Open Thread 34

It seems that your family pet has to be 'put down' if we are serious about saving the planet. According to these characters, who are architects and not scientists, your mutt may have a bigger carbon paw print than an SUV.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2987848/Save-the-planet-time-to-eat-…

Yep, it's 'the new dark age' alright el gordo (#1)

Soon you'll be hearing : 'Bring out your dead' !

:-(

el gordo:

these characters, who are architects and not scientists

As if you care.

If only there were some way of getting your animal to consume a carbon-rich substance to offset the carbon output...

ref comment 1:

Actually I agree 100% with the article (based on reading the first paragraph or two!).

Pets are a waste of anyone's money.
They should either be eaten or at least do a useful job, eg. dogs for the blind, detecting drugs etc.

>Pets are a waste of anyone's money

By that logic are children also a waste of money? Put them to work?

> Put them to work?

> Posted by: Janet Akerman

Hey, I call them "my retirement fund"!

> Pets are a waste of anyone's money.

There are a few million (billion?) people around the planet who might disagree with that assessment given the companionship they receive from their pets.

Conversation with a dog might not be that stimulating, but I find their enthusiasm and uncluttered happiness at being taken for a walk infectious.

> There are a few million (billion?) people around the planet who might disagree with that assessment

Yup, Chow canine is tasty!

The problem here is that the whole argument all the way back to the twonk who brought it up (and STILL couldn't report, had to put the alarmist stance on it) is laughable.

Re Paul in #5: "Pets are a waste of anyone's money."

From WebMD: ["What are the Health Benefits of Owning A Pet?"](http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/features/health-b…)

I dunno... maybe what the right wing is driving at is: HEALTH is a waste of money. That would explain a lot. :-)

Cheers,
Bruce

Here's another alarmist denialist rendering of the same story:

> AGWs must eat their dogs first as an example for the rest of us

I wonder: can we eat the denialists as an example to the rest of them?

Long Pig Tasty!

'course Fat Pig not so Tasty.

DavidCog:
>There are a few million (billion?) people around the planet who might disagree with that assessment given the companionship they receive from their pets.

Don't really care!

Most pets cost a lot of money. Working pets are fine.
In the past they would have been fed on scraps and left overs.
Now we use fossil fuels and industry to sustain them, they are not much different to a video recorder or a TV these days.

Assuming there are approx 1 billion pets that are useless except for their intrinsic value, the love, companionship and meaning they bring to life. There are relatively simple climate forcing mitigation solutions for such 'luxuries':

a) reduce the mass of large pets by say 50-80%;

b) reduce the carbon intensity of the pet inputs (eg. composition and processing of food) by say 50-80%.

Pual UK, I don't think your views would survive the democratic process.

I won't mention he-who-must-not-be-named anymore, but I have to add that this:

"Newspaper and magazine reporters donât have a pre-determined story in mind while theyâre interviewing sources. This is not how we operate".

This is bizarre and absurd. I was a radio and print reporter and editor and in the SPJ and our state press club and IRE and so on. Seeing that simply convinced me I was reading someone who knew nothing whatsoever about journalism.

No one I ever met would agree with that.

A working journalist without some sort of sinecure who called his editor and said the above would be fired, with the one exception of completely human-interest feature writers. And even they would only sometimes do that.

If a journalist is interviewing you, little source, she or he has a pre-determined story in mind. Take that to the bank.

Marion, as an old scribe I agree entirely.

I place little trust in the architect couple's carbon accounting, but yes, pets, and especially meat-eating pets consume resources, including finite ones. They should be viewed as a luxury.

But who said we needed to get rid of all our luxuries? I don't deny that dogs provide a lot of companionship, etc. Even as a hobby, pet keeping may be perfectly acceptable - it's up to each and one of us to decide how to spend our fair "resource share", and no one's business to complain about how we do it, as long as we don't use more.

But we need good data on what's more resource intensive. With honest bookkeeping (there are a lot of examples of dishonest bookkeeping, "food miles" come to mind) we can make informed decisions. Unfortunately, most of the people who try to provide information are either lightweights, like these architects, or have an agenda independent of environmental conservation, like animal rights organizations.

> But who said we needed to get rid of all our luxuries?

Nobody, but alarmists like el chupo nibre who started it all want everyone to be scared of AGW mitigation so try to insinuate that AGW does.

Ooh, el gordo displays such compassion for furry animals. I'm so moved to tears.

But wait. What if the furry animals are... penguins? Or (HORRORS HORRORS HORRORS!!!) polar bears? Then clearly we should kill as many of them as possible! So that the free market can continue to thrive!

And all those furries in Alaska that have the *temerity* to live over oil deposits...

"Newspaper and magazine reporters donât have a pre-determined story in mind while theyâre interviewing sources. This is not how we operate".

This is bizarre and absurd

If it were true, Nixon would never have had to resign the Presidency ...

That could revive the Alaskan economy! Furry sex tourism!

"Get back in the bear costume, Levi!"

But wait. What if the furry animals are... penguins?

If the furry animals are penguins, then indeed, much of modern biology will have to be scrapped, starting with taxonomy ...

dhogaza:

Well, in my Galileo-like genius, I hereby define plumage as a kind of fur...[1]

Anyway, all this is nothing but a distraction from the main point: That animals should be protected, unless they're penguins or polar bears.

[1] OK, my bad.

> "Get back in the bear costume, Levi!"

> Posted by: Marion Delgado

I hate me for this one, but it has to be said: Is this why they elected Palin???

Anyway, all this is nothing but a distraction from the main point: That animals should be protected, unless they're penguins or polar bears.

Yes. I was just teasing ...

New Scientist has an article about it:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pe…

Just in case that doesn't work, a tinyurl version:

http://tinyurl.com/ygfos8s

In other news, the Heartland Institute argues that the Free Software movement is a Marxist plot to crush your freedoms.

Surely, we must purge ScienceBlogs of all traces of Marxist software. Hmm... let's see... MovableType... ARGH!!! IT'S OPEN SOURCE!!! WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Problem is with the HI their form of libertarianism is "let me make as much money as I can" and the quid-pro-quo of GPL doesn't give them that freedom.

Microsoft and Darl McBride would be proud of them (seeing as D's sacked, anyone know if HI has gained another member..?)

Mark's brought up another of my favorite people, Darl McBride

I mentally have a list that includes

Marc Morano
Nathan Myrhvold
Darl McBride
Declan McCullough

Of people who are strong advocates for unregulated capitalism, which they call freedom and liberty, and at the same time, whose actions are actually fairly good living propaganda against the whole Libertarian paradigm.

btw I think pet thing is insane - it reminds me strongly of Freakonomics.

Assume you bike to the store to get your pet food, and the pet food is mostly industry BY-PRODUCTS. Exactly where is the extra impact from the pet?

Phuck these people.

Questions for the panel:
1) Which is the greater waste of finite resources - a pet cat/ dog/ minnow/ llama or a climate change denialobotomist?

2) Given Frank's premise at #23, what are the legal, moral and sanitary objections to making it mandatory for climate change denialobotomists to don pengin or polar bear costumes and live at very high latitudes? I can think of ohhh... two, both of which I could easily repress.

Steve asks a TRICK question:

Questions for the panel: 1) Which is the greater waste of finite resources - a pet cat/ dog/ minnow/ llama or a climate change denialobotomist

Consulting my Pielkepedia, I find that WE are all minnows. QED, the minnow is the most important creature on Earth.

Thought you'd trip us up, there, eh, Steve?

Marion:
>Assume you bike to the store to get your pet food, and the pet food is mostly industry BY-PRODUCTS. Exactly where is the extra impact from the pet?

How many people bike to a store to buy pet food?

But in any case, it still has a big industrial process supporting it, powered by fossil fuels. Also the industrial by-products could instead be used to feed livestock or as a fuel or used as another resource/feedstock.

Re: bi-IJI 27.

What free software though??
I don't know of any true free software, someone somewhere usually pays for its creation, even Open Source.

What server software do Heartland use to run their web site?

The UK Science Museum is running an online poll/petition...

""I've seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they're serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen."

You can choose to Count Me In or Cout Me Out, the resulting totals will be sent to the UK Government....

Now since the US 'sceptical' website WattsUpWithThat featured the poll there has been a surge in the Count me Out numbers - even though the petition is for strong representation at Copenhagen by the UK Government.

Cast your vote here ... http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx

Another plonker misses the point about Arctic ice:

http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m10d23-…

Or tinyurl

http://tinyurl.com/ylhs4ls

Scroll down to the bit about NASA's statement about multi-layered ice and the author ignoring it.

Re Paul in #34: They're using IIS 6. I'd be very, very surprised, however, if they're not using any components that were created under one of those communistic GPL agreements.

> I don't know of any true free software, someone somewhere usually pays for its creation, even Open Source.

Libre, Paul.

And who paid for "hello world"?

Don't be an arse.

Phil
>The UK Science Museum is running an online poll/petition...

Looks like they are pulling out the stops to skew that one.

Mark
>And who paid for "hello world"?

Whoever was paying the person who wrote it in their lunch break!

Students writing such a thing in a class are funded, by their parents or by the state.

Most of the software I use has had some funding from the likes of Sun, Apple and many others. Or funding from the selling of books, services etc.
Small developers usually have a day job of some sort i would imagine.

Re: The Science Museum poll. No.35

There isn't any check on the validity of the email address.
So I assume that the skeptics are probably using bogus addresses to boost the poll. Nothing really stopping an individual voting multiple times.

> Whoever was paying the person who wrote it in their lunch break!

You aren't paid for your lunch break. Or at least I'm not.

I wanted a routine that added two dates together (this was a while back) and so I wrote it.

I just wanted it.

I didn't pay for it.

I wrote it.

It was free.

If I paid for it, who did I pay?

Another way to put it, Paul, is to say that by the same reasoning you're using for F/LOSS being "not free" is that someone is paying for your posts on this blog.

Well yeah... by Paul's 'logic' it'll follow that every personal hobby in the world is in fact 'paid work'. Who knew?

The "Free Software isn't truly free ($0) because someone paid the authors for doing something else and they spent the money on writing Free Software" line may be espoused by certain normally thoughtful people. But it's still dumb.

* * *

Back to the HI rant: some libertarian actually got so miffed by it that he wrote a blog entry about it, which then got, um, Slashdotted. Duh...

Free Software is about free as in 'free speach,' not necessarily free as in 'free beer.'

