Greetings from 2010. Here is a picture I just took of Sydney's fireworks.
Looking through the Sydney Morning Herald's gallery, I find a picture of one of my sons! With a million people out to watch the fireworks, what are the odds?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
It's the 4th of July, and here in the U.S., that usually means fireworks.*
What could be better than explosions in pretty colors? Maybe a few details of how firework makers get those colors into the fireworks.
If you've taken a chemistry course with a lab, you may remember having done "flame tests…
The Tri-City Herald ran a photo showing a drag queen at an event, the Columbia Basin College's Queers & Allies drag show. Here it is, entirely safe for work and not at all risque.
It prompted one reader to write in protest.
Am I the only reader of this newspaper who would like to know what…
Is it unpatriotic to dread the Fourth of July? I wonder if some U.S. veterans do, in fact dread Independence Day because of the bottle rockets, shot missiles and other fireworks set off to mark the occasion.
NBC News contributor Bill Briggs wrote last year about Iraq War veteran Pete Chinnici, 26…
Back in August, I welcomed Spider the cat into my home. So how did that all work out?
That's Spider lounging in his basement room, aka the chess room. To judge from the liberal coating of cat hair, I'd say he likes that futon quite a lot. Spider's not much of a jumper, so I have no fear that…
Happy New Year!! - Great pix.
I wonder if my brother was there, with his 'Strine fiance?
Happy new year, Tim.
Thanks for all your work over the past year.
Cheers! :)
You have this tendency to be first to write on things, now we know why, you have an unfair advantage, being many hours ahead of us and all.
Happy new year!
Happy new year, Tim :)Greetings from Argentina.
Happy New Year Tim. This is probably my first comment, but I'm a faithful reader. Keep the great comment coming in 2010!
Happy New Year - and many thanks for causing the deniers nightmares!
Happy New Year, Tim.
Great pics.
Thanks again for a great blog that provides the best balance between free speech and sanity!
Happy New Year for 2010!
Over the last 3 years I've learnt a lot from your blog, always interesting although sometimes a bit sad as the human propensity for naughtiness is overwhelming at times. I'm thinking of sham sceptics, the deniers for hire who pop up again and again over the last quarter of a century or so - eg Fred Singer - and the staff at multinational PR/Media firms who organise the underhanded strategies for "discrediting" the truth for a few pieces of eight.
As you have demonstrated amply Tim, the only good enduring defence against the sham sceptics and deniers-for-hire is to stick to logical arguments buttressed by facts, which tear down each of their ridiculous claims.
One request: keep on Murdoch's back with respect to "The Australian" and its use of deniers' articles replete with bogus claims.
Regards,
Don.
Happy New Year.
How much CO2 do you think was caused by all of the fireworks?
But hey, it's all for our childrens future.
9 Lank,
I cannot resist (sorry Tim). How much? I'm sure you can give us a rough figure, and then tell us how much of it derives from fossil resources.
TrueSceptic@10...Did you go watch the fireworks live? I did with several million others worldwide. I went by car (petrol burner) and watched with millions of others who did the same.
Also, fireworks themselves are made - they dont grow on trees so I expect there is significant energy and resources used in thier manufacture. To cap it off fireworks produce CO2 when they are 'finalised' plus of course, a hell of a lot of toxic substances.
Your guess is as good as mine but surely you cannot claim that they do not contribute to the alarmist list of AGW 'causes'.
Why apologise to Tim?
Gawd! 2010! The year of "Lisa Wedding" (S6, E19).
HNY, Tim Lambert. I watched from a balcony on the North Shore. I'd like to know how they manage to time them so well that the light-bursts occur simultaneously in various parts of the harbour/s.
Exposing and attempting to correct misinformation on issues of great importance to our future can be an endless and seemingly thankless task. Thank you Tim. And thank you for allowing others, including myself, to express their varied opinions here with relative freedom.
Senior tree hugger Pablo Paster estimates the US fireworks alone emit CO2 equivalent to 12,000 cars. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/fireworks-ungreeen-or-necessary…
Not bad collateral damage for a few minutes of selfish entertainment. But hey, the Deltoid kids enjoyed it!
A happy New Year's wish from up over, too.
11 Lank,
No. Just the ones neighbours set off that we could see out the window. Pretty cold here last night, being winter.
Now, do you have a figure?
Latest 31st December SST Anomaly update has a whole bunch of red areas. Below is the link for all the dates so you can compare the latest figures with previous ones:
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anomaly.html
As an expatriate Australian I get depressed at the covens of deniers that seem to range with impunity across the cultural landscape of my country waving their wands of received wisdom and conjuring up such mismasa. Then up pops beacons of light such as Deltoid that go truly global causing a gnashing of teeth in such covens restoring my faith that reason and logic still exist in my country...... though not between Tony Abbotts ears or behind Nick Minchin's fangs.
Happy New Year!
19 Jeremy,
There are other antipodeans supporting rationalism: see the 'Blogroll" in the sidebar.
You should also be proud of Tony Jones, who does a good job for a mainstream broadcaster.
JC@19...."I get depressed at the covens of deniers". I suggest you see a psychiatrist asa you can 'cos 2010 looks like being a very depressing year for you JC.
Seems like the world has been unusually cold over December - Is this predicted by your AGW climate change fiction?
You should be extremely pleased to know that your beloved Australia is currently seeing drought breaking floods in the east with expectations of bumper crops for the next couple of years. Cheer up JC!!
By 'Denier' Chris #6 - Do you mean yourself ?
There are many from the 'warmist religion' that are truly looking through the 'round window' now ! ;-)
Happy New Year to you all. It will indeed be a GoodYear ! :-)
Happy New Year Tim and to all Deltoidians. I watched them from my back steps. I don't have a car so I'll share my carbon credits around with my fellow Deltoid bloggers...except for you Lank.
Au contraire, the world has been unusually hot over December.
Well it has if you live in Adelaide.
You're right True Sceptic Tony Jone's demolition of Ian "we're in the moneyyyy!" Plimer was a text book example of how the media should handle charlatans and Kerry O'Brien knows how to quietley wield a blow torch without ever resorting to histrionics such as raising his voice while Dempster just calls them, "developer's bribes". Then there are other's that merit honorable mentions. But, but it doesn't seem to shift the clenched fist of unreason that many people proudly cling to.
Zoot@25...You could always reloact to Britain!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6921281/Britain-facing-one-of…
Zoot@25
North Texas is also nice...
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/North-Texas-bracing-for-snow-on-Christma…
Just a thought...
