;)
That should have said "Greenman" as Hank pointed out albeit in a hatstand way (unless he didn't click the link and therefore didn't know it).
The minining industry still [want to hear more](http://www.unisa.edu.au/alumni/ezine/35_lecture_09.htm) from Plimer.
Generous sponsorship provided by 'The Big Australian'.
Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize?
This is going to put the Denialati into 'Foaming Rabid' on the frenziometer.
Ah...
...a hint of what Plimer was fishing for all along.
And an indication of the true stripes of those who claim to have been reformed.
This is exactly why humanity will miss by that much, no matter the intentions and efforts of the most farsighted amongst us.
Call me cynical, but I spit on the floor, and the cat is a bastard.
Just because it happened here trying to see what's posted I'll make this gripe here.
Why is it that sites that use adverts to pay for content (and no problems with that: it's accepted or not by both parties informed) that the ads are demanded and without their input to the webpage you see nothing?
Many times a site will have nothing except *maybe* one banner, maybe not even that, waiting for js.admeld.com or other ad farm.
One of the MAJOR reasons for ad blocking software to be ESSENTIAL to websurfing isn't because of popup/under/side/whatever messages and blarting intrusive ads, but that you don't then sit down with naff all to see for 10 minutes while adsense, overloaded because the damn site is bugged into every page on the pigging planet, gets around to responding.
When you've wasted so much time and know that that was merely ONE of the ad sites that don't CARE about your website's responsiveness is why blocking ads makes surfing so much more pleasant even when ads aren't being intrusive PITAs's.
Money that was confiscated by force by government is okay, but money that was obtained by businesses by trade is not. What a twisted logic.
Business trade equity is enforced by force of government.
Else I could just ramraid your business and take what I want.
What twisted mind would miss that connection?
Grima's.
And who said anything about the money taken?
I'm talking about the time taken waiting for some advertiser to get off their heinies and put whatever bug they want on the page so I can get on and go do what I came here for.
I suppose you agree that time is money, won't you?
So why must I pay with my time when the page could load up THEN show me the ads? That would work just as well and I wouldn't get naffed off looking at a blank screen with the status bar saying "waiting for ad.sense.doubleclick.com".
Shorter Girma:
Here's a generic libertarian response to all your comments.
AdBlock is what allows me to continue to buy things I want, by hiding from me the fact that the people making the product are Tralfamadorians.* I admit, I'm a bigot.
When a Tralfamadorian tries to insist I pay attention to something, I always vow never again to buy anything they sell.
To the extent AdBlock keeps me unaware that they're trying to get my attention, I don't need to refuse to buy from them.
_________________
* Tralfamadorians communicate by tap dancing and farting.
[Hijacked by climate change?](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8223611.stm)
As the UN climate summit in Copenhagen approaches, exhortations that "we must get a deal" and warnings that climate change is "the greatest challenge we face as a species" are to be heard in virtually every political forum.
But if you look back to the latest definitive check on the planet's environmental health - the Global Environment Outlook (Geo-4), published by the UN two years ago - what emerges is a picture of decline that goes way, way beyond climate change.
Species are going extinct at perhaps 1,000 times the normal rate, as key habitats such as forests, wetlands and coral reefs are plundered for human infrastructure.
Aquifers are being drained and fisheries exploited at unsustainable speed. Soils are becoming saline, air quality is a huge cause of illness and premature death; the human population is bigger than our one Earth can currently sustain.
So why, you might ask, are the world's political leaders not lamenting this big picture as loudly and as often as the climate component of it?
Has climate change hijacked the wider environmental agenda? If so, why? And does it matter?
Grima,
You are on strange guy (to put it mildly). On the one hand you extol the virtues of unregulated corporate capitalism, posture endlessly about the greatness of Ayn Rand, then claim to be concerned about the high rate of extinctions that are, in no small part due to *unregulated corporate capitalism*.
Furthermore, climate change IS an important ingredient in the mix, because species are being forced to adjust their ranges and breeding behavior (basically their ecophysiology) due to rates of temperature change, esepcially in higher latitudes, that they have not experienced in tens or hundreds of thousands of years. This is occurring on landscapes that have been greatly simplified already by human actions. Unlike past times, species must now traverse huge agricultural and urban expanses to find isolated patches of suitable habitat. Even when they get there, there is no guarantee that local conditions will be anywhere close to optimal, particularly if a suite of anthropogenic changes (including climate warming) have affected other important characteristics of the habitat e.g. breeding sites, food availability etc. Given that food webs involve interactions amongst several trophic levels, we also know that warmibng is having uneven effects on species occupying different trophic levels, leading to phenological asynchronies that drive local populations towards extinction.
Anyway, I have written this before on your old thread, and either you cannot understand it, do not want to understand it, or do not read it. Which is it?
Well, so are you, Jeff. Because at some point you just need to say "hey, I'm not going to honor some dipshit who claims 2+2=5". I mean, it's time to let go...
Well, our moderator could give Girma his own thread, with proper disdain. Maybe that's the answer.
Shorter Girma:
There are lots of environmental problems that are even bigger than climate change. Therefore, the solution to all these environmental problems is to eliminate taxes and regulations and allow corporations to pollute even more create even more wealth for themselves.
dhogaza
point taken....
J
Grima has tried (and failed) with illogic and insanity, so now he's going for the "concern troll" angle.
He doesn't give a shit about the problems, he just wants Big Oil left alone (unless the ecology problems being fixed means no drilling in Alaska, of course...)
Can anyone help me out with this?