Paul UK:

I live in Eugene, Oregon, a very bike-oriented city, so the answer to your first question is "many people I know." And my mother, who moved to California from Alaska, always walks to the store to buy pet food for her little Jack Russell terrier, which keeps her healthy because it needs to be walked every day.

The answer to your other point is that feeding livestock by-products to livestock is not a good thing at all. Indeed, the UK got a very, very bad reputation on the Continent because so many people there believed as you do. Hence, my point stands.

As for the free software and open source software, you've been corrected adequately. You're simply mistaken, and it shouldn't take you more than a few hours of net-searching to realize it.

In general, though you're in the UK, your comments remind me of someone who's mostly read nonsensical Americans like John Stossel or John Tierney.

Marion Delgado: You will be pleased to hear that Oregon will be spared the worst of this coming winter.

According to AccuWeather's Joe Bastardi this 'winter will be centered over an area from Maryland to the Carolinas as a fading El Nino results in the stormiest and coldest pattern in recent years.'

They think there will be an increase in the demand for salt, while the Olympics in Vancouver could be impacted badly if snow doesn't fall.

http://wx-man.com/blog/?p=2302

Hmm, let's see. El gordo shows such great compassion for fluffy animals which will have to be put down because they're being demonized by the Church of Global Warming. Unless, of course, they're penguins or polar bears, in which case we should totally not care about them. Because, you know, ââââ ââââââ winter âââââ âââââ ââââ Vancouver Olympics âââââ âââ âââââ!

I'm so moved to tears by el gordo's compassionate compassion.

..a fading El Nino..

Fading? As at October 24, the Southern Oscillation Index had been negative for [17 days in a row]((http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscill…).

Fading? We all wish.

el gordo: "a fading El Nino"?

Not quite what NOAA or the BoM are saying. But what do i>they know, right?

Bastardi predicts a 'fading El Nino' while Mike Halpert, the National Weather Service Climate Prediction Centre's deputy director, expects 'El Nino to strengthen'.

Either way, both camps are predicting a colder than normal winter for the south-east region of the US.

Shorter el gordo:

El Niño will be fading!

Well, maybe El Niño won't be fading. But wait! That's not the main point!

It appears El Nino is irrelevant on this occasion, more to do with the jet stream.

>The answer to your other point is that feeding livestock by-products to livestock is not a good thing at all.

I didn't actually ever write anything to suggest such a thing!

Vegetable waste that isn't a high enough grade for human consumption as food is used in pet food. I suggest that could instead be directed to non-food human use, eg anaerobic digestion, compost etc.

Or as the articles suggest, it would be better to direct that feed to productive pets such as chickens etc.

Pet food is a 'stream' of activity and resources that could be used productively elsewhere. Because there is a huge market for pets, there is no incentive to find alternative uses for the waste stream that currently ends up in pet food.

It is only because people can afford to divert some of their income to a non-productive pet, that they do it.

Marion:
>As for the free software and open source software, you've been corrected adequately. You're simply mistaken, and it shouldn't take you more than a few hours of net-searching to realize it.

The finance model for Open Source software isn't a utopian free one.

It assumes that income will come from sources other than from the selling of the product. As such it is not free. The cost of producing it has been provided from within society from other sources.

Further to the 'free' software debate.
Clearly the move from selling software on a physical medium to individuals, to a network system like the internet, has just moved the costs around.

Instead of retrieving costs via the selling of a disc.
We now pay indirectly through higher electricity use, networks of switches, servers and connections.

Because I have an environmental view of things these days, I usually see things in a wider context, especially regards to costs to society rather than costs to individuals.

Personally I think if Heartland Inst insist on using Microsoft technology because it fits their model of economics and politics, then they are failing to adapt to inevitable change. eg. they are displaying the same intransigence as they do with climate change.

35: Phil Clarke

I have emailed the science museum about their Prove It Copenhagen poll.
I'm a bit suspicious because the anti-Copenhagen count is incrementing at a regular interval, about 1 or 2 votes every few seconds, relentlessly.

It could be that someone has set up a simple automated form filling routine, which would be easy to do for a technically savvy person, because there is no email check.

> Instead of retrieving costs via the selling of a disc. We now pay indirectly through higher electricity use, networks of switches, servers and connections.

What rot.

Did FOSS piss on your wheaties or something?

The ONLY payment is the payment that living in society costs: you do the right thing.

Someone gives you code, you improve it and give the improvements back.

And the code could come from someone just wanting to write something useful. Or something they wanted to see if it could be done. Or they were bored.

I notice that you haven't disagreed with the statement that your wide ranging definition of "pay" means that you are being paid to post here.

After all, you couldn't post without a paying job to buy the computer. You couldn't post without using more electricity (needs paying for, so you need to be paid to pay it). Etc.

Of course, Paul UK, there's no particular reason to have livestock either. It;s not as if the absence of livestock would force a dimunition of the protein available to humans. Given the application of the same water, energy and land, we could produce a lot more nutrient without livestock. That said, as Joel Salatin of the Grass Farmer movement has shown, there are ways of raising livestock sustainably. If all the animal protein in the world were raised this way, I'd have no problem at all with the results.

Personally, as someone with four dogs (all rescues) and two cats (both cast-offs) I'm sympathetic to someone who wants to care for an animal. As someone said above, providing everyone stays within their fair share of the planet's resources, I say let them spend it how they please.

I'll ignore the abuse...

Back to the issue of the Science Museum vote on Copenhagen.

It appears that Anthony Watts has confirmed robo-voting is taking place (the email confirmation on the poll does not work). Interesting that the abuse appears to be primarily from his supporters!

Naive Telegraph thinks the Science Museum poll is legit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6425738/Science-Museums-clim…

Here's something bizarre:

Successful renewables investor to be deported from Australia

Stewart Taggart, founder and chief researcher of DESERTEC-Australia, has been ordered to leave Australia by the nation's Immigration authorities. [...]Acquasol's flagship project is "Acquasol 1," a 180MW MW hybrid parabolic trough concentrating solar power plant to be built outside Port Augusta, South Australia, a regional area with high unemployment and serious water problems.

The plant will use multi-effects desalination to satisfy internal water needs, with any surplus sold to industrial customers. The plant will then use land-based solar salt-harvesting to turn byproduct brine into commercial grade salt and keep it out of the marine environment.

When built, "Acquasol 1" will be the world's first hybrid solar-gas plant to incorporate desalination and land-based brine harvesting.

In 2007, Acquasol applied to sponsor Mr. Taggart, a 41% owner of the company, to reside in Australia. The application was rejected by Australian Immigration and upheld by Australia's Migration Review Tribunal.

Both based their rejections on the fact that Mr. Taggart was not being paid a salary by Acquasol. To date, none of Acquasol's directors have received a salary in order to enable Acquasol to conserve cash.

To date, this has worked well for Mr. Taggart. Late last year, Acquasol was valued at A$5 million, making Mr. Taggart's investment $141,000 in the company worth $2.1 million.

Both the Immigration Department and the Migration Review Tribunal ignored this. Both focussed exclusively on the lack of paid salary. Taggart was given 28 days to leave the country, an order now suspended pending his ministerial appeal.

"Incredibly, a poorly-skilled, non-English speaking laborer with a median wage paycheck can remain in Australia, but a self-funded, risk-tolerant 'business angel' creating millions of dollars of value in the economy is deported," Mr. Taggart said. "That, in a nutshell, is Australian Immigration."

How you can help:

Girma is back if you want to play with him

[link](http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/co2_driven_global_warming_is_n.h…)

I'll ignore the abuse...

Yes, you should. I've been making 100% of my living on Open Source (GNU licensed, actually) software for 11 years now. Before that I had a software company selling proprietary compiler technology I'd developed in the late 70s.

When it comes to making a living, it's just a different revenue model.

And you can sell free (not as in beer, GNU-licensed) software as long as you make it available alternatively for free, what you're selling is a more convenient packaging, support, customization, etc. Not the software itself, essentially services.

And plenty of Open Source projects (PostgreSQL, for instance, on which I've done some development work in the past) aren't GNU-licensed anyway. PostgreSQL is BSD, so you can take it, customize it, and sell it as proprietary commercial software if you want (and, indeed, there are a couple of successful PostgreSQL companies doing just that).

You can do the same with GNU-licensed software as long as you put the sources online somewhere or include it in your distribution.

The free software movement has never been about "not making money".

Of course there are also plenty of people who work on Open Source software as a hobby. Then again, that's how I got my start, contributing code, unpaid, at 16 to a proprietary system the source of which had been given to me by Digital Equipment Corporation (now defunct).

> I'll ignore the abuse...

This, however, is not ignoring it.

If you REALLY were inoring it, you wouldn't be saying "I'll ignore the abuse", would you, because you'd, well, be *ignoring* it.

You've also ignored the question.

I guess since you can't defend your statement you'd just like it forgotten about.

PS, the only abuse you got was "don't be an arse". ONE.

Sheesh. You're thin skinned when you've started talking tosh and get told on it.

The abuse is going to double to TWO abusive statements now: Don't be such a frickin drama queen.

how low will "scientists" sink?

take a look at this ["urban legend"](http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/10/an-expensive-urban-legend/) post by Roy Spencer.

he is making an utterly moronic comparison: the AGW theory in climate science is similar to urban legend that crocodiles live in the New York sewers.

now we will have a seriouis discussion, the very moment he points out the scientific literature supporting the crocodile claim.

Sod, you beat me to it by four minutes, flat.

Does Spencer have any credibility left with his fellow scientists? In that article, he's essentially calling his colleagues in climate science frauds.

He's been descending further and further into outright denial ... how much further can he sink? Who's worse, RPjr or Spencer?

all too true dhogaza.

listen to spencer:

Just as the tales of marauding colonies of alligators living in New York City sewers are based upon some kernel of truth, so too is the science behind anthropogenic global warming.

"some kernel of truth", in the work of all those climate scientist? pretty strong accusation.

In the case of global warming, the âputatively trustworthy sourcesâ would be the consensus of the worldâs scientists. The scientific consensus, after all, says that global warming isâ¦is what? Is happening? Is severe? Is manmade? Is going to burn the Earth up if we do not act? It turns out that those who claim consensus either do not explicitly state what that consensus is about, or they make up something that supports their preconceived notions.

this is complete bogus. and the [survey](http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf) that Spencer links to, immediately proves him wrong. global warming is real. human activity is the significant cause.