Here we have a picture of a massive fireworks display with an attached link showing pictures of more fireworks along with Sydney lit up like a Christmas tree.
A million people showed up, many in C02 emitting vehicles, to enjoy this fine display of pollution.
And it's all good.
It's all good because the pictures are pretty....
So perhaps we should paint all the planes, cars, air conditioning units and oil fired furnaces pretty colors and give them a special lighting effect so they are good too!
Just a thought..
Best wishes for the New Year!
[15 Lank](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-21…) wrote:
>Senior tree hugger Pablo Paster estimates the US fireworks alone emit CO2 equivalent to 12,000 cars. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/fireworks-ungreeen-or-necessary… Not bad collateral damage for a few minutes of selfish entertainment. But hey, the Deltoid kids enjoyed it!
Pablo Paster took the total weight of imported fireworks and assumed all of it to be blackpowder: blackpowder, plastics, firecracker tubes, wrapping ... and of course there's no firework using flash powder, either. His figure looks like a substantial overestimate to me.
Bluegrue@30..
You're probably right. The fireworks don't seem to have warmed the earth one bit!....
Florida heading for record cold tonight and tomorrow night...
Beijing, China may hit it's all-time coldest reading after crippling snowstorm...
37 below at International Falls, Minnesota brings 3 straight morning to start the new year, coldest opening to a new year in their history...
37 below at Spencer, Iowa, coldest in 20 years...
Longest cold spell in the UK in 25 years and counting after coldest December since 1996...
The snowfall over the weekend was the biggest in Beijing since 1951...
But of course the jolly old British Met office keeps up it's dogmatic 'were getting warmer' puffing despite facing possibly the coldest winter in 100 years......Britain was wetter, warmer and sunnier than usual in 2009, the Met Office is set to announce this week....and...it is also predicting that 2010 is likely to be the hottest year ever recorded worldwide.
All the more fireworks I say.
Here's hoping that the dawn of a new decade brings the dawn of an understanding of the difference between climate and weather.
37 below at Spencer, Iowa
Stop the presses!!!
Happy new year Tim, but just like the old year I'm afraid. You might want to pick up on this http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/business/starving-farme… where the deniers like Joanne Nova are promoting the aim of getting rid of any attempt to reduce land clearing.
Hey Northern Winter Dickheads! - I'm sure you've had the difference between weather and climate explained to you many times before so I can only assume you enjoy the wind-up or are just mouth-breathers. But if you actually do like to think that transient weather events are indication of anything why not check out the southern australian heatwaves of 2008 and 2009? They had nothing to do with global warming of course but kinda put a big fist in the arse of your simpleton cold winter argument. Does a single hotter than average summer prove AGW is real, or does a single colder than average winter prove it's not? Climate science by definition subscribes to neither hypothesis but for some reason idiots everyewhere find this impossible to grasp. This weekend when the mercury approaches 40C again I'll be sitting in me UNDIES sweating my balls off and cursing your northern-hemispherical asses. Enjoy that image you bullshit-munchers.
Hey Jade@32....The fireworks didn't work for warming in South Korea either....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100104/ap_on_re_as/as_asia_storms
....As temperatures plunged to minus 25 degs C in Poland at the start of the year, the number of cold-related deaths rose to 122 so far this winter.
.....Nearly the entire eastern half of the United States is enduring bitterly cold temperatures not experienced since 1985. Even Florida, which has been hovering around freezing levels overnight recently, is also feeling the almost-nationwide chill.
......Residents of Miami donned heavy coats and wool mufflers Monday to face down the coldest weather to hit the usually balmy city nearly in a decade.
But hey Jade, weather is not climate and this is just AGW in action! Remind me on what page that AGC aca 'anthropogentic global cooling' was predicted in the IPCC models?
Dr Harry..."This weekend when the mercury approaches 40C again".... which is near normal for many parts of southern Australia in early January.
Why dont you leave?
Admittedly, I'm posting this a bit late, but I wanted to share something that a friend sent me. It arrived at about 2pm on Dec. 31, and those of us who were still in the office at the time found it to be remarkably accurate. It's an [online meter that can accurately measure critical statistics](http://23.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kvhkvwh5GB1qzf94so1_400.gif).
I'm going to use it for tracking my reaction to Lank's comments.
Dr Harry Borhlsachs: well said!
Hey Lank-O-Tron-2000 - The early 2009 south australian heatwave resulted in
....Melbourne recording its hottest day since records began in 1855, 46.4 °C (115.5 °F)
...the hottest temperature ever recorded in an Australian capital city.46.4 °C (115.5 °F)
....Adelaide & Melbourne cities broke records for the most consecutive days over 40 °C (104 °F)
....Mildura, Victoria recorded an all time record 12 consecutive days over 40 °C (104 °F).
....Tasmania recorded its highest ever temperature; 42.2 °C (108 °F) in Scamander, and the long standing Tasmanian record of 40.8 °C (105.4 °F) was broken FIVE times within TWO days at Flinders Island, Fingal (twice), St Helens and Scamander
...Hopetoun in Victoria recorded the state's highest temperature and the highest temperature of the heat wave, with a reading of 48.8 °C (119.8 °F)
This followed an almost as bad one the year before. Both had nothing to do with global climate and neither does the current northern winter - So stop talking shit.
Yep I agree with you Dr Harry - I can see you have taken my point. So why do you think almost all the other AGW alarmists want to quote high temperature weather events as evidence of global warming?
Probably because the record high events outstrip the record low events by 2 to 1:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp (for the continental US)
Lank asks,
>*"So why do you think almost all the other AGW alarmists want to quote high temperature weather events as evidence of global warming?"*
To demonstrate that denialists are just cherry picking and that your cherry picks are more than matched by events that are consistent with the [global warming trend](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:180/plot/gis…).
Lank @22:blockquote>Seems like the world has been unusually cold over December - Is this predicted by your AGW climate change fiction?
Seems to be arguing that cold weather disproves AGW.
Oh no you don't Lank-O-Tron-2000! No wriggling out of this one. So now you are claiming that you weren't suggesting the northern winter is evidence against global warming? Umm... HORESESHIT! You said,
In writing the above you clearly state that you believe that the current northern winter is evidence against global warming and that based on this the Met Office should change their position on climate change. You are so busted! Laughably NOW you say you were just countering the AGW alarmist's dishonest use of weather events to support their claims. Crap! You're the one guilty of that. Basically what you have done is admit you were talking out yr' arse all along. Hopeless!
Dr. Haryy @34..