In his book Plimer makes this claim:
"The raw data from Mauna Loa is 'edited' by an operator who deletes what is considered poor data. Some 82% of the raw data is "edited" leaving just 18% of the raw data measurements for statistical analysis. With such savage editing of raw data, whatever trend one wants can be shown."
Where would I start looking for infor to refute this claim?
He follows it up with this:
"the raw data is an average of 4 samples from hour to hour. In 2004 there were a possible 8784 measurements. Due to instrumental error 1102 samples had no data, 1085 were not used due to up slope winds*, 655 had lrge variability within 1 hour but were used in the offical figure , 866 had large hour by hour variability but were not used"
It all sounds like the sort of paranoid ramblings from WUWT and i know it must be easily disproved but I just can't find what I need to do that.
Connor, the procedure of measuring is discussed in detail here:
All data are available, they are just labelled with the appropriate observation. Plimer's comment is merely another example of trying to create doubt, while knowing very well that there are very sound scientific reasons to remove data points. That is, Plimer may be correct that many measurements are thrown out, his suggestion that this is used to create an upward trend (read between the lines) is an accusation for which he has no evidence. You could contact Pieter Tans, he'll probably have a few comments to Plimer's unsubstantiated accusations.
> Can anyone help me out with this?
> In his book Plimer makes this claim:
Connor, given that Plimer's book also includes the claim that the sun is made of iron with a light sheathe of hydrogen on the outside (to fool us), WHY are you giving ANY credence to his latest fiction?
Or is this another way to "get the word out" for denialists?
Mark - No, I've been arguing on a forum with a Plimer-ite. These were the examples he pulled up that Enting hadn't addressed in his review. I posted the link that Marco provided already, but it doesn't really address those particular allegations Plimer was making. In fact, I even made the exact point that Marco made, that it was typical bluff-and-bluster from Plimer to try and confuse people who don't know any better.
But, I guess you have a point about "why bother", seriously, if the guy Im arguing with isn't convinced by Enting's review then nothing will change his mind. I guess I just like to win these arguments for the sake of winning ;)
Thanks Marco, I just sent Pieter Tans an email, I'll see what he has to say about it :)
The BBC is "fair" and "balanced" on global cooling lunacy ...:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
@ChrisE #198:
It even includes the faulty interpretation of Mojib Latif's presentation in Geneva. Which, I am sure, the BBC writer hasn't seen at all. He just repeats what others have said Latif had said.
For the sake of 'balance', I personally think anyone quoting Piers Corbyn is seriously out of balance...
From Science Daily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
[quote]"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today (15 million years ago) â and were sustained at those levels â global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.
"Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said.[/quote]
"Mark - No, I've been arguing on a forum with a Plimer-ite. These were the examples he pulled up that Enting hadn't addressed in his review"
Well, now you know that he claims in that book that the sun is made of iron, you know you can ignore anything said unless someone gets you proof you can understand.
When it comes to his book, remember: he's said the sun is made of iron.
If someone tries to tell you about something Plimer said, tell them: he thinks the sun is made of iron.
Get them to waste their time dancing round it.
Haha, asked the same question of Eli Rabett and got this response
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/10/its-not-bug-its-feature-conner-in.ht…
Thanks, Eli!
The problem that is hard to get into the head of environmentalists is that consumption is made by PEOPLE. It is not by capitalists. We, producers, just provide what people want. Blaming us is extremely irrational. Instead of paying us homage for providing you with your breakfast, lunch, dinner, shelter, transport to work, hospital when you get sick, a computer to use for work or leisure, you blame us. That is the irrationality of environmentalism. More people, more consumption. Less people, less consumption. Please donât blame us for meeting peoples need. Unfortunately, environmentalism is mysticism. Environmentalism is irrationality.
More utter bullshit from Girma.
Where to begin deconstructing this latest stupidity?
First of all, thanks to advertising, people have been conditioned to confuse what they want with what they need. Of course, the aim of commercial elites is to *convince* people they need things that they really don`t, and this particularly applies to children, hence why corporate advertising especially targets the young (see latest book by Sharon Beder on the subject). Ultimately, corporate advertising works because they explicitly aim to forever increase consumption as this is correlated with endless profits. When Girma talks about industry meeting people`s needs, of course he is speaking utter bollocks. Needs have nothing to do with it. We have gone past that yardstick many times over. This is one reason why capitalism, as currently defined, is headed towards extinction unless we can find a way to limit the evolutionarily programmed need to consume more and more and we allow corporations to prey on this weakness through propaganda *telling us* (meaning those in the west) that is in our interests to overconsume. Moreover, corporations must be regulated; the idea of corporate-government "partnerships" is a chilling one because the very reason governments were created was to best protect the interests of society from those few who would exploit them.
Given that every country in the developed world fosters an enormous ecological deficit, clearly this kind of behavior is pushing us closer and closer to a tipping point. It also explains why much of western policy - from early imperialism right through to the current day with the planet`s life support systems under increasing threat - is based on capital repatriation and resource looting of impoverished lands in the developing world. Overconsumption in the west is the very foundation of social inequality and injustice in the world. And there are volumes of evidence to back this up.
Corporate elites DO NOT produce only goods that are day-to-day necessities, but they manipulate human behavior through advertising to muddy the distinction between desires and needs. They try to assuage the guilt associated with profligate overconsumption, meaning that we are supposed to feel good by forever spending on SUVs, cheap flights just about everywhere, expensive meals when dining out, other luxuries and the like.
Girma, you are one mixed-up guy. Mark`s "concern troll" angle sums you up to a tee.