The survey results would have been quite different if the question was, âDo you believe that natural cycles in the climate system have been sufficiently researched to exclude them as a potential cause of most of our recent warming?â

so what? what exactly would agreement with that queston tell us?

the important question would be: could natural cycles be the major cause of the warming? and scientists would answer: no.

And it is also a good bet that 100% of those scientists surveyed were funded by the government only after they submitted research proposals which implicitly or explicitly stated they believed in anthropogenic global warming to begin with.

now we are getting closer to an urban myth. the idea that the Bush administration was giving research grants only to people who belief in AGW is idiotic!

Our modern equivalent is the 2004 movie, âDay After Tomorrowâ, in which all kinds of physically impossible climatic events occur in a matter of days.

wll, the article is going downhill all the way..

And the fact that they hold their meetings in all of the best tourist destinations in the world, enjoying the finest exotic foods, suggests that they do not expect to ever have to be personally inconvenienced by whatever restrictions they try to impose on the rest of humanity.

wow, and a final personal attack at all those working in the field.

so they chose Denmark, because of the [fine exotic food](http://en.cop15.dk/files/images/Articles/Danish-example/danske%20eksemp…)? or because Denmark is setting an [example in alternative technology?](http://en.cop15.dk/files/images/Articles/Danish-example/danske%20eksemp…)

ps: for some extra giggles, please read the whole ["danish cuisine" article on wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_cuisine). i guarantee some fun!

sorry, that ["fine exotic food" link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frikadeller_og_stuvet_hvidk%C3%A5l.jpg) went wrong.

and you simply need to take a look at it.

Ew.

Is that the "before" or "after" shot?

> literature supporting the crocodile claim.

> Posted by: sod

Come on, everyone knows that the alligators ate all the crocodiles...

Alligators, yes. Crocodiles, maybe?

http://hubpages.com/hub/Alligators-In-New-York-Sewers

O/T As the British Parliament debates their climate bill, It's snowing in London.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/29/commons_climate_change_bill/

I admit this is a blatant 'cherry-pick' and it's weather not climate, but it struck me as amusingly ironic.

Given it's weather not climate, where's the irony Alanis?

I admit this is a blatant 'cherry-pick' and it's weather not climate, but it struck me as amusingly ironic.

well, looking at Wattsup, those cherry picks and weather reports are all that your side has gotten.

so it is not really ironic.

why don t you help out Spencer, with some links to scientific article about those sewer crocodiles?

you could also give us more information about that "finest danish food" thing.

or is there another weather event that you can report on?

Andrew Bolt on the Science Museum (London), now invalidated poll:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx

The andrew bolt link didn't work, here's a tinyurl:

http://tinyurl.com/ykknh4f

Grima Wormtongue has turned up at the BBC.

Still saying the same old crap.

Doesn't seem to have written up his magnum opus either

Ugh.

This made my head hurt:

> C02 has been proven to have an insulating effect in the lab, but this is hugely different to the conditions in an ecosystem where negative feedback mechanisms exist (such as water vapour).

(from )

Water *vapour* is a positive feedback.

Even if they meant "clouds", this numpty continually states they are a scientist and genuinely do not see any connection between CO2 and temperatures.

well, looking at Wattsup, those cherry picks and weather reports are all that your side has gotten.

They're remarkably quiet on the "arctic sea ice has recovered" front ... gosh, wonder why?

Looks like the sun is slowly starting to crank up again after its Cycle 23 slumber. The solar flux hit 81 today and is at its highest level since March 2008. Sunspot activity is starting to lift and there is a slight chance of an M class flare. We haven't seen one of those for a while.

http://www.solarcycle24.com/

With Cycle 24 looking like it will click into gear, I daresay a half-way decent El Nino is going to knock the socks of 1998 and 2005. And that is no cause for celebration (even though it should shut up the "cooling since 1998 (or insert your favourite year here)" crowd.

They had the authors of the Superfreakonomics book on NPR. They also had a climate scientist on who was one of the authors of the IPCC report. He talked about the author's of superfreakonomics 'misrepresenting' Caldeira. The author's denied and said it was just some activist on the net claiming these things who they've 'ran into before, and will run into again.' I wonder if they're talking about Tim Lambert.

@kidicarus: unlikely they refer to Tim, he was pretty positive about Freakonomics. Perhaps Romm? Anyway, it's quite interesting they say it was "just some activist", considering that Caldeira has said it himself. Maybe HE is the "just some activist" they refer to...

wow, this article: [AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling](http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20091026/US.SCI.Global.Coo…) is really tough to the denialists.

so no surprise, [Pielke senior](http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/comments-on-ap-story-s…) and [Watts](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/27/pielke-senior-on-the-borenstien-a…) are disputing it.

they both must have missed this pretty important part of the article though:

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time. "If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

ouch. blind test with real statisticians. and it looks like they did not start their trend in 1998....

and i love this part (and not only, because it is what i have been saying for quite some time..)

Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive." The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.

a trend that changes , when you start a year earlier AND/OR a year later, is not a trend. even a denialist should understand that...

[Sod](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/open_thread_34.php#comment-2026…).

Our 'friend' Girma Orssengo might do well to pause and wonder how it is that four independent and "blind" statisticians

... who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

He might like to ask himself why this is so, and whether [the questions that have been repeatedly put to him](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/open_thread_33.php#comment-1993…) might be a start to garnering some real understanding about this.

Bernard, Grima is currently haunting the BBC blogs spouting his detrend.

One person has pointed out his detrend removes a trend therefore proving himself wrong, but as he did here, Grima is avoiding seeing it.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is telling us that Copenhagen is dead in the water. Cap and trade in the U.S. will not pass the senate. Old news for those who look at the big picture.
Regarding Ice extent in the Arctic. This years minimum was about 25% higher than 2007. What is occuring now is more about the wind than about the Arctic air temperature. More cooling takes place over open Arctic water than over ice covered water during the fall, winter, and spring.
Finally we are seeing a real sun spot which will be out of sight in about a week.

What follows is a response to [Luminous Beauty's post in "I Must Be Psychic."](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/i_must_be_psychic_2.php#comment…). I've moved it to the Open Thread since it no longer has anything whatsoever to do with Iam Plimer or climate change.

Luminous Beauty, regarding After the Cataclysm, the quote you cite is precisely what I had in mind when I wrote that Chomsky's defenders "limit their collections of quotes to Chomsky's disclaimers and qualifiers, conveniently ignoring the overall theme of his articles." You claim that the book does not question the reality of what happened in Cambodia; I find that claim absurd, and would refer you again to [Davies' article on contrarianism](http://crookedtimber.org/2009/10/22/rules-for-contrarians-1-dont-whine-…), linked previously.

On the question of propaganda in general, you say that "Propaganda is merely the propagation of ideas." No, it isn't. [Wikipedia's definition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda) strikes me as a good one: "Propaganda is communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda."

Originally, you described my argument as a "red herring." A "red herring," again referring to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28logical_fallacy%29#Red_herr…), is "a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject." (Emphasis in original.)

Now, however, you say that I don't necessarily desire to serve corporate interests. Instead, my "misplaced rage" is simply "a useful mask of your relentless hatred of Pol Pot, and by extension Noam Chomsky."

Rage? Relentless hatred? I didn't realize I was such a hothead.

I do realize, however, that I can be stubborn. I try to channel this into positive outlets. In this context, that means I'll stubbornly refuse to let misleading arguments stand unchallenged.

Regards,
Bruce

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the space research laboratory at Russia's Pulkovo Observatory, said 'we should fear a deep temperature drop - not catastrophic global warming.'

http://solarcycle25.com/index.php?id=109

He puts up a good argument and I'm inclined to believe him.

> He puts up a good argument and I'm inclined to believe him.

> Posted by: el gordo

50-50.

He doesn't put up a good argument, but yes, you are inclined to believe him.

He puts up a good argument and I'm inclined to believe him.

you are inclined to believe all sorts of denialist rubbish.

a plot of [sunspots vs temperature](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/no…) does not explain recent warming.

a new "maunder minimum" would do little more than stall current warming. even Loehle gives it at just about 0.5 below the long term average. it might bring back temperatures like in the 70s....

It will bring temperatures back to the late 1940's thru to the mid-1970's, if it's just a cool PDO. Latif then says temperatures will start rising again, but this doesn't seem likely.

From a millennium perspective there is no trend at all - only a cycling from the medieval warm period into the little ice age and out again.

On a multi-millennium time scale the trend is one of decreasing maximums, which as any technical analyst will tell you, is the classic definition of a down trend.

el gordo meet Girma. Girma, this is el gordo. You two should get along like a house on fire.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the space research laboratory at Russia's Pulkovo Observatory, said 'we should fear a deep temperature drop - not catastrophic global warming.

And this is the same man who was crying that the sun was causing anomalous warming on [Mars](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html), and thus the Earth just two years ago!

I quote:

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said. "

The increase in solar irradiance seems only to be as long-term as the in-vogue denialist 'science'.

So el gordo says such and such is true because Abdussamatov said something, which is true because Latif said something, which is true because "any technical analyst" will say something.

Therefore, the Free Software movement is a Marxist conspiracy.

I bet gordo's problem is that nobody likes him and so when his traditional American Barn-Raising happened (which is pretty much a FLOSS engineering project) nobody wanted to help.

Latif then says temperatures will start rising again, but this doesn't seem likely.

What do we call this? fantasy cherry-picking? First of all, Latif never said the things denialists claim he said. So El Gordo is cherry-picking by accepting one-half of what Latif DIDN'T SAY, while rejecting the other half - global warming is real and there has been and will not be any statistically significant cooling - that he DID say.

Very interesting.

I bet gordo's problem is that nobody likes him

Al Gore's fat and disliked by many. El Gordo, by definition, is fat therefore it stands to reason that he's disliked by many ...

> He was correcting a statement you made. His correction was correct. Just effing admit it.

> Posted by: dhogaza

But that is irrelevant.

1) I did accept that the civil case itself couldn't from his knowledge of *UK* law

2) It didn't say that contempt charges could not be levied

and then YOU come pissing in the fountain with "he said that it couldn't" then when I ask where, you say "he was just correcting your statement" but that isn't saying that contempt charges couldn't happen, it's saying that the civil offence itself couldn't result in criminal charges.