"Hey Northern Winter Dickheads"....."why not check out the southern australian heatwaves of 2008 and 2009? They had nothing to do with global warming of course but kinda put a big fist in the arse of your simpleton cold winter argument."
Dr. Harry, I think you just called Kevin Trenberth a Dickhead and a Simpleton......very impressive.
In 2006:
Kevin E. Trenberth, chief of the climate-analysis branch of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, said, "There are very good reasons to believe that the current U.S. heat wave is at least partly caused by global warming."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR20060…
I'm still searching to see where Kevin said the current cold spell is at least partly due to global cooling...
Dr Harry...
Here are a few articles for you written by Dickheads and Simpletons...
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Big up to Harry Borhlsachs!
Love [your work](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-21…)!
The annual Australian climate statement for 2009 has just been released:
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100…
Can't see too much cooling there....
Betula,
When one intentionally [mixes the wheat with the chaff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-21…), I would have thought that list provides quite a good reason to check your information with peer reviewed, fact checked primary sources, or similarly sourced credible [synthesis assessments](http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm).
Oh, [and](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-21…) a good reason for media reform, to reduce the Murdoch like oligarchical hegemony that [puts out](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…) such [inane pap](http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/39945-global-warming-now-it-hits-brothels).
>*Dr. Harry, I think you just called Kevin Trenberth a Dickhead and a Simpleton*
I don't think so.
Trenberth has every reason to think, that there "*are very good reasons to believe that the current [2006] U.S. heat wave is at least partly caused by global warming.*"
When there is global warming, its quite reasonable to believe that many of the extreme high temperature events will be contributed to in part by the warming trend.
Yet when there is an warming trend and global temperature are at record highs, cherry picking cool events, is just that, cherry picking. They are events that are not consistent with the warming trend of global mean temperatures.
Dr Harry@44 "In writing the above you clearly state that you believe that the current northern winter is evidence against global warming and that based on this the Met Office should change their position on climate change."
I am in awe of your absence of comprehensive power!! Maybe the southern Australian heat has gone to your head.
Sim@51..."They are events that are not consistent with the warming trend of global mean temperatures."
Yep, lets just ignore the cold events that way you can jack up the temperature curve. You're not from East Anglia are you?
Bullshit Lank-O-Tron-2000. Do you, or do you not think the Met office should reconsider their position on climate change based on the current northern winter weather event? You clearly implied that you do think they should and I reckon that is a really fucking stupid thing to say. Perhaps I'm wrong and your comment about the Met Office contained nuance beyond my colonial intellect, but thanks to your weak-as-piss response I suspect it's more likely that you are just a "big daft cock".
An unsurprisingly disingenuous response lank. You don't need to disappear cold anomalies, you only need put them in perspective. This is the opposite of what you and other disingenuous denialist dos
@53...
"Bullshit", "fucking stupid", "weak-as-piss", "big daft cock".
Dr. Harry, let me guess....English professor?
A few weather related headlines on Drudge I found interesting:
Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA...
CHILL MAP...
3 Deaths Due To Cold in Memphis...
PAPER: GAS SUPPLIES RUNNING OUT IN UK...
Elderly burn books for warmth?...
Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years...
Historic ice build-up shuts down NJ nuclear power plant...
Midwest Sees Near-Record Lows, Snow By The Foot...
Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade...
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Since this post is welcoming the new year, I have no doubt that the majority of commenters here are thrilled to start the new year this way, that is, with the hope of possibly delaying the apocalypse.
We all understand these are weather related events, just as floods, heat waves and hurricanes, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy the cold while we still have some left.
My advice is to get out there and expose some flesh while you can. At the least, you'll be able to explain to your grandkids what frostbite was.
"Happy New Year"?
Bit optimistic all of a sudden, aren't you? I thought the end of the world was nigh!
Baron von Monckton/Munchausen has been given another guernsey in the Oz:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/mr-rudd-your-misguided-war…
Stupid doesn't even begin to describe this drivel. Almost seems to be that he's trying to tick the boxes of including every denialist piece of nonsense into the one op ed.
Hope he has better luck getting a response out of our Prime Minister than I had in getting one from Nick Minchin ...
What gets me about this "it's cold, therefore no global warming" thing is how incredibly simplistic it is. What is the major driver of weather? Wind - and more specifically, where it's blowing from. In the case of the US cold snap, it appears to be due to stronger than usual winds blowing down from the Arctic (see here).
What's the flipside of that? Well, all that air has to come from somewhere. If you watch the satellite animation in the above link, you'll see that this is supplied by warm air pushing up from the equator into the Arctic from the Equator, over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, and Western Russia.
What does that mean? Well, basically that heat (lots and lots of it) is being dumped in the Arctic. I'm still trying to work it out myself, but would it not make sense that the larger than usual amount of cold air coming down through North America suggests a larger than usual amount of warm air heading north elsewhere?
A few weather related headlines on Drudge I found interesting
Found anything about climate yet? No, I guess he deleted that one link he had.
@ 58. Jimmy Nightingale - perhaps it's a comedy piece. All I could think when I read it in the Oz was that they had decided to move into really bad satire. Why else would you put in the article by Screaming Lord Monckton the day after the BOM makes the announcement about this decade's temperatures?
A
A comedy piece? Perhaps, but not as hilarious as these from 40 years ago:
âWe have about five more years at the outside to do something.â
⢠Kenneth Watt, ecologist
âCivilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.â
⢠George Wald, Harvard Biologist
âWe are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.â
⢠Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
âPopulation will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.â
⢠Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
âByâ¦[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.â
⢠Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
âAt the present rate of nitrogen buildup, itâs only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.â
⢠Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Still, he's getting warmer, er, I mean colder, um, I mean closer, with this scientific forecast:
âThe world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.â
⢠Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Comic? No, those are side-splitters!
Speaking of weather, I have scanned the news wires and have discovered that:
"parts of Canada are abnormally warm"
"in Goose Bay in Newfoundland, it's barely getting below 0C - bikini weather, relatively speaking, given that the average minimum for January is -23C"
"in Yakutsk itself, the daily minimum is a mere -35C - that's 10C warmer than the January average."
Worth noting that snow is not always a good proxy for temperature, particularly in those areas that regularly experience sub-zero temperatures in winter. However, increased precipitation might be an indicator of a changing climate.
David Duff, you crack me up. Tim Blair tried, and failed, the same line of arguing recently.
Tim's column was pulled apart here and you'd do well to read it.
Such a shallow pool the denialists swim in.
Sorry, John, I don't quite follow you. It wasn't a line of argument just other people's words, and indeed, if it 'cracked you up', then it served its purpose which was to amuse, and to remind us all, yet again, of the fallibility of experts. Glad you got the joke because, between you and me, they tend to be a bit humourless round here!