With apologies to dhogaza; I know I should not let Girma`s gibberish annoy me so much but sometimes I just cannot resist!
More nonsense from Girma.
Where to begin deconstructing this latest wretched post?
First of all, thanks to advertising, people have been conditioned to confuse what they want with what they need. Of course, the aim of commercial elites is to *convince* people they need things that they really don`t, and this particularly applies to children, hence why corporate advertising especially targets the young (see latest book by Sharon Beder on the subject). Ultimately, corporate advertising works because they explicitly aim to forever increase consumption as this is correlated with endless profits. When Girma talks about industry meeting people`s needs, of course he is speaking utter rubbish. Needs have nothing to do with it. We have gone past that yardstick many times over. This is one reason why capitalism, as currently defined, is headed towards extinction unless we can find a way to limit the evolutionarily programmed need to consume more and more and we allow corporations to prey on this weakness through propaganda *telling us* (meaning those in the west) that is in our interests to overconsume. Moreover, corporations must be regulated; the idea of corporate-government "partnerships" is a chilling one because the very reason governments were created was to best protect the interests of society from those few who would exploit them.
Given that every country in the developed world fosters an enormous ecological deficit, clearly this kind of behavior is pushing us closer and closer to a tipping point. It also explains why much of western policy - from early imperialism right through to the current day with the planet`s life support systems under increasing threat - is based on capital repatriation and resource looting of impoverished lands in the developing world. Overconsumption in the west is the very foundation of social inequality and injustice in the world. And there are volumes of evidence to back this up.
Corporate elites DO NOT produce only goods that are day-to-day necessities, but they manipulate human behavior through advertising to muddy the distinction between desires and needs. They try to assuage the guilt associated with profligate overconsumption, meaning that we are supposed to feel good by forever spending on SUVs, cheap flights just about everywhere, expensive meals when dining out, other luxuries and the like.
Girma, you are one mixed-up guy. Mark`s "concern troll" angle sums you up to a tee.
With apologies to dhogaza; I know I should not let Girma`s gibberish annoy me so much but sometimes I just cannot resist!
> The problem that is hard to get into the head of environmentalists is that consumption is made by PEOPLE. It is not by capitalists.
Is capitalists not PEOPLE, grima?
The problem that is hard to get into your head is that Rand isn't a goodess and that capitalism is as much an answer to societies' needs as socialism.
> More people, more consumption. Less people, less consumption.
Nope.
The US has fewer people than India but consumes less.
> Please donât blame us for meeting peoples need.
Marketing is to CREATE a need.
What need is there fore a new Operating System? What need is there for a muscle car that does 8mpg?
Incandescent ligtbulbs were initially made to last forever (the first production one still works). But you can only sell one lightbulb per fitting with that.
So create a need for new ones by making the lightbulbs shoddy so they blow out.
Yes, we can blame you.
> Unfortunately, environmentalism is mysticism. Environmentalism is irrationality.
Now here IS a "LOL". When you talk of Rand you're talking mysticism. When you talk of capitalism, you're talking irrationality.
PS when's your paper being published in Nature?
Science has been hijacked.
If you give the mean global temperature anomaly data for analysis to any scientist, engineer or mathematician, he can separate it into a linear anomaly with a warming slope of +0.44 deg C/100 years, and an oscillating anomaly with a range of +/-0.4 deg C.
He can also observe that the oscillating anomaly was at its maximum at the end of the last century. As a result, the global warming in the last century was the sum of +0.44 deg C from the linear warming to +0.4 deg C from the maximum of the oscillating anomaly, giving us +0.84 deg C. This warming has caused NATURAL climate change.
The fact that the maximum of the oscillating anomaly occurred at the end of the last century is just a coincidence. If, at the end of the last century, the oscillating anomaly were at its minimum of -0.4 deg C, the global warming in the last century would have been the sum of +0.44 deg C from the linear warming to -0.4 deg C from the minimum of the oscillating anomaly, giving us +0.04 deg C. That is, depending on whether the maximum or the minimum oscillation anomaly occur at the end of the last century, we have a global warming of 0.84 deg C or no global warming!
There is no scientist who fail to see this.
However, the 0.84 deg C warming is blamed on human emission of CO2.
Science has been hijacked.
Shorter Girma:
There are lots of environmental problems that are more pressing than global warming! Therefore, environmentalists shouldn't try to solve environmental problems! Because solving environmental problems is bad for poor people! Also, we should try to solve environmental problems other than global warming!
* * *
It's golden, watching Girma switching back and forth between "I care for the environment" concern trolling, "I care for poor people" concern trolling, and plain old "all hail the market" trolling. I guess someone who has three or more pails of dung to fling can simply decide at random which pail of dung he wants to fling from, eh...
1. (+0.4 deg C, 1998)
/\ /
/ \ /
\ / \ /
\/ \/
2. (-0.3 deg C, 1976)
Global warming in the last century:
In 1998, the maximum oscillating anomaly coincided with the end of the last century, as in point 1 above. As a result, Global warming = 0.44 (linear anomaly per century) + 0.4 (maximum oscillating anomaly) = 0.84 deg C.
If the minimum oscillating anomaly had coincided with the end of the last century, as in point 2 above, the warming would have been: Global warming = 0.44 (linear anomaly per century) - 0.3 (minimum oscillating anomaly) = 0.14 deg C. That is, hardly no global warming in a century!
Shorter Girma #208:
The mean global temperature can be seen as comprising two components: a linear trend, and noise. Except I don't call it noise, I call it "oscillating anomaly", because the latter has more syllables.