If you'd stop buggering about with one statement then when asked to clarify change your statement, maybe you'd get somewhere.

the "cooling since 1998 (or insert your favourite year here)" crowd

Speaking of which, I wonder when the Hadley Centre will put up the September figure for HadCrut3. They are later than they have been for a long time. I expect this figure will change the trend since January 1998 from negative to positive and give the science denialists something to think about. I could ask Hadley of course but I don't think they want every idiot sending them an email asking them how long they'll be.

> I expect this figure will change the trend since January 1998 from negative to positive and give the science denialists something to think about.

Nah, I reckon they'll pick up something about more sunspots being the cause.

Or pick one single station.

Or look at the tropical tropopause.

I was a profit, when I made this comment:

Robin ...

(IAAL)

You're obviously unqualified to comment - just wait, you'll see what I mean by that! :)

Mark: Tim said "enough already". It's his site, respect his wishes.

As for me ... rodger dodger, baby cakes, over and out!

No, you weren't dog.

Pick one complaint, stick to it and see it through is how you resolve issues.

Jumping all over the place is what el gordo and Ducky Dave does.

Don't Do What Ducky Dave Does.

Mark, which part of "enough already" didn't you understand?

Bruce, my dear friend,

>Luminous Beauty, regarding After the Cataclysm, the quote you cite is precisely what I had in mind when I wrote that Chomsky's defenders "limit their collections of quotes to Chomsky's disclaimers and qualifiers, conveniently ignoring the overall theme of his articles."

That quote _is_ 'the overall theme of his articles'. Stated precisely, concisely and accurately. It's called a précis. A rhetorical tool you'd be well served to acquire.

I do wish you could state what it is about Chomsky's writing on Cambodia that you find 'misleading' with such precision. I've read your long, long essay twice, now, and I can't find any there there. I could be missing the forest for the trees, though. I'm trying. Really, I am. Is it that he dares to cite scholarly sources that indicate some ambiguity in the Cambodian situation not reflected in the popular press and media accounts? It is that he finds such ambiguous information scarcely relegated to the back pages and dismissed off-hand, if addressed at all, by editorial discussion in the so called newspapers of record?

>You claim that the book does not question the reality of what happened in Cambodia; I find that claim absurd...

Chomsky isn't questioning the 'reality' of what happened in Cambodia. He explicitly states he doesn't know the 'reality of what happened in Cambodia. He's questioning the way information about Cambodia has been distorted in the popular US press, reinforcing the dubious notion of US Exceptionalism .

Is it your belief that the brutality of the Khmer Rouge is the perfect, complete and true expression of the 'reality' of Cambodia?

I find that absurd.

>On the question of propaganda in general, you say that "Propaganda is merely the propagation of ideas." No, it isn't. [wikipedia; blah, blah, blah...]

Let us not devolve into semantic squabbling. You're a bright guy. Consider: There's white propaganda, grey propaganda and black propaganda. There could well be propaganda in all the colors of the rainbow. Think about it. Does anyone ever present their ideas, regardless of their seeming impartiality in substance or style, without the desire to be convincing and thus influence the perceived listener(s)? Not even on Olympus, if Homer is any guide.

>Originally, you described my argument as a "red herring." A "red herring," again referring to Wikipedia, is "a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject." (Emphasis in original.)

You are deliberately attempting to divert attention from the central theme of Chomsky's writing to imply that one element of that theme, the press coverage of Cambodia, is misleading concerning the 'reality' of Cambodia. A subject that is not the subject of Chomsky's inquiry, a subject he explicitly says he cannot pretend to know.

Ergo, a red herring. ipsit facto.

>Rage? Relentless hatred? I didn't realize I was such a hothead.

Repressing one's feelings beneath the guise of objectivity does not make them go away. They will come back to bite us. It is good that you care so much for historical Cambodian suffering. Not so much that you commit that generous concern to the dubious exercise of laying singular blame for that suffering on a particular subset of that suffering population who are thus reduced to objects deserving of hatred and condemnation. I would wish you direct that noble feeling instead to apply the lessons of that suffering to understanding present global suffering and, indeed, the potential release and liberation from such future suffering. Such, if I may dare an opinion, is the sub-text, over-all theme and subject of inquiry of Chomsky's entire opus. I would refer you again to the Dhammapada, verses I - VI, which Cambodian school children are again free to study after an unfortunate hiatus where they were instead forced to fight in a war of which the origins were beyond their control, but the conditions of which led to their inevitable brutalization, and thence brutal consequence.

>I do realize, however, that I can be stubborn. I try to channel this into positive outlets. In this context, that means I'll stubbornly refuse to let misleading arguments stand unchallenged.

Persistence is a virtue. Intransigence, not so much. You haven't demonstrated exactly what is misleading about Chomsky's argument, much less challenged it. In fact, to all appearances, you have a profoundly misleading opinion of exactly what Chomsky's argument is.

Namasté.

Tim, the part where it hadn't said "enough already".

That whole time goes in a linear fashion thing.

I can't read "enough already" until the thread shows the post that says "enough already" which didn't happen until after the post I made was stopped on that thread because it was closed.

Oh dear, I only just now saw Kent's ramblings about Arctic ice. Well, Kent, in 2007 the deep minimum was caused by special atmospheric conditions, so you're wrong about this year being special in terms of wind.

Oh, and watch this graph and look at the current ice area:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Notice something?

(Marco, that's extent, not area)

However, the cryosphere today site's area tracker's interesting, too:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

The temperature level in the Arctic during the 1990's was still lower than it was during the 1930's.

http://acsys.npolar.no/meetings/final/metadata_pabstracts.php?s=0&table…

The temperature level in the Arctic

In ONE REGION of the arctic.

Dude, if you're going to lie, to provide a link to the source that proves you're lying.

Just a friendly little hint.

"don't provide" of course.

el gordo (110): you might want to see this 2004 article by RealClimate.

Quote: "...it is simply not possible to draw conclusions about the causes of climate variations by just looking at one time series. Only considering the time series of Arctic temperature, it is impossible to tell what the cause of the 1930s warming was, what the cause of the recent warming is, and whether both have the same cause or not... In fact, the conclusion of the ACIA study that the recent warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases is of course not based on one particular time series, but on a host of further scientific data. For example, looking at all the temperature data rather than just one time series reveals that the pattern of warming of the 1930s was very different from the recent warming. In the 1930s, warming was localised to the high latitudes, consistent with this warming being the result of a natural oscillation (the so-called âAtlantic Multidecadal Oscillationâ). Very similar natural oscillations are also found in climate models. The recent warming, in contrast, encompasses most of the planet; this is consistent with it being the result of a global forcing. A very similar pattern of warming is found in climate models as a result of rising greenhouse gases...." etc. etc.

Luminous Beauty,

You've identified one thing that is indeed a poor choice of words on my part: "the overall theme of his articles." The idea that Khmer Rouge Cambodia was really not as bad as the press made it appear is not the overall theme of the articles I am discussing: it is an underlying theme.

The idea that the press was "distorting" what was happening in Cambodia presupposes that the reality is different than the picture being presented. It wasn't. Maybe this is why you are "missing the forest for the trees."

That there were a handful of accounts that conflicted with the overall picture of the Khmer Rouge regime is irrelevant, because there is no question as to which accounts were accurate.

Maybe you're genuinely confused about what Khmer Rouge Cambodia was really like. You certainly seem confused about the nature of the reporting when the regime was in power; remember, I only waded into this discussion when you made the plainly false claim that reports of genocide had come from a "sole reporter of which had proven to be less than reliable in the past."

Accepting the Khmer Rouge claim that the evacuation of Phnom Penh was done in order to prevent starvation was nonsense. Repeating the assertion that the evacuation of Phnom Penh may have saved lives was positively absurd. Brushing off child labor with Francois Regaux's claim that this was "not unlike that of Western European villages before the industrial revolution" was patently ridiculous. (Incidentally, on the subject of the regime's European supporters, you might want to look at [The Power of an Apology: Gunnar Bergstrom](http://chandrapong007.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/the-power-of-an-apology-…) or Bosse Lindquist's [The Silence of Phnom Penh](http://www.sr.se/Diverse/AppData/Isidor/files/3297/5499.pdf)).

Those aren't trivial little errors. Those are either really stupid mistakes, or really dishonest arguments.

Of course, you've read my essay twice, so these items (and all the other misrepresentations detailed in that article) are, in your view, unimportant.

But let's set these things aside for a moment. Forget about starvation, and how many people were murdered. Think for a moment about the extent of control exercised over the population.

If an American client regime had evacuated every one of its major cities... if it uprooted families from their homes, and took children away from their parents and put them to work in the fields... if it abolished all currency and trade... would you be confused as to whether or not this was a good regime? Would you be entertaining the notion that negative portrayals of these actions were distorting an innocuous reality? Would you consider critical reporting to be "propaganda?"

Let's look at what Chomsky and Herman say about this propaganda. "Three features of the propaganda campaign with regard to Cambodia deserve special notice. The first is its vast and unprecedented scope." ([The Washington connection and Third World fascism](http://books.google.com/books?id=lWjLdLahLToC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=choms…)).

"By September 1977," Chomsky and Herman write, "condemnation of Cambodian atrocities, covering the full political spectrum with the exception of some Maoist groups, had reached a level and scale that has rarely been matched..."

Now, think about that: vast and unprecedented. They are saying: There is no precedent for our explanation, but everyone should accept our explanation, just the same. Everyone except some Maoists are condemning Cambodian atrocities, but still, it's just a vast propaganda campaign.

Even after the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky and Herman continued to insist that no one really knew what had happened. That's a like being the one person in the class who fails the test... and who then insists that no one knew what the answers were, and gosh, if everyone else passed, it was just blind luck.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, you made a few other remarks:

Is it your belief that the brutality of the Khmer Rouge is the perfect, complete and true expression of the 'reality' of Cambodia?I find that absurd.

It is my belief that brutality was indeed the reality of the Khmer Rouge regime. If you fail to understand that this is so, then we've identified one of the root causes of our disagreement.

Regarding our disagreement on what constitutes propaganda:

Let us not delve into semantic squabbling.

If you don't wish to use the generally accepted definition of "propaganda," that's fine, as long as we both understand what you do mean.

You are deliberately attempting to divert attention from the central theme of Chomsky's writing to imply that one element of that theme, the press coverage of Cambodia, is misleading concerning the 'reality' of Cambodia.

So in your opinion... if I write something that discusses Chomsky, the theme should be whatever Chomsky thinks it should be?

Or should it be something that is important to me?