Oh, and by the way, my pool is quite deep, actually, but it's still frozen solid. Bloody global warming, eh?
David Duff (#62),
Thanks - that it is a very timely reminder as to why one should rely on the scientific consensus rather than the views of a small number of individual scientists.
Ah yes, "the scientific consensus"! Would that be as in:
"âDemographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditionsâ¦.By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.â
⢠Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
David Duff, your wit is as sharp as your scientific reasoning. You made me laugh for all the wrong reasons. Thank you for reminding me about the fallibility of experts. Next time I fly I might take over from the pilot because a graph on Andrew Bolt's blog said he was colluding with other pilots.
No response on the post I gave you, I see. But like you said, you weren't posting an argument. After the thorough debunking that post gave your reasoning, claiming you were being serious at all, or even trying to make a coherent point, would just look rather silly.
We can't have that.
David Duff, once again you have posted the views of an individual. I challenge you to provide a proper analaysis of the peer reviewed literature from that time that demonstrates that the point made by this individual actually reflects the consensus.
Presumably you have such an analysis to hand, given the boldness of your statements?
Scientific reasoning? Who said I went in for that sort of thing? I'll have you know, sir, that I failed 'O' Level maths, physics and chemistry, not just marginally but magisterially! Why else do you think I rely on the words of experts? I have no idea who Mr. Nutt and Bolt are, and I regret to say that the name of Blair these days does not inspire confidence. No, if and when I give my opinion it is mine and mine alone - and by and large it must be admitted that the world breathes a sigh of relief for that proviso. So, if you find my reasoning in anything I have written above, please let me know. In the meantime, perhaps you would care to offer "a coherent point on, say, the expertise of Prof. Gunter of North Texas University who is, or was, according to his own words, part of, er, a scientific consensus.
Dr. 'Dave', apologies, my previous comment crossed yours - and please note the punctilious politeness with which I use your title because I know these ranks mean a lot in scientific circles - you can call me Corporal 'Dave' if you like because that was my rank and it took me nearly 8 years to reach it! Where was I - oh yes, you were having a laugh, along with John, I expect, because I notice you used the expression "peer reviewed" - that's another side-splitter these days, especially after all those other 'Doctors' let the cat out of the bag, or at least, had their bags opened so the cats could escape. Honestly, you 'stinks' types are so clever the way you, what's the scientific phrase for it, oh yes, 'self organise' all that peer-reviewed stuff. Brilliant, really, brilliant!
John @64
You do realize your attached link doesn't make any sense don't you?
The author makes this ridiculous statement..
"Our current scientific theories are almost certainly wrong, but you should do what they say anyway."
And backs it up with this nonsense...
"Newtonian mechanics will tell you that if you want your car to go faster, you should make it less heavy. Just because the theory behind that advice turned out to be wrong, doesnât mean the advice was wrong."
"Similarly, even if climate science turns out to be inaccurate in some way, the advice it is giving us is clear. Cutting emissions is essential for stopping global warming."
In the first example, he's comparing the theory behind the advice.
In the second example, he's comparing the advice behind the theory.
In other words, in the second example, he's saying the clear advice will surely stop the inaccurate theory.
Look at it this way, if you inserted the format of the second example into the first example it would look like this...
"Newtonian mechanics will tell you that if you want your car to go faster, you should make it less heavy. Even if this theory is wrong,the advice it is giving us is clear. Making the car less heavy will make the car go faster"
Classic.
Corporal David (#71), It is clear from your your bluster that actually you have no evidence at all to back up your claims. No surprise there then!
No surprise? Oh yes there is, Dr. 'Dave', because you appear to have found me claiming something and then blustering about it. Could you actually point to it, please.
David Duff, you stated that: "Ah yes, "the scientific consensus"! Would that be as in:
"âDemographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable...etcâ ⢠Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University"
I think that you added italics to the quote for emphasis.
Dr Dave asked you for evidence to support the view that the quote really represented the consensus rather than that of an individual. You blustered.
Are you still ducking the challenge?
But it wasn't a view. Nor was it a claim. And neither was it a statement. It was a question. A distinguished scientist described himself as being part of a consensus ("Demographers agree almost unanimously") and I asked if that was the same sort of thing that Dr. 'Dave' was referring to. It is no earthly use you and Dr. 'Dave' challenging me, I don't know the answer, that is why I asked the question.
David Duff: so people made some statements and held opinions based on the facts/information/theories available to them at the time. As the facts/information/theories changed, their opinion changed (well, except Barry Commoner, I would imagine, as he's fairly obviously still correct). As the facts become clearer about the reality of AGW, your opinion does not change. That is your problem, not theirs.
If someone invents a machine tomorrow that is able to take all anthropogenically-produced CO2 out of the atmosphere in a week and store it somewhere harmless, my opinion on the likely result of AGW will change radically. That doesn't mean my current opinion is wrong and I wouldn't be embarrassed to say what I thought would happen prior to the invention of the machine.
Whereas Screaming Lord Monckton is just batty. He's proven that across a range of fields.
@ 64. John: thanks for the link to that article. It was deliciously written and a very nice refutation of Blair's nonsense.
A
>[John @64](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-21…)
>You do realize your attached link doesn't make any sense don't you?
Betula, you are not only not even wrong, you are [wronger than wrong](http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm):
>"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac must have had you in mind.
>Two things are infinite: the universe and [human stupidity](http://christophersisk.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/thestupiditb…); and I'm not sure about the universe.
You really make [Albert's](http://www.wisdomquotes.com/001058.html) point.
'A' (I like that "A", brief and to the point, unlike me)- where was I? - oh, yes:
"people made some statements and held opinions based on the facts/information/theories available to them at the time. As the facts/information/theories changed, their opinion changed".
Er, not quite. What happened was that these people, all distinguished scientists, made predictions based, so they tell me, on a scientific consensus and their predictions were wrong, well, 'wrong' is not quite the word, really, they were wildly, hopelessly, completely and embarrassingly a million miles outside the ballpark.
Now, the question is, have they changed their minds, as you suggest - or have they just put the clock forward a teensy-weensy bit, you know, given the old grandfather clock they were forced to use for their experiments back in the '60s a bit of a kick and sort of blamed it on the rubbish equipment their universities provided them with? I don't know. To be honest, I stopped listening to Paul Erhlich back in the '80s when he lost that bet with Julian Simon so I'm not sure what he thinks now about overpopulation but I would not faint with shock if he still believed it but has just shoved the dates forward. You tell me!