The noise is... noise, therefore the linear trend doesn't exist! There's no warming trend! Global warming is a hoax! A hoax! Hoax hoax hoax HOAX HOAX HOAX!!!!!!!!!!!!
SCIENZ HAZ B33N HIJAKKED!!!!!! OH NOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even funnier, bi, the "all hail the market" trolling is "I don't give a shit about the poor people! It's THEIR fault they're poor!" trolling.
That he holds the concern trolling for poor people along with that shows just how well Grima's brain works.
I.e. doesn't.
> Science has been hijacked.
you've been trying to Grima.
Then when that didn't work, you went concern trolling on us.
There is no oscillation.
Take a look at this graph:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
There IS no oscillation.
It goes up and down, but not in an oscillatory fashion.
Oscillation:
> Definitions of oscillation on the Web:
> * the process of oscillating between states
> * (physics) a regular periodic variation in value about a mean
> * cycle: a single complete execution of a periodically repeated phenomenon; "a year constitutes a cycle of the seasons"
Between states?
No, the state now is different from the state before.
Regular periodic variation? No, there's no regular period. If you have one, show us.
A single complete execution?
Nope if there was one, there's no completion of that oscillatory completion
... of a periodically repeated phenomenon
Well as we have seen, no periodicity and no repeat.
Might as well say that the step function from 0V to 1V is periodical.
After all, if you run a fourier transform on it, you'll see it's all made of sin waves of various frequencies.
By your lights, a step function is therefore a periodical one.
Oh joy. Def-to-all-logic-and-reason, irrational repetitive liar Girma has popped up in this thread too.
> If you give the mean global temperature anomaly data for analysis to any scientist, engineer or mathematician, he can separate it into a linear anomaly with a warming slope of +0.44 deg C/100 years, and an oscillating anomaly with a range of +/-0.4 deg C.
I completely agree! If by "scientist, engineer or mathematician" you mean "deranged imbecile incapable of performing basic secondary-school analysis and determined to force data to fit preconceived political bias irrespective of evidence, logic, science or basic maths".
Have you answered Bernard's questions yet? Or are you just determined to repeat this utter nonsense no matter how many times its shown to be wrong?
Slightly related - I was interested to see cohenite [use exactly the same W trendlines graph](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/10/lance-endersbee-1925-2009-civi…) as Girma here over on Marohasy's blog. Unattributed plagiarism, or just a case of "great" minds thinking alike?
Also I was interested in that thread to see how many anti-AGW posters over there came out as Evolution skeptics as well (including Louis Hissinck).
Dave
Is there any pattern in this [oscillating anomaly?]( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/…)
That is what the data shows, and it is not Girma's creation.
I am going to cross post this so that Girma Orssengo, the resident Deltoid incompetent extraordinaire, has no excuse to claim ignorance of the posting of the questions.
Orssengo, in addition to the long-ago asked, and multitudinously repeated, questions [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the…), can you answer this one?
If there is a 'background', non-anthropogenic warming as you claim, why do you assume that over the scale of decades or centuries oscillatory superimpositions would continue to operate with constant expression? You see, the hazy suppositions that you put forward as explanations for these claimed oscillations are themselves simply mechanisms for heat redistribution around the globe, and as the overall mean global temperature (= heat content) increases, the manners in which the redistribution mechanisms operate will also be reasonably expected to change.
To expect them to remain stable over increasing temperature ranges shows no understanding of how equilibria in complex systems shift.
So, again: why have you assumed that your so-called "oscillatory components" are impervious to overall changes in the climatic system? How much of an increase in the mean global temperature do you expect might occur such that these "components" continue to express themselves as you perceive that they currently do? In light of the last question, how long do you believe that these "components" have operated in the past, and how long do you imagine that they will continue to operate in the future?
And upon what evidence of physics do you base your claims? Note, playing with values beyond the range of a regression does not constitute the standard definition of 'physics'.
Bernard #216
You have not overwhelmed me with questions to get me befuddled. You have asked specific questions that deserve to be answered. And that is what I will attempt to do.
To be clear about what we are taking about, hear is the [oscillating anomaly](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/…) with its linear warming (+0.44 deg C/ 100 years) component removed.
âChanges in climate systemâ result due to change in the linear anomaly, and superimposed on this linear warming is a short-term deviation (oscillating anomaly) from the linear anomaly.
I assume the oscillating anomalyâare impervious to overall changes in the climate systemâ because that is what the data shows. As the plot above shows, all the oscillating anomaly data are enveloped within the limits +/- 0.45 deg C since record began in 1850.
Increase in mean global temperature is due to the linear anomaly, and the oscillating component just move up and down about that linear anomaly within the envelope +/-0.45 deg C.
The maximum oscillating anomaly for 1878 of 0.38 deg C is similar to that for 1998 of 0.39 deg C. As a result, there is no shift in the magnitude of the maximum oscillating anomaly in 120 years.
As the oscillating anomalies have âexpress[ed] themselvesâ for the last 159 years, they will express themselves until a climate shift occurs. By looking at the plot above, you donât see any shift in the oscillating anomaly in the last 159 years. It is not easy to predict when a climate shift will occur. However, it stand to reason the pattern of oscillating anomaly for the last 159 years will continue into the future, at least for the next couple of decades.
Dave
you wrote, ⦠liar Girma â¦
I never ever lie. I may be wrong, but I never ever, never ever, never ever lie and personally attack others, as I respect people, but I don't have any respect for inimical ideology like environmentalism, becasue man lives by changing his environment.