You've perhaps noticed that my email address is "chomsky@aol.com." Oh, wait... no, it isn't. It's "cambodia@aol.com."

You've perhaps noticed that my site has several photo galleries, including about 900 photos of Noam Chomsky. Oh, wait... no, it's about 900 photos of Cambodia and Cambodians.

You've perhaps noticed that the site includes reviews of about 50 books about Chomsky. Oops, wait... my bad... they're books about Cambodia.

You've perhaps noticed that it includes journals from my trips to Chomsky's house. Hmmm, wait... my mistake. Those were trips to Cambodia.

You've perhaps noticed that I chose, as my domain, the name of the Charles River, since it runs through Noam Chomsky's home state. D'oh! Wait, I got it wrong again... it's the Mekong, which runs through Cambodia.

Ah, but still, you've seen through my ruse. I've spent more than 20 years teaching Cambodians, studying Cambodian history and culture, and living among (and with) Cambodians, all so that I could divert attention from Chomsky's propaganda model, in order that I might better serve my corporate overlords. Alas, the red herring that I've been constructing for two decades has been thoroughly and completely boned.

OK, enough sarcasm. :-)

You want me to focus on Chomsky's main theme. But his main theme isn't important to me. His underlying theme, however, matters to me quite a bit.

Repressing one's feelings beneath the guise of objectivity does not make them go away.

Hmmm... that remark is just kinda weird. All I can say is, your ability to discern strangers' emotions looks to be on a par with Girma's ability to discern climate trends.

It is good that you care so much for historical Cambodian suffering. Not so much that you commit that generous concern to the dubious exercise of laying singular blame for that suffering on a particular subset of that suffering population who are thus reduced to objects deserving of hatred and condemnation.

I'm not sure I understand where you think I am laying singular blame, but it scarcely matters, because I most definitely do not think there is any person, group, or nation who can be exclusively blamed for the tragedy in Cambodia. The Americans, the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the French, the Cambodians themselves... there's plenty of blame to go around. Regarding the American role, I have [commented on this very blog that American actions in Cambodia were criminal](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/briefing_by_les_roberts_on_dea…), and stated my agreement with the remark that "if we (America) set up the conditions in Cambodia under which death and destruction became commonplace, we are responsible for their deaths, even if not directly."

And finally:

Persistence is a virtue. Intransigence, not so much.

I'm going to hazard a guess and say that you think you are persistent, but I am intransigent.

I'm not sure which one we are, LB, but the trait is one we both share.

cheers,
Bruce

Excuse my mantra, CO2 does not cause global warming. Are there any other global forcing mechanisms you can think of?

The temperature level in the Arctic during the 1990's was still lower than it was during the 1930's.

Of course, since the 1990s, the Arctic has warmed up bloody fast.

el gordo:

Excuse my mantra, CO2 does not cause global warming.

That's OK. It makes it easy to identify who the idiots are.

el Gordo..... CO2 does actually cause global warming. Depending on who you belive and the % of H2O in the atmosphere, CO2 contributes between 3 and 8 degrees C of warming. As for other global drivers, there are many. I have watched the sea ice area and extent for years and have come to the conclusion that they are not a valid proxy of temperature.It is about the wind and about the beaufort gyre and about the trans polar drift. Remember open sea water in the Arctic cools faster than ice covered water. It is a myth that the open water contributes more to warming than ice covered water

Chris O'Neill @117,

Enough said! And totally deserved.

:)

Excuse my mantra, CO2 does not cause global warming.

Excuse my mantra, but you have less than two neurons rubbing together in your brain.

And I have more evidence for my claim than you do.

Neener-neener!

And, yes, El Gordo, this is exactly how science works! Neener-neener, fingers-in-ears-lalalalala.

(not)

Kent.

[Pretty words](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/open_thread_34.php#comment-2031…).

Show us the science that supports them, or just evaporate from relevance as the ignorant Denialist that you are.

>The idea that the press was "distorting" what was happening in Cambodia presupposes that the reality is different than the picture being presented. It wasn't. Maybe this is why you are "missing the forest for the trees."

Primarily what was being distorted was the historical context of the conflict in Cambodia. Whether the objective reality inside Cambodia was being portrayed accurately, even if it was in general factually correct, which nobody could actually know and the precise objective facts of which are still a matter of some contention, the normative characterization of those facts was a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation. The picture presented had little to do with objective reality objective reality, but a narrative of inhuman ideological monsters, consuming their own in a cannibalistic frenzy for no other reason than they were evil inhuman monsters because that's what happens to Communists. Their godless ideology turns them into evil inhuman monsters.

>Accepting the Khmer Rouge claim that the evacuation of Phnom Penh was done in order to prevent starvation was nonsense.

Horseshit. By any accounts there wasn't enough food in Phnom Pehn to feed the population for more than a few months. The illiterate teenage cadres of the Khmer Rouge in Phnom Penh understood that perfectly. Their understanding and experience of international aid and diplomacy was entirely lacking, however, as was the presence of any minimally competent leadership on the ground. These were kids, kids who knew nothing of life but the grief, horror and brutality of warfare, the majority of whom had never seen flush toilets. They were certainly wrong if they believed that herding the urban population into the countryside would prevent starvation, but it is entirely credible that they believed it. It is cynical nonsense to believe that Phnom Penh was evacuated as part of some intentionally evil plan to commit mass murder.

>Brushing off child labor with Francois Regaux's claim that this was "not unlike that of Western European villages before the industrial revolution" was patently ridiculous.

Not so ridiculous when one considers the Khmer Rouge were themselves mostly children whose life experience was shaped entirely by a hard won reconstruction of pre-industrial rural subsistence in the face of industrial scale destruction of what limited modern infrastructure had existed before. It isn't really pertinent to C&H's thesis whether you are of the opinion that Regaux's 'claim' is ridiculous, but that it was contrary to the narrative of the horrifically evil motivations of the Khmer Rouge.

>So in your opinion... if I write something that discusses Chomsky, the theme should be whatever Chomsky thinks it should be?

>Or should it be something that is important to me?

If you are going to accuse Chomsky of being misleading, you should make an honest effort to understand what Chomsky thinks, not presuppose some fantastical notion of what you think he thinks. If what is important to you is peripheral to what Chomsky is saying, and has no bearing on what he means, you are misrepresenting Chomsky.

>I'm not sure I understand where you think I am laying singular blame...

It certainly seems by attacking Chomsky you are defending the black propaganda that assigns the clear conscious intent and motive of pure, unmitigated evil to the Khmer Rouge, while the fault of the US being the unfortunate but forgivable unforeseen consequences of perhaps mistaken but entirely benevolent intentions.

>The Americans, the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the French, the Cambodians themselves... there's plenty of blame to go around.

This is precisely Chomsky's position. So, why are you misrepresenting Chomsky? For what possible purpose? Do you believe that dumping on Chomsky does some good for the Cambodian people?

Do you believe that dumping on Chomsky does some good for the Cambodian people?

Do you believe that dumping on Chomsky does some good for the Cambodian people?

For anyone?

CO2 doesn't cause global warming.

The statement I just wrote isn't true. But it shows how easy it is to write something, to annoy someone, without a care in the world.

>If an American client regime had evacuated every one of its major cities... if it uprooted families from their homes, and took children away from their parents and put them to work in the fields... if it abolished all currency and trade... would you be confused as to whether or not this was a good regime? Would you be entertaining the notion that negative portrayals of these actions were distorting an innocuous reality?

This isn't so much different from what I witnessed in Guatemala.

What I have learned from working with Mayan activists is the condemnation and punishment of genuinely genocidal maniacs like EfraÃn RÃos Montt is vastly less important than reconciliation of the entire country and stopping the killing and the hatred.

In #122, Luminous Beauty says:

Primarily what was being distorted was the historical context of the conflict in Cambodia. Whether the objective reality inside Cambodia was being portrayed accurately, even if it was in general factually correct, which nobody could actually know and the precise objective facts of which are still a matter of some contention, the normative characterization of those facts was a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation. The picture presented had little to do with objective reality objective reality, but a narrative of inhuman ideological monsters, consuming their own in a cannibalistic frenzy for no other reason than they were evil inhuman monsters because that's what happens to Communists. Their godless ideology turns them into evil inhuman monsters.

If Chomsky and Herman's only complaint had been that the media coverage failed to adequately explore how the Khmer Rouge had come to power, I would have few, if any, disagreements. But that was not their only complaint. Their works present a picture of a regime that was being unjustly villified: a regime where things really weren't that bad. Sort of like France after liberation.

If I wanted a case-in-point of how their work continues to foster confusion, I couldn't ask for a better example than your next paragraph:

Horseshit. By any accounts there wasn't enough food in Phnom Pehn to feed the population for more than a few months. The illiterate teenage cadres of the Khmer Rouge in Phnom Penh understood that perfectly. Their understanding and experience of international aid and diplomacy was entirely lacking, however, as was the presence of any minimally competent leadership on the ground. These were kids, kids who knew nothing of life but the grief, horror and brutality of warfare, the majority of whom had never seen flush toilets. They were certainly wrong if they believed that herding the urban population into the countryside would prevent starvation, but it is entirely credible that they believed it. It is cynical nonsense to believe that Phnom Penh was evacuated as part of some intentionally evil plan to commit mass murder.

If, as you claim, you generously read my essay twice, you should be aware of some relevant facts: All large cities were evacuated, not just Phnom Penh. And the Khmer Rouge had been evacuating towns under their control since 1972. The policy had nothing to do with preventing starvation.

And honestly... do you really think that the evacuation was ordered by "the illiterate teenage cadres of the Khmer Rouge"??? Mother of Zeus!

As to your remark about the evacuation being "part of some intentionally evil plan to commit mass murder," I cannot recall ever having heard anyone make that argument. The evacuation was, however, part of a deliberate plan aimed at exerting complete control over the population.

And as to preventing starvation... well, I don't think even "illiterate teenage cadres" would fail to realize that it would be easier to bring food into the city, rather than moving the entire frakking population out to where the rice supposedly was.

It is possible that some Khmer Rouge cadres truly believed the explanation that they passed on to the refugees: that the Americans were going to bomb the city. But again, this is irrelevant. The low-level cadres weren't the ones who made the policy, and your entire argument here is just ill-considered nonsense.