@77..
"As the facts become clearer about the reality of AGW, your opinion does not change. That is your problem, not theirs."
David, it is really quite simple. What Amanda is saying is, that your opinion would have been wrong then and your opinion is wrong now and that's your problem.
What you need to do is follow the delicious advice in the link John attached @64...
"Our current scientific theories are almost certainly wrong, but you should do what they say anyway."
In other words, the only right opinion is to choose the wrong one. Problem solved.
@David Duff: First of all, do we know the context in which Gunter said what he supposedly said?
Second, what makes you claim Peter Gunter was, at that time, a "dinstinguished scientist"? (just a hint: he was not a demographer)
Third, where's your skepticism when Gunter claims to be part of a consensus, without corroborating evidence? (see also my hint above). It sounds to me that he was overinterpreting Ehrlich (and that's quite a feat in itself).
Then again, and I repeat: I'd like to see the context of his remarks.
Of course, a lot of people do not seem to realise that we, humanity, actually actively took action in response to 'scares'. We took action to curb acid rain (claim that to be a hoax to all those people seeing their buildings fall apart due to pH 4 rain), we took action to reduce CFC emissions to save the ozone layer (claim that is a hoax to all those people that have measured ozone concentrations for decades). We started famine relief actions when there was another sad story on television. There also has been a major reduction in population growth in many places.
Finally, people like Ehrlich (and as it seems Gunter) did not really see solutions (other than some pretty radical solutions). The 'alarmists' in the climate change field repeatedly point out that we DO have solutions. There is NO NEED for us to just sit and let it happen. We can mostly keep going with our way of life, and at the same time reduce the chances of problematic climate change. The changes that are required are in many areas not nearly as big as some people claim.
Yes, David Duff. They were wrong. Things changed, solutions were discovered, civilisation screams along apace. That doesn't mean that limits on exponential growth don't still exist. That some opinions on future events are shown to be wrong doesn't invalidate the theory on which they are based, as those opinions didn't include the possibility of future events. It's the same as opinions about what may happen with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will be wrong if someone invents the perfect CO2 scrubber and storage device tomorrow. But such nuance obviously does not trouble you.
@ 81. Marco: have you noticed the other thing that the Australian is doing (and you may not be from Australia, so excuse me if I presume) that makes me assume they are moving into bad satire? Their opinion columnists are starting (quite regularly) to use the stabilisation of the ozone hole, not as proof that solutions can be found and implemented to global environmental problems, but that all scientists get it wrong all the time (because somehow the ozone hole is - er - fixing itself or something) and that we don't have to do anything really because the ozone hole just shows that doing nothing works (or - er - something! Scientists are all commies! Al Gore is fat!). It's such twisted logic that it's kind of painful.
A
Betula, and I am assuming here that you are lady, may I ask you in the nicest way possible if you have ever considered an older man? You see, you, and you alone, have opened my watery old eyes to what passes for scientific thinking, here, in the Antipodes. A place where, in defiance of the entire history of science, they seem to believe that consensus is crucial despite all the big advances coming from people who ignored the consensus. A place where despite the fact that 40 years ago a gallery of distinguished scientists did the equivalent of standing on a chair, dropping their trousers, blowing several raspberries and passing them off as considered scientific predictions, they still believe - hallelujah - honestly, it warms the cockles of my heart.
Now, Betula, you know, as others here do not (apparently) that prediction is crucial in the testing of any scientific theory. If the prediction is wrong, the science is wrong - and so are the scientists. That's OK, everyone makes mistakes, even me (I know, I know, you find that hard to believe) but there-after a sensible man would not bet the deeds of his house on any subsequent theories provided by any of these men. Of course, one of the men I did not include in my little list was a certain Dr. James Hansen who famously made some very amazing predictions to the Congress of the United States, no less. Apparently it reduced them to a sweat, although later it transpired that someone had deliberately switched off the air-conditioning! Guess what? His predictions were just another load of raspberries, just so much, er, hot air, his predictions missed by a mile.
Anyway, I'm thinking of setting up in the Gospel-thumping business down there in Australia, would you care to join me? There's a mint to be made, I reckon!
[Done](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2747139.htm).
LB @ 78
That's it?
You claim I'm wronger than wrong, yet you fail to mention where I'm wrong because you can't.
I'll take that as a compliment.
Thank you, Bernard, I expected no less.
I'm off to bed, it's past my cocoa-time and I intend to dream of Betula - my God, I do hope she's a woman!
David,
Sorry, not a woman.
The mistake is understandable since Betula (Betchoola) isn't gender specific.
I'll take is as a compliment. It sounds to me like your looking for a woman with a sense of humor who can apply logic and common sense to see through the AGW facade.
In the meantime, sorry to say, you may be dreaming of a Birch tree. Betula is the Genus.
Personally, I would rather dream of a Sugar Maple....let me know if you find a woman out there named "Acer".
What everyone is missing in the analogy between AGW and famine is that the scientists who said famines were going to happen if steps were not taken were right. Steps WERE taken. We got all kinds of new agricultural technology that allowed us to grow significantly more food than previously expected.
If we did not have that technology, the world would be starving right now. That is easily seen simply by comparing the amount of food we could produce with older food-production technologies to the amount of people that are alive right now.
The argument is almost as sad as "We heard a lot about Y2K but the only problems that I saw were minor", which of course ignores that many major problems were found by people who then fixed them. The denialists seem to be claiming that any time science predicts and then resolves or averts a crisis is actually proof of the uselessness of science.
Can anyone offer a brief debunking of this piece, or at least point me in the direction of studies that actually look at how CO2 behaves at higher altitudes than was examined by Heinz-Hug?
http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html
I am trying to convince the person I'm arguing with that we need to keep to SOME standards of evidence because it is near impossible for a layman such as myself to debunk this gobbldey-gook, which is exactly what the author is relying on.
David Duff I call bullshit on your post @62.
I can find no source for these "quotes" which isn't a denialist site. Sounds to me like someone decided to fabricate your evidence. Of course, you can always prove me wrong by citing the sources of these statements. Are you up to the challenge?
RE: #90
Found this, lol, the guy is a whackjob. Disregard #90
http://moonflake.wordpress.com/2006/11/10/midweek-cuckoogary-novak/
If anyone is down in Canberra or interested in heading down this way on the 27th January, Prof David Karoly and others will be providing a free public forum on climate change "Ask an expert about Climate and Climate Change".