> That is what the data shows, and it is not Girma's creation.
... says Girma, linking to a graph of his own construction that removes a linear trend he has no evidence for, and that is entirely a product of his own poor analysis...
Say, did you ever get round to redoing your "analysis" with subsets of the available data? ie. calculate your linear trend for [1858 - 1988](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.416/…), then remove that "trend" and see what the "oscillation" looks like?
Or for [1978](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.334/…
)...
Hm, how strange that every time I do this, the residuals for the period covered by the slope appear to vary quite reasonably around the mean, while the period after the slope ends diverges wildly. I wonder why that could be? I wonder what this means for the predictive power of this approach? Perhaps we needed precisely 151 years worth of data to perform such a sophisticated "analyis". Or perhaps the "analysis" is utter garbage.
Shorter Girma:
If you remove the warming trend from the temperature record, then what you get is "noise", which (again) I prefer to call "oscillating anomaly" because it sounds more scientific.
More importantly, if you remove the warming trend, then there is no warming trend.
Therefore, global warming is a hoax.
According to a paper in NATURE last year:
[global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html)
Girma can now smile!
Dave.
Following on from [your observation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/open_thread_33.php#comment-1993…) where you commented:
I think you will find that "great" is certainly the best way to phrase it.
I [had a go](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/10/lance-endersbee-1925-2009-civi…) at Cohenite about his comment that "R2 is a measure of the predictive correlation between 2 variables" - emphasis mine. In particular, I was attempting to draw his attention to the fact that one should not use past values for time, where time is an independent variable, to derive regression parameters that are subsequently used to "predict" future dependent variable values.
Perhaps it is that I am ambiguous in the way that I explain things, but the point seems to be escaping cohenite still.
bi-IJI
Could you please, please, please explain as to what the cause of the global warming by about ONE deg C from 1813 to 1913 was?
[Year=>Anomaly (deg C)](ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg20…)
1813=>-0.98
1814=>-0.86
1815=>-0.74
1913=>-0.03
1914=>-0.10
1915=>-0.00
In my calculation, the linear warming of the last century is similar to that two centuries ago, so it must be removed to see the effect of CO2 emission on global temperature in the last century. Zilch.
> I never ever lie. I may be wrong, but I never ever, never ever, never ever lie
> Posted by: Girma
Well, there's a lie for a start.
Every time you say there's a linear change in temperature you're lying.
> Dave
> Is there any pattern in this oscillating anomaly?
> Posted by: Girma
No.
Is there a pattern to this dataset:
4.93065389412553
8.35723077735992
3.32551029316289
7.09665963516223
2.26779710396915
9.8330106491629
3.48034564775244
Average 5.61
"Oscillation"
Down,
Up,
Down,
Up,
Down,
Up,
Down
If there IS a pattern, then why did I get those values from running a rand(10) call in perl 7 times?
Assertion of a liar, e.g. Girma:
> I never ever lie. I may be wrong, but I never ever, never ever, never ever lie and personally attack others, as I respect people, but I don't have any respect for inimical ideology like environmentalism, becasue man lives by changing his environment.
Well, let's fact check that shall we. Your second or third post on this blog started thus:
> In this âGlobal Warming Swindleâ an organization called the Inter GOVERNMENT Panel on Climate change was formed by GOVERNMENTS to summarize the so called âpeer reviewedâ papers written and reviewed by people whose projects are all funded by GOVERNMENTS to come up with results that give GOVERNMENTS more economic power and revenue.
So, there you have dismissed peer review, referred to global warming as a conspiracy to "swindle" power and revenue from ...someone..., and asserted that those that produce the papers invent the results they want in order to get funding. I call that a dishonest and highly offensive personal smear attack on thousands of people. And unless you have some evidence for the claim that "all" this research is engineered to come up with the conclusions governments want to see, its false - and therefore a lie.
Some other examples of straightforward lies:
Girma:
> I also checked my high school science book and found that the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 0.038%.
Chris O'Neill:
> So your high school science book was written in 2005. Wow! You got through your University degree AND PhD degree in less than four degrees. You are truly incredible Girma. Either that or you're an idiotic liar.
Nicely done.
I particularly love the hypocritical pontificating in this next gem:
Girma:
> In critical thinking, according to Greg R. Haskins, there is a concept called Omission. [...] Sometimes this happens unintentionally by carelessness or ignorance, but too often it is an intentional act. [...] One omission in the global warming debate is the selection of the starting and end points to estimate the trend in global warming. [...] From the above plot, we see the following trends:
> 1. Cooling from 1880 to 1910
> 2. Warming from 1910 to 1940
> 3. Cooling from 1940 to 1970
> 4. Warming from 1970 to 2000
> 5. Plateau since 2000 at about 0.4 deg C
Me:
> Liar. Out and out, shameless, brazen liar.
> You plotted 1970 - 1998, followed by 1998 - 2010(!).
> So there you go. A liar. You couldn't even do this simple (and pointless) exercise honestly, you just had to cherry pick and distort. And lie about it.
I called you out on this several times on that thread and you didn't respond.
Mostly though, you lie by omission, by distortion, by cherry-picking, by unsupported assertion, and by repeating claims that have been shown to be false by simply pretending that responses have not been given to you.
That you also assert that environmentalism is an "inimical ideology" while clinging to randian objectivism and its selfish and short-sighted dismissal of the common good is interesting. And by interesting, I mean self-defeating, circular, and utterly boring to hear about yet again.