Now on to the matter of Rigaux's dumb comments, faithfully parroted by Chomsky and Herman. You say:

It isn't really pertinent to C&H's thesis whether you are of the opinion that Regaux's 'claim' is ridiculous, but that it was contrary to the narrative of the horrifically evil motivations of the Khmer Rouge.

So in other words: it doesn't matter that he was saying something stupid. The media should have been repeating it, because it ran counter to the widely accepted belief that the regime was horrendous. I'm sure you will apply this standard consistently, and will write to your local paper to complain about their inadequate coverage of Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth.

If you are going to accuse Chomsky of being misleading, you should make an honest effort to understand what Chomsky thinks, not presuppose some fantastical notion of what you think he thinks. If what is important to you is peripheral to what Chomsky is saying, and has no bearing on what he means, you are misrepresenting Chomsky.

I'm sure you have heard the old saying: We're all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Again, you need to think for a moment about what you're saying. Let's take Chomsky and Cambodia out of the mix for a moment, since you have an emotional attachment to Chomsky, and I have an emotional attachment to Cambodia.

Suppose you write an article about air travel. And in your article, you say, "The only way to get to Chicago Ohare is to fight traffic on a tangled mess of expressways."

Well, maybe I'm not interested in air travel. However, I believe that many forms of public transportation are underutilized because people aren't aware of the available options. So I write an article, and I say: "LB's article propagates this ignorance. In fact, there's a Blue Line train that leads directly into the Ohare terminal."

Getting to the airport may be peripheral to your concern, but it's central to mine. Did I misrepresent you? I certainly did not. I'm not obligated to divine what you were thinking when made a false statement. Maybe you made an honest mistake, or maybe you thought your story about soaring through the sky would be just a little more dramatic if you juxtaposed it with the mass of cars on the ground. I don't know, and I don't care.

Finally, you proceed to ask (several times):

Do you believe that dumping on Chomsky does some good for the Cambodian people?

"Dumping on Chomsky"? If comparing someone's rhetoric to known facts looks like "dumping" on them, it can only be because their rhetoric isn't accurate. If you want to learn from history, you need to have an accurate understanding of what actually happened. People whose only knowledge of Cambodia comes from Chomsky and Herman will not have that an accurate picture of Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

Re 124: Luminous Beauty, yes, it was vastly different than Guatemala.

I don't say that to minimize the suffering in Guatemala. I think you and I would be in agreement on the nature of the Guatemalan regimes, and for that matter, when it comes to Central America in general, I don't even think I would have too many disagreements with Chomsky.

I don't have any great depth of knowledge on Guatemala, but I have been there a couple times, and I'm well aware of the extent of the repression. I've posted [some of the photos from those trips online](http://www.mekong.net/random/guatemala.htm), and I hope that they capture at least a little of hardship that the people there have endured.

But LB, the scale and extent of abuses in Guatemala was nothing like Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

Bernard look here;
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html

scroll down to "Ice doesn't just melt and grow"
Try this site as well, http://nsidc.org/seaice/processes/growth_melt_cycle.html
"Remember that ice grows because of a transfer of heat from the relatively warm ocean to the cold air above. Also remember that ice insulates the ocean from the atmosphere and inhibits this heat transfer. The amount of insulation depends on the thickness of the ice; thicker ice allows less heat transfer. If the ice becomes thick enough that no heat from the ocean can be conducted through the ice, then ice stops growing. This is called the thermodynamic equilibrium thickness. It may take several years of growth and melt for ice to reach the equilibrium thickness. In the Arctic, the thermodynamic equilibrium thickness of sea ice is approximately 3 meters (9 feet). However, dynamics can yield sea ice thicknesses of 10 meters (30 feet) or more. Equilibrium thickness of sea ice is much lower in Antarctica, typically ranging from 1 to 2 m (3 to 6 feet)."

Kent...the Pacific gyre appears to have some impact. Is there a relationship between a weak magnetic field and a warm earth? Up until the 1970's the magnetic field was slowly decreasing at 1% per decade.

Attention all Deltoid larrikins, take a cold shower.

Attention el gordo, take your own advice before giving it to anyone else.

Bruce,

>The policy had nothing to do with preventing starvation.

>And honestly... do you really think that the evacuation was ordered by "the illiterate teenage cadres of the Khmer Rouge"??? Mother of Zeus!

>As to your remark about the evacuation being "part of some intentionally evil plan to commit mass murder," I cannot recall ever having heard anyone make that argument. The evacuation was, however, part of a deliberate plan aimed at exerting complete control over the population

It was a policy of national self-sufficiency and revolutionary transformation. Enslaving the population wasn't their aim. They believed they were liberating the people from foreign slavery and bourgeois dependency. It might have been a foolish belief, but it is what they believed. It's a fact there wasn't enough rice to maintain the population. It is credible they believed it was the only way to feed the population given the dire condition of the country's infrastructure. I'm glad you agree it wasn't a policy of genocide. Popular accounts at the time weren't so generous.

>Now on to the matter of Rigaux's dumb comments, faithfully parroted by Chomsky and Herman. You say:

> >It isn't really pertinent to C&H's thesis whether you are of the opinion that Regaux's 'claim' is ridiculous, but that it was contrary to the narrative of the horrifically evil motivations of the Khmer Rouge.

>So in other words: it doesn't matter that he was saying something stupid. The media should have been repeating it, because it ran counter to the widely accepted belief that the regime was horrendous. I'm sure you will apply this standard consistently, and will write to your local paper to complain about their inadequate coverage of Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth

You apparently didn't read this part:

>Not so ridiculous when one considers the Khmer Rouge were themselves mostly children whose life experience was shaped entirely by a hard won reconstruction of pre-industrial rural subsistence in the face of industrial scale destruction of what limited modern infrastructure had existed before.

It is only stupid if one's only experience is within a pampered urban middle class culture where one has never had to work as a child. If one has had to not only work, but fight as a warrior to survive, then expecting other children to have to work to survive when survival is dependent on everybody working isn't all that stupid. It isn't all that stupid to middle class farmkids who, like myself, were expected to work as soon as we were old enough to feed the chickens, driving a tractor, pitching hay and swamping fruit crates by age ten. Certainly not stupid to Okie and Mexican farm-worker kids I grew up with, whose family's survival depended on everyone pitching-in full-time as soon as they could walk. I'm all for anti-exploitative child labor laws restricting greedy employers, but in dire straits, everyone has to lend a hand. and there is no question Cambodia was in dire straits after the war. That said, we know now the extent of Khmer Rouge atrocities against all their population, but it wasn't so clear at the time.

What about Ian Plimer? Is the press saying he's being cruelly exploited by his publishers?

>"Dumping on Chomsky"? If comparing someone's rhetoric to known facts looks like "dumping" on them, it can only be because their rhetoric isn't accurate. If you want to learn from history, you need to have an accurate understanding of what actually happened. People whose only knowledge of Cambodia comes from Chomsky and Herman will not have that an accurate picture of Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

Once again, Chomsky and Herman weren't pretending to give an accurate picture of Cambodian history as we understand it today, but criticizing an inaccurate portrayal of the ambiguous and uncertain knowledge available at the time they wrote, not for the purpose of gaining insight and understanding of Cambodian reality, but for the purpose of understanding the press's role in obscuring US responsibility, which service the press also performed in the case of Guatemala. Nicaragua, Argentina, Chile, Indonesia, East Timor, etc. A role independent of whether the Khmer Rouge were or were not a terrible bunch of ogres.

You didn't answer the question.

Luminous Beauty concedes that the evacuation of Phnom Penh wasn't about preventing starvation and now says:

It was a policy of national self-sufficiency and revolutionary transformation. Enslaving the population wasn't their aim. They believed they were liberating the people from foreign slavery and bourgeois dependency.

If you want to say that enslaving the population wasn't their aim, fine. It was, however, their method. One could similarly say that Africans weren't kidnapped, hauled across the sea, and put to work on in the fields because plantation owners wanted to enslave them; they merely wanted to grow enormous amounts of cotton. I don't think that distinction is a very important.

You apparently didn't read this part:

Not so ridiculous when one considers the Khmer Rouge were themselves mostly children whose life experience was shaped entirely by a hard won reconstruction of pre-industrial rural subsistence in the face of industrial scale destruction of what limited modern infrastructure had existed before.

and...

It isn't all that stupid to middle class farmkids who, like myself, were expected to work as soon as we were old enough to feed the chickens, driving a tractor, pitching hay and swamping fruit crates by age ten.

I did read it, and didn't bother to respond, because being taken from your family and forced to work from dawn to dusk is not the same thing as feeding the chickens. And where, by the way, did you get the idea that the Khmer Rouge were mostly children??

Perhaps I should also remind you that Vietnam managed to emerge from war and devastation without enslaving children.

That said, we know now the extent of Khmer Rouge atrocities against all their population, but it wasn't so clear at the time.

This, again, is a misconception that you've picked up from Chomsky. It was clear that atrocities were widespread. Haven't you ever wondered by leftists like Lacouture were denoucing the abuses? Previously, I quoted Chomsky and Herman as saying that virtually everyone was condemning the Khmer Rouge. Why do you think that was?

What about Ian Plimer? Is the press saying he's being cruelly exploited by his publishers?

I've no idea what your question means. I asked you about Plimer because I thought it would help you understand that the press is under no obligation to provide equal time to patently stupid claims.

Once again, Chomsky and Herman weren't pretending to give an accurate picture of Cambodian history as we understand it today...

Their picture was inaccurate with regard to the situation as it was understood even then, let alone as we understand it today. Now, I am curious: since you say that they weren't pretending that their portrayal of Cambodia was accurate, are you really telling me that when you read their work, you were thinking: "Hmmm... what they're saying about Cambodia has no relation to what Cambodia is really like, but that doesn't matter, since when they tell it this way, it fits into the propaganda model really, really well."

And finally, you say:

You didn't answer the question.

Are you referring to your "dumping on Chomsky" question? I did answer it:

"If comparing someone's rhetoric to known facts looks like 'dumping' on them, it can only be because their rhetoric isn't accurate."

Bruce,

The question is what good does it do?

You haven't answered that.

Bruce,

Of course Chomsky's ambiguous picture of Cambodian events in 1975 and 1977 isn't an accurate one. They never pretended that it was.

You, however, are pretending that they did.

Who is being pretentious, here?

Luminous Beauty,

As I explained previously: "If you want to learn from history, you need to have an accurate understanding of what actually happened."

If someone's presentation of events -- either current events, or historical events -- is fundamentally inaccurate, then I think it's important to attempt to correct that.