Further info is available here:
http://billboard.anu.edu.au/event_view.asp?id=54428
I've written to Messrs Abbott, Joyce, Minchin, Abetz, Fielding and a few others and suggested that they attend. Not that I seriously expect them to take up the suggestion, but these evenings are generally informative and entertaining.
Morning everyone! Yesterday's snow has now frozen solid - bloody global warming - heh!
'Betula', I am severely disappointed but perhaps we can be pals like Butch and Sundance and together jump from the cliff to escape these ravening hysterics. However, before we do so perhaps we could examine what passes for analytical thinking on the part of 'Zoot', at #90 above. He cannot find the source of quotes from over 40 years ago, long before the internet, probably buried in long-forgotten books or speeches at various conferences, but which have been frequently quoted and never denied by the quoted, but nevertheless on the basis that they are frequently quoted on sites hostile to the scientists concerned, he comes to the conclusion that they are fabrications. It does not occur to him that some of the quoted might be just a tad embarrassed by what they forecast so long ago. However, 'Zoot', in his haste failed to check with comment #84 by Bernard J which provides a pod-cast of the incorrigible Erhlich still spouting the 'same old same old' just a few months ago - silly old coot!
Michael Ralston @88 repeats what opponents of Erhlich and his ilk said at the time, that is over 40 years ago, and who were derided and excoriated by the alarmists of the time, that is, that Man would find new technologies and adapt to new conditions so there was no need to panic. They did it without the heavy, stupid hand of government legislation and taxation, and without the help of Al Gore - heavens to Betsy, how did they manage? It is why Simon won his bet with Erhlich. It is why all attempts, from Malthus via Marx to Erhlich and Hansen, to project past trends into future certainties are doomed to failure.
Global Warming Denial Bingo - A fun game for all the family!
Got an uncle who keeps banging on about the global warming hoax every time there is a family gathering? Does your Granddad read the Daily Express and insist on pointing out 'sceptical' arguments at dinner? Seen one too many online debates with the same old-same old zombie arguments that global warming is not happening/is happening but is caused by the sun, volcanoes
or communists? Turn this tiresome pseudo-science into fun with Global Warming Denial Bingo!
http://tinyurl.com/warmingbingo
David.
Butch Cassidy and Sundance was a great movie but I have a better idea...
I'm thinking more like the Frozen Chosin. Are you familiar with that battle during the Korean War?
Briefly:
The 1st Marine Division, at the Chosin Reservoir, was surrounded by 150,000 Chinese troops in the worst winter weather in over 100 years...
When confronted with this reality, the Commander of the Division, Lewis "Chesty" Puller replied...."Well now I've got something to work with!" and "They've got us right where we want 'em. We can shoot in every direction now."
Waddaya think?
http://www.mclm.com/tohonor/lpuller.html
Jimmy @92..
Sorry Jimmy, I won't be able to make that forum.
Listen, do you think you could do me a favor? If you could ask Ian Fry a question for me it would be very much appreciated.
As you know, Ian (representing Tuvalu) gave us this tear jerker at Copenhagen:
âThe fate of my country rests in your hands,â Fry told the meeting. âI make this as a strong and impassioned plea. . . . I woke this morning and I was crying and that was not easy for a grown man to admit,â he continued, âhis voice choking with emotion,â in the Reuters reporterâs words. Who could fail to be moved?â¦"
Anyway, could you ask him if he ever actually lived in Tuvalu?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTYwY2E3OTc0ZGZhZTExY2U4MjlhNWVmNj…
Be sure to bring plenty of tissues...
David Duff @93: I'll take that as confirmation you have no source for those quotes.
Anarchy @ 94..
Today would be a good day for you to stay inside and enjoy that game....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6940181/Hospitals-forced-to-c…
Winter disproves global warming. Cross it off.
Jade @99
"Winter disproves global warming. Cross it off."
Did somebody say that Jade? I mean, besides you just now...
[Betula](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-21…)
>LB @ 78
>That's it?
>You claim I'm wronger than wrong, yet you fail to mention where I'm wrong because you can't.
>I'll take that as a compliment.
I demonstrated _how_ you are wrong. There is nothing I can do if you are too stupid to understand it.
Take it as you will.
86 David,
How embarrassing! Are you an old duffer, getting a bit desperate? ;)
88 Michael,
You're wasting your time trying to explain. Being the ASS sufferers that they are, denialists pretend that the Green Revolution never happened, just as they ignore anything else that conflicts with their wingnut obsessions.
Has Ian Fry ever actually lived in Tuvalu?
[Yes.](http://www.tuvalu-news.tv/archives/2007/02/negotiation_workshop_ian_fry…)
@anarchist606
Note Tim's global warming bingo from 2005:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/04/gwsbingo.php
'TrueSceptic', I have been an old, middle-aged and young duffer for ever, and alas, desperate for most of that time!
'Zoot', you are a lazy young rascal and you will write out 100 times "I must do my research properly". On the second(!) page of my Google search I found this site which appears to be sympathetic to 'earth issues' and in which there are several quotes from Erhlich and Watts with pointers as to where they were either written or spoken:
http://terrapraeta.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/the-rebirth-of-environmenta…
No, no, please, no cheques, just the usual cash in a plain brown envelope and of course, gentleman that I am, I accept your apology.
LB @ 101..
Still with nothing.
LB @ 104..
I would like everyone to take a look at the link LB provided to verify Ian Fry has lived in Tuvalo.
Seriously, this is comedy gold.
@ 107...
Sorry, I need a tissue. From the laughing....
As a matter of interest Betula and David Duff, what do you think that you are actually achieving here, other than showing that you place an inordinate level of importance of cherry-picked statements from individuals? Do you really think that this will enhance your credibility?
You continue to demonstrate that it is the scientific consensus, as argued in the literature, that matters, not press reports and cherry picked quotations. You are doing a great job of demonstrating that the standard denialist approach is bunkum. Are you Poe (surely yes)?
Could you spare me one, 'Betula', mine has shredded with the tears of laughter. Still, he did stay 10 days!
Duff & Betula,
Ten days is an infinitely longer time than either of you has lived in the land of reason.
Well, I don't know about my new e-friend, 'Betula', but I've often been called (putting it politely) 'poo' before but never Poe. Is that an Australian term? Please explain.
'Luminous Beauty' above is closer to the truth than she knows. The world I inhabit is indeed unreasonable, from quarks to quakers and from space to spastics. I note and applaud the efforts of remarkable men who have attempted over the ages to make sense of nonsense and to reason with unreason, and yet, the more they discover and explain and categorise the more unreasonable, unknowable and unquantifiable mysteries appear to tease and drive them mad. I actually feel sorry for the men I quoted way back up this thread. To study and to work and to worry to a definite, reasoned and reasonable conclusion and then to be so wrong must be deeply humbling and humiliating - or at least, it would be to any man possessed of a modicum of self-awareness! What was that old movie? " It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world". Yes, I think that sums it up, 'LB', but you have yet to discover it!