Shorter Girma:
By calculating a single value for "linear warming", I show that this value is the same as itself. Therefore, global warming is a hoax.
Therefore, the free market is great, and poor people deserve to be poor, and we should care more for poor people and forget about the environment, and we should care for the environment (but only as long as we do nothing about global warming).
Last but not least, I may be wrong, but I'll continue to spout my wrong theories anyway! And to be honest, let me point out that I'm honest!
Climate Modeling
[John Reid]( http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/10/climate-modelling-non…)
I have now banned Girma. I put him in moderation because he kept posting off topic denialist talking points on every thread despite being asked not to. So he created a sock puppet to bypass moderation.
Girma, this blog is my private property and you are no longer allowed here. If you believe in private property you will no longer try to post here.
In case anyone missed this:
[Iraq Report: 85,000 killed from 2004-08](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33310955/ns/world_news-conflict_in_iraq/)
The headline is a little misleading, but the article itself is reasonably good.
Also... never heard the bit about bastard cats 'n' spitting. Great saying! I'll have to find a way to make it a permanent fixture in my house.
Bjorn Lomborg is up to his creative accounting best in his latest missive picked up by the Oz:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26210623-5013480,00…
A 4 degree rise by 2100 would result in a totally different planet to what we have now, so effectively he is putting a value on the Earth of $0.8 trillion dollars. Nice one Bjorn!
"There you'll find what the speed of the GCR's protons from the termination shock is, which is the speed that I indicated in my article."
Please explain how you get 3.5MeV protons going at 400kps, Nail.
They can't be in an excited state, since they would long ago have relaxed and lost that energy, so the only continuing sink for energy would be kinetic.
And a 10MeV proton will be going at 0.1C, 30,000kps.
Not 400kps.
Explain where this energy is if not in the kinetics.
Problem:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1999ICRC....7..456J/G000457.00…
Talks of the solar wind speed moving at 360kps.
Problems include:
1) This isn't going towards the sun. Hence the time taken to go from Voyager 1 to the Earth is eternity (unless we are in a closed universe)
2) This isn't the Intergalactic Cosmic Radiation you're talking about
3) They aren't 3-13MeV Protons either
4) At 360kps rather than 400kps, your figure of 13.7 months is wrong and should, instead, be 15.2, which kind of stuffs up the peaks you point out.
5) Over the 30-40 months Voyager will have traveled an extra 20 AU, therefore the graph may start off at 15.2 (rather than 13.7) months if the protons WERE going 400kps, but they'd end up at the end of the track being another 3months longer to get to earth (moving at ~21kps). I.e. about 18months. Stuffs the peaks out even more for "fitting".
Did you read 95 AU distance for the Voyager craft, figure out what gave the best fit possible between the temperature graph you subselected (I note that it ends early) and then worked out how fast that would have to be to work? Then, when you discovered that the SOLAR WIND at helioshock was going something around that speed, jump STRAIGHT to the conclusion that this was proof and stopped reading?
It certainly seems that way, doesn't it.
Nail, I take it that you agree that there is significant warming, yes?
Why then is AGW science as attributed in the IPCC report wrong?
After all, they use proxies (MBH '98 and the more recent Briffa report). You accept that proxies are a correct solution to the discovery of past events, so that can't be a problem, can it.
Why is CO2 not the cause? Not what else do you think is the cause, why do you think CO2 isn't the cause?
Masiv, you wanted people to read your paper.
You wanted to hear people's opinion.
You seem now to want to ignore that opinion.
Seems Nail has managed to get some pals in to ensure the embarrassment gets moved off front page where it can be seen.
Masiv, you said you wanted to talk about your work.
Why aren't you talking?
Troll watch:
The persistent nameless denialist who's spamming this thread is at the IP address 99.255.151.156.
He tried spamming my blog, and I warned him that if he persisted in trying to spam my blog, I would expose his IP address.
Please feel free to protect your own blog(s) against this denialist troll in whatever way you see fit.
It's a newark number, cable provider.
Some kid who OD'd on jelly babies.
Nameless denialist troll, I don't care if you're using a proxy server or a chain of proxy servers or whatever. As long as the IP address (99.255.151.156) doesn't change, I just need to block it and I won't need to worry about your incessant spam.
Maybe you should try using Tor. But I doubt you'll like it, because it's too slow to allow you to spam several denialist talking points en masse.
Nameless denialist:
Say whatever you will, but your attempts to troll on my blog are being consigned to my spam queue even as I type this. I won't even be aware that you're trying to spam my blog until I check the spam queue -- which I don't need to, because the spam queue has a habit clearing up old spam by itself.
It's a Windows machine with a webserver with a default page that says "This page rocks!".
Either a fortysomething trying to sound "kewl" or an idiot kid with no clue.
Rogers Cable anyway.If you continue to get spammed, you can now get the Feds on your side. Keep the spam logs for this barnpot.
Oh, likely to be Windows XP pro, too.
Well, just for good measure, I'll reiterate that the IP address of our denialist spammer is 99.255.151.156...
Mr 99.255.151.156 has been banned with extreme prejudice and all his comments deleted.
The saying "where you can spit on the floor and call the cat a bastard" comes from the play "She Stoops to Conquer".
I think it was in some use as a negative in northern england, dismissing the "prissyness" of the southerners.
It was impolite to spit.
It wasn't appropriate to blame the cat/dog/host for anything.
Even if the cat shat on the mat...
A shorter version is "I call a spade a spade, me". Especially since the victorian prissyness about blaming the host or his household dropped off.