Regards,
Bruce

Bruce is right.

It's OK if this one gets nuked, but a slashdot story had someone put up a couple of points on copyright and criminality:

US

UK

Grrrr - The ABC are back into the 'balance' again - everyone who thinks evidence and research are the keystones of science are maxists and climate deniers, sorry 'skeptiks', are the truth-bearers will like the spray given by delusionist, one Chris Uhmann at http://blogs.abc.net.au/offair/2009/10/in-praise-of-the-sceptics.html (beware, it has his mug at the top, a know-all smug shit)

>If someone's presentation of events -- either current events, or historical events -- is fundamentally inaccurate, then I think it's important to attempt to correct that.

Your presentation of what C&H were saying in 1977 is fundamentally inaccurate. I think it is important that you correct that.

Bruce,

You asked where I got the idea a lot of the Khmer Rouge were teenagers. It's a story I heard repeatedly working with Cambodian refugees. Is it inaccurate?

Luminous Beauty, I've amended the fourth paragraph of the [essay](http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm) to reflect your criticism regarding the "overall theme" of Chomsky and Herman's work, and have inserted a note indicating the change.

Regarding the age of the Khmer Rouge: you said that they were mostly teenagers. It's accurate to say that many were teenagers, but not most. (You can [browse through photos](http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/cambodia-preview1.htm) to get some sense of the demographic.) And they were not the ones making decisions on matters such as whether or not to evacuate the cities.

Dave, oddly enough 'the right' think the Greens are Marxists. Sceptics are moderates, while 'denialists' are clearly out on their own, but neither are Marxists.

When Uhlmann's contract expires the cynics are saying he will be sent to some isolated environment to work as the solo journalist on a radio station. While others think he is being primed to get the Insiders.

And they were not the ones making decisions on matters such as whether or not to evacuate the cities.

I don't think anyone knowledgable argues that they were the decision makers.

Re Uhlmann

There's nothing wrong with being a sceptic, but not everyone who claims to be one is indeed a sceptic.

Being a scientific or intellectual sceptic entails more than simply taking up a contrarian position. You actually have to have some basis for scepticism, otherwise you are simply a rockthrower, a denier etc. If 'sceptics' are not held to be held to basic standards of intellectual rigour, then the defence of 'scepticism' is really an appeal to epistemological nihilism. That way lies madness.

Given that the discussion surrounding the drivers of climate change are intended to inform policy, mere contrarianism is utterly counterproductive. True sceptics in this field would refer back to clear bodies of evidence and sound modelling, attempting to create alternative models to explain data that was beyond challenge.

Equally amusing is the defensiveness of those deniers who assert that "scepticism" is noble. Climate change mitigation opponent Ian Plimer is case in point. When actual climate scientists -- people whose work (unlike his) is subject to peer review and critique -- point out that
he has misrepresented tables, plagiarised, cited people in support of claims who say something other than what he has asserted -- in short, been sceptical of his contribution, he asserts it is all ad hominem and that his critics are therefore not to be accepted.

Apparently "scepticism" according to the deniers and rockthrowers, only runs one way, because when deniers are critiqued, this is described as a "vicious" and "Stalinist" style repression. I call tu quoque.

The Heartland Institute's James Lakely, in his continuing jihad against net neutrality and Free Software, reveals his own notion of software freedom.

In Australia, one of the popular filth merchant talking points is that cuts in Australian emissions will make no difference at all to world emissions. I cam across this talking point expressed starkly on another blog recently:

If Australia turned off every machine and light bulb in the country and shot all its livestock and banned every man, woman and child in Australia from exhaling carbon, it would make NO difference to the cumulative carbon in the atmosphere.

Now I normally aim to avoid dignifying such obvious nonsense, but once in a while, I weaken. It wasn't so much that I wanted to refute it. I was curious as to how even a person suffering from the kind of mania that one sees in the rightwing blogosphere could talk himself into the idea that this could be so. He seemed to be fixated on the idea of Australia's emissions being 1.5% of world totals and World atmospheric emission concentrations growing by 1.5% each year (yes I know this latter is wrong, but let's pass over that) So I responded with simple maths.

This provoked an admission that he'd made a mistake not of logical reasoning, but of data. He'd confused 1.5ppmv with 1.5%. Truly, Monckton Madness really does rot your brain. Anyhow, I think an allegory may be apt to point to the problem in this reasoning. Here in Australia, we have a rightwing nong called Andrew Blot who often makes versions of this claim, so I think I'll use him for the allegory.

There was once this chap named ⦠oh letâs call him âMr_Blotâ ⦠anyhoo this fellow had struck it lucky and convinced a whole bunch of people â 193 of them in fact â that he was an estimable fellow â a man of wit and style worthy of patronage. Every month all 193 of his patrons would contribute to Mr_Blotâs bank account by direct payment, the aggregate sum of $150. Each year on July 1 the contributors would gather at the local bowling club to hear Mr_Blot deliver his annual pitch for funds, in his inimitable style.

Well the day of the official AGM rolled around, and as Mr_Blot looked at his bank account, he felt pretty pleased. He had accumulated $10,000, with the promise of more to come. Anyhoo he stood up before the crowd and began his schtick. He began talking about Rand and Hayek and made a witty remark about banking regulations from 1913 and computer modellers.

Sadly, just as he was getting to the pitch for funds he noticed this chap sitting in the audience. The guest was slightly rotund, and had some outrageous melanomas on his face. He was covered in coal dust and iron filings, and the gas from his nether regions was something nasty. âI told you methane wasnât odourlessâ he said turning to the chap next to him.

Mr_Blot was offended, and said: âlook here my good fellow, I donât mean to be rude but what gives you the right to come here and disrupt my pitch? Are you a contributor?â

âMy word I amâ said the chap, whose name turned out to be Stralia. I contributed $2.25 last month â¦â

Mr_Blotâs face turned red. â$2.25 you say? Iâm putting up with your profanity for $2.25 each month? Donât you realise that that is only 1.5% of what I get? You could pay me nothing and it would make no difference at all.â

âReallyâ said Stralia acidly. âMaybe Iâll keep my dosh then?â

âSuits meâ said Mr_Blot. âYou can FOAD for all I care.â

âRightoâ said Stralia, âIâm outta here.â

And with that, he promptly stood up and left. The chap next to Stralia put his hand up.

âBegging your pardon Mr_Blotâ the man began. âMy nameâs Kiwi and I only contribute 0.14% each month. If Straliaâs 1.5% makes no difference then my contribution must make no difference either.â

âYou know what Kiwi â¦â Mr_Blot said, still thinking only of his largesse âyouâre right. Everyone contributing no more than Stralia can leave. F-off the lot of you. I donât need your money.â

At that, 180 of the assembled guests stood up and left, taking with them 43% of Mr_Blotâs income.

Mr_Blot was kind of rattled, but he looked at the other 12 and figured they were still an impressive lot. One chap, a fellow with a distinct accent from the Middle East stood up.

âMy nameâs Saudiâ he began. âYou know I only contribute 1.6% and so if 1.5% makes no difference to you, then maybe I should only contribute the bit above 1.5%â.

âI suppose thatâs reasonableâ said Mr_Blot.

A hubbub went around the room as the 12 guests recalculated their donations.

Saudi stood up again and said. âYou know, I was thinking, now that Iâm only contributing 0.1% â¦â

âYes OK I see where this is goingâ said Mr_Blot in an increasingly exasperated tone, âanyone who after adjustment isnât contributing at least 1.6% can leave.â

A further 7 left the room, led by a chic woman with a beret singing Je ne regrette rien, leaving only China, the USA, Russia, India and Japan who between them had been contributing about 57% but would now be contributing 100%.

âNow just a cotton pickinâ minuteâ said a man with an accent such as youâd find on The Dukes of Hazzard. âWhat kinda flim flam is this? It seems to me everyone is gettin' a free pass here except the folks that matter mostâ.

âYes yes, I am very much agreeing with that propositionâ said a chap with a more sing songy register. âI am not nearly so rich as you appear to be Mr Mr_Blot. Why should I be contributing when so many others are of no interest to you?â

And with that the extra from The Dukes of Hazzard and the chap with the sing songy voice walked out.

âOld Chinese proverb say â¦â started China but he thought better of it and left along with Russia too.

Japan was disconsolate. âYou are most unwise Mr_Blotâ Japan began in measured tones. âYou forget that the whole is more than the mere sum of its parts. Sayonara.â

Mr_Blot looked about the empty room reflecting on how many irrelevant people had been there, and he realised only then that even the least of them had been relevant. They were not single line items, but a whole program.

Fran

I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression. As a denialist I do not throw rocks at AGW supporters, nor do I hang out with sceptics if I can help it. Far too wishy washy for my taste.

This is in reference to Tim Lambert's earlier entry:

Steve McIntyre defends Pat Michaels' fraud
Category: McIntyre
Posted on: January 17, 2008 12:42 PM, by Tim Lambert

MyIntyre reacted here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2602

It appears he rewrote his blog entry to make Tim Lambert look like a liar, even while admitting:

In 1998, 10 years after the original article, in testimony to the U.S. Congress and later in the debate with Hansen, Pat Michaels compared observed temperatures to Scenario A, arguing that this contradicted Hansen's projections, without showing Scenarios B or C.

That was the fraud Lambert referred to. Yet McInyre then says:

[Update: Jan 17 6 pm] To clarify, I do not agree that it was appropriate for Michaels not to have illustrated Scenarios B or C, nor did I say that in this post. These scenarios should have been shown, as I've done in all my posts here. It was open to Michaels to take Scenario A as his base case provided that he justified this and analysed the differences to other scenarios as I'm doing. Contrary to Tim Lambert's accusation, I do not "defend" the exclusion of Scenarios B and C from the Michaels' graphic. This exclusion is yet another example of poor practice in climate science by someone who was then Michael Mann's colleague at the University of Virginia. Unlike Mann's withholding of adverse verification results and censored results, Michaels' failure to show Scenarios B (and even the obviously unrealistic Scenario C) was widely criticized by climate scientists and others, with Klugman even calling it "fraud". So sometimes climate scientists think that not showing relevant adverse results is a very bad thing. I wonder what the basis is for climate scientists taking exception to Michaels, while failing to criticize Mann, or, in the case of IPCC itself, withholding the deleted Briffa data. [end update]

Why bother with an update? He should have said "I do not agree that it was appropriate for Michaels not to have illustrated Scenarios B or C" in the original version of the entry! Nice bit of damage control, but it only confirms what a fraud McIntyre is!