@David Duff
[Poe's Law](http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law).
113 Dave,
It's fun when it has to be explained. Whoops, must stop being so arrogant!
112 David,
Have a look at [Denial Depot](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/). I hope you "get" it. :)
David and Betula, I have two questions for you.
If you are successful in considering them you should find your internet utterings will greatly improve in quality.
1/ How were CFC emissions controlled and reduced?
2/ Does the successful reduction of CFC emissions somehow disprove the harm that CFCs do to the Earth's atmosphere?
after having said
Describes it all, really...
LB, digging a deeper hole, states...
"Ten days is an infinitely longer time than either of you has lived in the land of reason."
I would like to direct everyone back to my comment @107 to observe what LB's land of reason looks like.
Vince,
Before you go off on a tangent, please explain which "internet utterings" you are referring to:
1. Anarchy @94 sitting at home in Bristol playing Denialist Bingo in the midst of the worst winter storm in 81 years.
2. Jimmy Nightingale @92 inviting people to a forum to watch Ian Fry cry about the coming destruction of his country, which happens to not be his country.
3. LB @104 proving Ian Fry lived in Tuvalo by providing us with a link about a 10 day visit.
4. David providing quote sources to zoot at 106. Sources zoot implied didn't exist.... still no response from zoot et al.
5. LB @78 babbling about spherical and flat earth comparisons because she didn't read #72
6. Dr. Harry calling Ken Trenberth a dickhead @45
7. More examples of Dr. Harry's swearfest @55
8. Jade @100 claiming someone said something they didn't say.
9. Me asking you to explain which utterings you're talking about.
Re #120
It's Tuvalu.
According to his bio on the ANU website:
http://law.anu.edu.au/CCLP/staff.asp
http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/content/author/Fry
Fry has been employed by the Government of Tuvalu for over ten years. If he is employed as a spokesperson for a country in an international forum, in this case the chief climate negotiator, then the use of "my country" is entirely appropriate. To try and make a big deal out of such a non-issue merely shows the paucity of your argument.
By the way Betula, you wouldn't happen to be a sock puppet for Samantha Maiden (a journo for the Oz)?
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/17/the-oz-how-low-can-you-go/
Jimmy,
It was a typo, get over yourself. Did you see my comment @96?
So, Mr. Fry gets paid to attempt to bring in the big bucks for his country, that's not his country, by turning on the water works and you're all touched. Wake up.
Here's your alarm clock, though I suspect you're a heavy sleeper...
In one breath we hear this:
"Tuvalu's government says that, if global warming causes seas to rise"
Yes Jimmy, That's "if". In the nexy breath we hear this...
"Climate change is real to us. It's happening now"
Then, without a chance to hit the snooze button, this pops up...
"Tuvalu is one of several nations that have come to Copenhagen to demand money from richer countries, including the USA, to help cope with the effects of global warming."
You start to wake up...
"There is debate among academics as to whether Tuvalu's problems stem from global warming or other factors such as overpopulation. Some are also concerned that funds could be misappropriated because of corruption in poor countries."
Academics? How can denialists be academics? You start to snooze again...
"Mataio said there is "no doubt" that Tuvalu is already feeling the effects of global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels."
Just when you go back to sleep, the alarm goes off again...
"However, a study released in May by EACH-FOR, a consortium of researchers supported by the European Commission, concluded that more research is still needed to determine the impact of global warming on Tuvalu."
FINALLY YOU'RE AWAKE! Oh no wait, you're sleep walking...
"Gemenne said that, despite his doubts, Tuvalu still deserves help to protect it from rising seas."
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2009-12-08-climat…
I hate to be pedantic Betula @119, but David Duff did not provide sources at 106. He linked to a blog post which linked to an article in Reason Magazine.
Had he written @62
or
he would have been citing sources.
As it is, I shall cheerfully retract my accusation of fraud. Not too sure what et al wants to do.
Poe's Law. Ah, you mean irony. Yes, it is tricky to pull off particularly when it is aimed at, er, po-faced, humourless fanatics born with stunted funny bones!
(For the educationally afflicted, one of these '!' usually indicates the presence of irony. For the children, one of those juvenile 'smiley faces' is required.)
Could someone pass David Duff his medication. And an English punctuation text that describes the uses of an irony exclamation mark...
Duff, your appearance of being a Poe has nothing to do with your attempts at humour, and a lot to do with your mangling of climate science. Of course, if the difference is not obvious to you, that is your issue, not anyone else's.
Note: the incorrect answer to these questions is "Brrr! It's cold today!"
"an English punctuation text"
Will Fowler do?
"[A sentence] may & sometimes must be so [exclamation] marked to convey that the tone is not merely what would be natural to the words themselves, but is that suitable to scornful quotation, to the unexpected, the amusing . . ."
Next!
John @124
I'm still waiting for my answer from vince @119.
In the meantime, could you please show me where my "Brrr! It's cold today!" response is to Vinces question?
Before you wipe the confused look off of your face, I have another question for you...
Can you tell me how many polar bears have died as a result of AGW?
While John is trying to come up with a typical, I claimed "Al Gore is fat" response, I have a general question:
Could someone show me where I have mentioned CFCs on this site?
http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav
It seems that both my indication of the inappropriateness of David Duff's use of the word "[usually](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-21…)", and my own demonstration of irony, sailed completely over Duff's head.
Note to self: when dealing with David Duff, "one of those juvenile 'smiley faces' is required"...
Bernard, in the immortal words of Baldrick, you are cleverer than a clever thing! Far too clever for me to see, despite reading, re-reading, re-re-reading your comment, any mention, hint, nudge, gesture, highlight, emphasis and - well, anything, really, to indicate that you had a gripe concerning my use of the word "usually", as opposed to an implied criticism of my proposition that an exclamation mark can indicate irony by the writer. Of course, I enjoyed your minor, well, titchy, really, witticism concerning my medication but - and how can I break this to you gently - I have heard it before - several times - lots of times - seems like forever - zzzzz . . .
CO2 is a food for trees, well unless it is a subalpine forest and the climate is warmer:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107183136.htm
I would live to visit Sydney to see the fireworks one year. That would be incredible! I would bring the whole John R. Carlisle family for that trip without a doubt.