PS Nail still hasn't come back on any of the oddities with his papers.
I don't think our perma-troll here is Grima. I suspect it's one of Nail's co-workers, maybe even the same one that got slammed from WUWT.
He started just after that little incident was mentioned on here.
Which would also help Nail too. Next time he comes back, he can say "I didn't know there were any questions" and dodge again.
What's up with the CEI and Václav Klaus?
I apologise in advance for posting a response to a Marohasy thread here, but after being told several times that:
Tim
You have told me that this blog is yours and you have asked me not to post. I respect that and I have stopped posting and will not post in the future.
However, It would be great if you could post the following link to my published article based on my discussions in this blog.
[American Thinker]( http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/co2_driven_global_warming_is_n.h…)
All the best to all
Girma Orssengo, MASc, PhD
It seems Nail has hidden his paper on how Voyager has seen the integalactic cosmic rays that make global warming.
Aaaawwww.
"Aaaawwww" indeed.
Does anyone have an archive copy, perchance?
I see Girma has been shopping with his flawed analysis again. I wonder whether my comment on "American Thinker" (the irony is baffling) goes through, but even then the cheering crowd over there, including Girma himself, would probably not understand anything.
Notice how he respects private property so much that he'll abuse private property to say so.
And then demand that he be allowed to scribble on it...
I have just posted this at the thread on American Thinker [where Girma Orssengo has engaged in a vanity 'publication'](http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/co2_driven_global_warming_is_n.h…):
---------------
Girma Orssengo.
You have been repeated told why there are multiple flaws in your 'analysis', and yet you have steadfastly refused to acknowledge the questions put ot you pertaining to these flaws, let alone actually address them.
The flaws continue to compound, with your transfer of activity from Deltoid to here. In the post dated Oct 18, 05:37 PM, you have removed a linear trend from the 1850 to 2008 mean annual global temperature dataset (which demonstrably does not follow a linear trajectory in the first place), which is effectively removing a warming component from the dependent variable, and you then superimpose data from only 1959 onward, and conclude that there is no causal relationship.
Can you not understand why this is a mathematically bogus procedure?! Do you understand how many errors of analysis you made in this one exercise?
One cannot compare the trajectory of an independent variable with the trajectory of a detrended dependent variable. One cannot use a detrended 159 year dependent variable interval to comment on the trend within a 50 year independent variable interval; certainly, not without a litany of extremely specific caveats and specfications.
One cannot conclude, as you did at the end of your post, that in a multifactorial system such as global climate, where there is not a continuous monotonic relationship between independent and dependent variables, there is therefore no causal relationship btween these same independent and dependent variables. If such an astonishing claim were actually true, then none of the forcings identified by any person on the planet to date would in fact have any impact upon global temperature! This would render your argument just as fallacious as you claim the analyses of real climate scientists to be.
There is so much more that could be said, but as your past form has shown, it is fruitless to attempt to engage you in any serious scientific discussion of climate (or indeed of ecology, or plant physiology, or any number of scientific disciplines in which you have no education or training).
For the record, I will cross-post this at Deltoid so that it is not completely at the mercy of moderation.
Just to say, the comments on that American Thinker article are absolute comedy gold.
A summary:
AAALLLL GOOOOOOOORE!
NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE AGW HYPOTHESIS HAS BEEN FOUND!
Libtards!
Profit!!!!
Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty, Claims British Lord [Christopher Monckon]!
Eco marxists!
Pope Hansen!
Scam!
Hoax!
AAALLLL GOOOOOOOORE (again)!
My personal favourite is the guy who berates Girma for a couple of comments, because "THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING" at all, and the temperature record is all a liberal conspiracy - so *even Girma's* sloppy "analysis" is a bridge too far :)
Dave,
It seems that I am being moderated out of existence on the American Thinker [sic] site - several of my friends and I have tried to post, or to simply link to the [above post here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/open_thread_33.php#comment-2006…), before your post and Orssengo's subsequent one, to no avail.
Someone there doesn't want to challenge Orssengo's story...
We're hoping that posting repeated pointers to this fact, here on Deltoid, might result in some pressure on the mod/s at AT, an encourage them to open their minds.
Are we dreamers, or what?!
Bernard,
Dreamers indeed - perhaps you should include MORE CAPS to evade their automated filters.
I'm trying for a longer comment, reprinted here, but I think it may be pointless :)
-----
Girma, the many and diverse flaws in your arguments have been covered in great detail elsewhere. You know them and have chosen to ignore them in the past, and I don't intend to repeat myself here.
However, I do note you make a new misrepresentation in this article (or at least, one I'd not seen before), and I would like to comment on that.
First you assert a warming trend of 0.44 Deg/C based on a trivial linear regression through ~150 years worth of data while (erroneously) ignoring any possible acceleration in any underlying trend without justification.
You then assert a warming trend of 0.47 Deg/C based on the 100 year period between 1810 and 1910.
Do you not see that this is invalid? You have used two different periods of time to determine your "linear" trend.
Aside from any other arguments, please can you justify why the 100-year trend is comparable to the 150 year trend? Note - asserting they are comparable because you managed to end up with similar numbers at the end is tautalogical.
Also, its worth noting that if you were to redo your analysis with 100-year periods at 10-year intervals starting from the last full year of data (2008) and working backwards your "linear trend" starts to look nothing like like anything but:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3v…
By the way, I'm not even asserting this graph is in any way a good approximation of the actual trend - I'm asserting that even though your approach is invalid, if you managed to apply your own logic consistently you'd still end up disproving your own findings. But then, we're now straying onto old ground.