Anyone care to comment about the recent result that Richard Lindzen has come up with?It seems to show that with change in temperature more radiation escapes to space.This result flies in the face of models which predict less radiation to space.If he is right,it suggests future warming for a doubling will be about 1 degree F.

Anyone care to comment about the recent result that Richard Lindzen has come up with?It seems to show that with change in temperature more radiation escapes to space.This result flies in the face of models which predict less radiation to space.

I don't know about the particular models referred to here but I do know that models in general do not contradict the Stefan-Boltzmann law which says:

the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body in unit time is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T

This is also generalised to grey bodies. So models actually predict more radiation to space with increasing temperature.

I don't know how Lindzen comes up with the idea that models predict less radiation to space but bear in mind that Lindzen tried for years to get his failed "Iris hypothesis" accepted into climate science.

Well the Stephan Boltzman predicts 1 degree Celsius for a doubling.The IPCC then uses feedback assumptions to take the range to 1.5 to 4.5 Celcius.Apparently Lindzen's measured result restricts the sensitivity to less than 1 degree celcius.I am trying to find where his paper is or whether it is in peer review at the moment,but I cant track it down.
As far as the models are concerned,I thought that the IPCC used about a dozen and they all predicted less radiation to space.Correct me if I am wrong,but I have not heard of any models predicting more radiation to space.Is it on the IPCC website?

[Kent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/open_thread_34.php#comment-2031…)

I have watched the sea ice area and extent for years and have come to the conclusion that they are not a valid proxy of temperature.It is about the wind and about the beaufort gyre and about the trans polar drift

So, just to be clear,are you saying that increasing the mean global temperature by 2C will not impact upon Arctic ice?

Remember open sea water in the Arctic cools faster than ice covered water. It is a myth that the open water contributes more to warming than ice covered water.

How do you factor that thing called 'albedo' into the equation?

Bernard,

to be perfectly clear I am not saying anything like that. You are first off assuming a two degree increase in temp then asking your question... sort of like IF pigs had wings would they fly?
As for albedo? That only relates to when the sun is shining on the Arctic. When the sun don't shine we have a differnt situation.

kent, can you answer his question.

Rather than go "You've put some stuff I didn't say", put stuff you DO say and argue for that.

If you don't like 2C per doubling, what DO you like?

Then answer the question.

And Bernard, he's right here:

> I have watched the sea ice area and extent for years and have come to the conclusion that they are not a valid proxy of temperature.

Just then jumps to a baseless assertion:

> It is about the wind and about the beaufort gyre and about the trans polar drift

which could be true or a load of horseshit, it depends on what he's talking about and therefore unclear.Remember open sea water in the Arctic cools faster than ice covered water.

And it's no good, kent saying "it's just a myth", you need to show why the myth is there and how it can be seen to be a myth:

> It is a myth that the open water contributes more to warming than ice covered water.

frank:

It seems to show that with change in temperature more radiation escapes to space.

Well the Stephan Boltzman predicts 1 degree Celsius for a doubling.The IPCC then uses feedback assumptions to take the range to 1.5 to 4.5 Celcius... As far as the models are concerned,I thought that the IPCC used about a dozen and they all predicted less radiation to space.

Oh so what you really meant was that with change in ATMOSPHERE, the radiation decreases, not with change in temperature.

I can't help you out with Lindzen but don't worry too much. A lot of his work is pretty mediocre.

By the way, it's good punctuation to put a space between periods and the beginning of the next sentence.

Mark;

.1 degree C would be about right,

I don't make baseless assertions. NASSA finally admitted that the minimum Arctic sea ice level in 2007 was a result of WIND pushing ice into the North Atlantic.
As for open water contributing to global warming? Read the sites I provided.
The myth is there because journalism students focused on what happens during the summer as opposed to what happens on an annual basis. They also assume that ice/snow reflects about 95% of the sunlight that hits it, but the average is much less,(40-70%) just as the amount of sunlight that is absorbed by open water is much less than the 95% it is assumed.
Research shows that open water radiates 10-100 times the energy that radiates from ice covered water. Google it, the truth is out their.
If you look at ice area/ice extent you will notice variations in area that change over very short time periods. I don't believe this is because of rapid freezing thawing, but because of wind, waves and currents moving ice in and out of the 15% or 30% catchment areas.
The current extent, as given by IJIS, is almost at the same extent as in 2008. Some might say this is proof of warming but it could be said that the wind is keeping the extent contained, or that the transpolar drift is moving more ice out of the catchment area into the North Atlantic. Another possible cause is the movement of water from the north pacific causing a reduction of sea ice off Alaska.That would cause a reduction in extent.

Kent:

> .1 degree C would be about right,

Then how do you explain the PETM? The CO2e required to make the change goes asymptotically towards infinity much below 1.5C.

> I don't make baseless assertions.

You did just above. Where do you get the idea that it should be 0.1C per doubling?

> NASSA finally admitted that the minimum Arctic sea ice level in 2007 was a result of WIND pushing ice into the North Atlantic

Yup, and there's

a) no "finally" about it.

b) a difference between that statement and what you said earlier.

> As for open water contributing to global warming? Read the sites I provided

I did and they don't support your assertion that it's a myth that open water contributes more to warming than ice sheet.

> Research shows that open water radiates 10-100 times the energy that radiates from ice covered water.

And this is how the air above the surface gets warmer and contributes to global warming.

It also requires that open water absorbs heat more than ice does.

How else can it manage to maintain 10-100 times the release of energy? Either it will cool below ambient (which DOES break the laws of thermodynamics) or it will cool until it doesn't release so much energy.

The truth is in your own statements: your hypothesis is not even self consistent.

> If you look at ice area/ice extent you will notice variations in area that change over very short time periods. I don't believe this is because of rapid freezing thawing, but because of wind, waves and currents moving ice in and out of the 15% or 30% catchment areas

And in this I believe you are correct and that Bernard, if this is what he disagrees with, is wrong. NOTE you would have seen this if you'd read my post properly. Note too that although Bernard supports the science of AGW like I do, I am still disagreeing with him and though your theories are elsewhere completely hatstand, where it isn't hatstand, I'm agreeing.

But this doesn't prove your hypothesis about the difference between ice sheet and open water.

> it could be said that the wind is keeping the extent contained, or that the transpolar drift is moving more ice out of the catchment area into the North Atlantic.

Could be? That and 50p will buy you a Mars bar...

It could also be because it's warming. Occam's razor would apply and tell you not to multiply the requirements to support a conclusion unnecessarily.

So show that the wind is doing it.

Note too that it doesn't have to be none of the change is due to winds, some can.

Not also that G Karst's continuous cutnpaste job over at RC could also be no proof of no AGW because the increase in extent could be winds blowing 30% coverage into more 15% coverage pixels.

> Another possible cause is the movement of water from the north pacific causing a reduction of sea ice off Alaska.That would cause a reduction in extent.

It would.

This would me measurable though. Did you measure it, or are you casting up "could be"'s to avoid what is more likely?

And could it not also be that the movement of water from the N Pacific is breaking up sea ice off alaska and creating a greater spread of the same value of ice which is making the warming seem less if you use the crude and unreliable sea ice extent as your proxy?

Given your alternatives can work either way, you have to suppose not only that they are happening (which also requires you to show proof they are happening) but that they are happening in a way that makes the conclusion you want (whilst they have the freedom to manage more results than bolster your hypothesis).

You therefore have three requirements:

1) AGW isn't happening (and CO2 is not having the effect science says it must)

2) Ice extent changes are more a result of wind than anything else

3) Ice extend has with great consistency been such as to ape what would result if CO2 WERE responsible for warming

The last is like a creationist trying to refuse the bones of the dinosaurs: God put them there to test us.

And he put them there in JUST such a way as several well tested results all come to a remarkably close agreement with each other?

I mean, if we found dinosaur bones all mixed up any old how, we'd at least know that there's no rhyme or reason to their location and so therefore it COULD be they just got dropped there. But it takes a lot of unwarranted effort to fake all the other clues and make them agree.

If open water radiates 10-100 times the thermal energy of ice covered sea water and open sea water (arctic) absorbs 2-3 times the sunlight that ice covered sea water does, it makes sense that open sea water contributing more to global warming than sea ice, is a myth.

Yes, thermal energy from sea water warms the air but thermodynamics means that the water cools. The equation does not stop there though. The warmed air then radiates more energy spaceward resulting in more cooling.
You wrote;
It also requires that open water absorbs heat more than ice does.
Not quite sure what you are aiming at here. I was looking at cooling not warming.
One of the problems we have in discussing Arctic sea ice's contribution to global temperature is considering the annual energy budget.
Sea water density increases as it's temperature drops. Therefore it can maintain high levels of energy radiation until an ice layer is formed of course but it will still radiate more thermal energy since the ice would be thinner than thicker multi year ice.
Mark, here is a question for you to ponder. What takes place in the areas that are not included in the 15% ice area of cryosphere today or the 30% ice extent area of IJIS?In their graphs and images this area is not relevent. It should be when considering the yearly thermal equation.

> (a) If open water radiates 10-100 times the thermal energy of ice covered sea water

> (b) and open sea water (arctic) absorbs 2-3 times the sunlight that ice covered sea water does,

OK. Got them (though open sea water isn't arctic, it's open ocean)

> it makes sense that open sea water contributing more to global warming than sea ice, is a myth.

Nope. You took a 90 degree turn in a new dimension and lost it there.

In (a) you're talking about IR reradiation.

In (b) you're talking about VIS absorption.

They are different.

You need to work out the commonality: energy.

Try again.

F-

Mark;
Infrared radiation is the same as visible radiation just lower frequency. As for open Arctic sea water not being arctic water but ocean water? Just semantics.Cryosphere today doesn't even use the term ocean just Arctic basin and a bunch of seas.
To bad we weren't face to face, we could have a really good debate. On line is just not the same. No way to bounce ideas back and forth in a way that gets to the bottom of misunderstandings. So much on line gets misunderstood because what the reader thinks is been meant isn't being meant. Causing some to call others idiots, stupid, ignorant just because they can't read between the lines to figure out what is actually being said/meant.
Anyways, 50p for a mars bar? Would that be pence? If so I hope you don't live where Piers Corbyn says there will be a storm surge NOV. 14-17.