Comedy gold, I tells you - comedy gold!
After [much egging on](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/tim_curtin_thread.php) from Jeff Harvey, myself, and others at Deltoid there is not [one](http://www.timcurtin.com/images/Natures_New_Theory_of_Climate_Change.pdf), but [two](http://www.timcurtin.com/images/Climate_Change_and_Food_Production.pdf) 'papers' in the toe-raggiest tabloid of climatological 'journalism'.
Sadly, our efforts at Deltoid in helping to overcome some of the more glaring mistakes that tiddles made over the last several years has not been acknowledged. Unless of course it is implicit in the Royal 'we' that he employs in his carbon dioxide chuckle...
Interesting to see, in the acknowledgments, the names of those who were prepared to be tarred with the brush. As the mishmash is deconstructed over the coming months they may wish that they had thought a little harder about hitching their stars to this wagon.
Their only hope is that the paper is considered so laughably wide of the mark that it is fit only for wiping after number twosies, and not worth the effort of response.
Nature, on the other hand, might like to get the toilet brush out...
Well bugger me sideways with a barnacle scraper!
I thought the denialists couldn't get any dumber or more obvious (and oblivious), but over at the BBC blogs, this little gem came up:
> [quoting Carl Sagan]
> "If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you."
> That's true, but no one can be sceptical about one thing without at the same time not being sceptical about some other stuff.
Strangely enough the little idiot has just explained to me why they are so selectively credulous: they think since they don't believe in the IPCC they HAVE to believe something else. And since the IPCC has such a lot of information, they have to believe an equal amount of DISinformation.
Mind you another poster has an idea: list the denialist arguments and see if they can come up with ONE that doesn't disagree with most of the others (he last got to 22 and a zeroth law):
"The sceptics' view of AGW"
_0. This list is a load of rubbish!
_1. There is no warming
_2. There is warming but it's not anthropogenic
_3. There is anthropogenic warming but it's not caused by CO2
_4. There is anthropogenic warming by CO2 but not enough to worry about
_5. CO2 has risen but it's not capable of causing warming
_6. CO2 hasn't risen
_7. Arctic ice isn't disappearing
_8. Arctic ice is disappearing but the Antarctic is more important
_9. It gets cold at night so it can't be warming
10. It has been warming but now it's cooling
11. We don't trust the temperature measurements anyway
12. CO2 has always lagged warming in the past so it can't cause it
13. AGW may be real; but it could be a good thing
14. It's all a big con!
15. It's the journalists fault for not exposing the charlatan scientists
16. The Hotspot hasn't been detected so there can't be any AGW
17. All the temperature data has been lost/destroyed
18. Trees do not make good thermometers
19. You can make a hockey stick out of random data
20. The upturn in the hockey stick was cherry-picked data
21. Cycles in the solar wind are the primary driver of climate change
22. The science is not even in, let alone settled
My favourite thing about coming across statements like this:
> Trees do not make good thermometers
Is that its normally coupled in a beautiful symmetry with the position that trees are perfect thermometers when they contradict *actual thermometers*.
It seems now Girma provides an even more complete case-study in the development of "blog science". We can almost follow the process from germination, evolution, refinement, its imperverious resistance to rational critique, through to accesptanace in the blogosphere.
Is "American Thinker" a 'conservative' or deninalist site?
BTW, we got Curtin x2, where is Anthony Cox's?
Are other posters going through moderation if they even mentions the "G" name?
Interesting link between Tim Curtin and [his aknowledgement](http://www.timcurtin.com/images/Climate_Change_and_Food_Production.pdf) of David Tribe aka GMO Pundit.
Are any biologists/ecologists in Deltoid familiar with the safety assessment used for GMO?
It depends what you mean specifically Mark. One could talk about the effects on physiology of consumed GM foods, oe about the ecological effects of GMOs.
These are very different kettles of two-headed fish!
Bernard,
I interest in both, I gather you may have more to say about the ecological impact?
But I'm also interested in you opinion of the food safety trials. I looked at this some time ago. A few things stood out:
*No human safety trials as per pharma trials;
*High dependence on industry released data on trials;
*Lack of access to GMO material for independet trials;
*Claims from GMO critics that the trials were designed to be insenstive i.e make faulty comparisons to ["hide problems"](http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey7.htm).
*Industrial relationships dominate the biotech sector raising potential for conflict of interest;
*Heavy PR front from industry;
I read a [lot of risks](http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/GeneticRoulette/HealthRisksofGMF…) collated by Jeffrey Smith. Reading Smith's critics I came across Tim Curtin's mate the GMO Pundit.
Its interesting to see compare and contrast the global warming debate with the GMO debate. Especially with the rise of claims of profit motivated science.
In my opinion, GMO's are meant to make GMO companies money. Lots of it.
You can't patent the potato, so they make a GMO potato that IS patentable.
They kept saying that they would make third world people safe by giving them foods that were nutritious, but they started with a roundup-ready wheat.
Yup, that'll make it nutritious allright.
And there isn't any need.
The problem isn't growing enough food, it's getting it to the people who want to eat it.
And that's a political problem, not an engineering one.
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Mark Mozer has just [come back](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.p…) to reveal himself to be something quite different than that he wished to portray himself in this thread.
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…
Eek:
Leading UK CLimate Scientists Must Explain or resign: sounds like Ms Marohasy has been taking Monckton lessons.
Scholar finds the paper by searching for a chunk of text out of the abstract:
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:SiwKIChf73MJ:scholar.google.com/+…