John R. Carlisle
@ 128. Bernard J - perhaps David Duff is American? It is very rare that you find an American that understands irony. Though Alanis Morissette proved Canadians can struggle with it as well.
Though the exclamation mark comment is pure comedy gold. Thank you for making me laugh out loud on this far too warm morning.
A
As usual, [David Duff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-21…) is unusually clever!
50% on the Wit~O~Meter.
133 Luminous,
I can't get enough of David's shining wit! ;)
Can you tell me how many polar bears have died as a result of AGW?
15.
Now answer the question. For me.
I ask John...
"Can you tell me how many polar bears have died as a result of AGW?"
His answer: 15
John, could provide the peer reviewed paper that provides this number, along with a link showing a consensus to back it up.....much appreciated.
John Carlisle @131..
Would you fly commercial or private?
Have you heard about the problem with ice cores?
[Warning: May Contain Creationism]
http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/08/the-problem-with-ic…
Post #138 - sigh! - comprehensively debunked [here](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html).
Next!
"John, could provide the peer reviewed paper that provides this number, along with a link showing a consensus to back it up.....much appreciated."
No thanks.
Anyway, kindly answer the question and stop stalling. Be the bigger person here.
BTW the questions are:
David and Betula, I have two questions for you. If you are successful in considering them you should find your internet utterings will greatly improve in quality.
1/ How were CFC emissions controlled and reduced?
2/ Does the successful reduction of CFC emissions somehow disprove the harm that CFCs do to the Earth's atmosphere?
I look forward to another long comment of obfuscation and pointless attempts to change the topic and pull it back to a denialist talking point you feel safe with.
Every troll has a weak point, and Marco, Vince and others have found Betula's and David's. Betula has called the CFC questions "going off on a tangent" which is a sure sign that the posters here have hit the target. Every time Betula and David raise their head here, hammer them with the questions about CFCs. Of course, being paranoid narcissists, they can never respond to sharp embarrassing questions about the real world, so the likely result is that these trolls will stay away, in which case, we can claim a victory.
Help!
As an editor, I can assure you that David Duff is talking compete bollocks and has a writing style that's a vanity publisher's dream.
I felt this, er, conversation had come to a natural end some time ago but Anthony provokes me.
First, I am mightily relieved to be told that I am "talking complete bollocks. Anything less than 'complete' would be simply too, too, humiliating.
Second, what is a 'vanity publisher'?
Incidentally, Anthony, I have just had a quick look at your site which I recommend heartily and will be passing on to the little 'Memsahib' and various friends who are into cooking. Me? I prefer to remain at the consuming end of the food chain!
The conversation has not ended. You have been asked a question about CFCs, and you continue to find excuses not to answer it. As long as you avoid confronting the question, you will forever be branded a coward.
What's the matter, David? Chicken?
What is a "CFC"?
David, you are a lazy young rascal and you will write out 100 times "I must do my research properly".
Nice one, 'Zoot', but not quite a bull's-eye. I have absolutely no interest in, or knowledge of, CFCs. I never made any claim concerning them and I damned if I'm going to waste my time scrabbling about in Google - at my age time is precious!
However, if 'Silkworm' comes back full of righteous indignation then I have a question waiting for her:
what is galactic cosmic ray modulation? Well, it's as relevant as her question to me.
@David:
> However, if 'Silkworm' comes back full of righteous indignation then I have a question waiting for her: what is galactic cosmic ray modulation? Well, it's as relevant as her question to me.
No - it was *you* that asked "What is a "CFC"". Mirroring your own question in this way is a little bizarre.
The CFC question you were actually asked is way up at 116 (by Vince) and context is provided at 88 (by Marco).
The point is you made claims as to the subsequent (laughable) failure of earlier predictions. The strength of your position is addressed by analogy with the control of CFC emissions - ie. we made predictions, but we averted seeing the full outcome of those predictions by taking action.
So, please answer the (highly relevant) questions you were actually asked rather than inventing tangential questions, refusing to answer those, and then using that as an excuse for more diversionary tactics.
Feel free to answer "I don't know" by the way - but be aware that this somewhat dampens the credibility of your earlier claims regarding incompetent predictions.
Oh good Lord, you don't mean that tired, old, unprovable theory about CFCs causing a hole in the ozone layer and thus threatening the end of the world, despite no-one knowing for sure that the hole hasn't been there for ages and the actual amount of chlorine in man-made CFCs being miniscule, to say nothing of it being enormously heavy at the atomic level and thus finding it diffcult to get high enough in the atmosphere to reach the ozone layer, and so tremendously dangerous are they that under Kyoto rules the EU is actually encouraging the Chinese to make more of the stuff - you mean those CFCs? I thought you meant Carols for Christmas, I don't know anything about them!
@David Duff
> I don't know anything about them!
Clearly, given your inability to answer a direct question onn the subject without resorting to a little Gish gallop.
Vince @116...
I don't ever recall discussing CFC's so I'm not sure why you would be asking me a question about them.
May I suggest you end your obsession by directing all further questions to Markus Rex...
http://reason.com/blog/2007/09/27/ozone-hole-science-revisited
Thanks.
Betula, your ignorance of CFCs is precisely the reason I suggested you inform yourself about them as what you learn will be highly relevant to the quality of what you post here.
So, will you read up on CFCs andand Montreal protocol?
I am flattered that you give me such spiritual authority, David, but I decline.
Your "Gish gallop" @ 150 is named after Duane Gish, a Christian charlatan of the highest order. I actually heard Gish speak to the Evangelical Union at Sydney University in the 70s. He was the campus Christians' biggest catch, to use one of their own fishing metaphors. I stood at the back of the auditorium which was full of Christians and I may have been the only skeptic there.
Even back then Gish had perfected his "gallop." It is an illegitimate debating technique that strings together fabricated facts and figures that never change from lecture to lecture. Each "fact" is easily refuted, but Gish is a narcissist who cannot admit any error in his thinking, and so he repeats his mistakes over and over, and he cannot be stopped. His followers are equally as stupid as he.
The Gish gallop is very pertinent to the global warming "debate." Plimer debated Gish at the University of Newcastle in 1988, and Plimer went on to become a darling of the global warming deniers, ironically borrowing Gish's gallop as one of his own debating techniques. Plimer was exposed a few weeks ago on the ABC as a fraud.
Now we find many global warming deniers using Gish gallops against the science of global warming. Some of these deniers are creationists who are using the same illegitimate debating techniques as their master, Duane Gish, or they are disciples of Plimer, still using the discredited techniques of their former spiritual opponents, the creationists, and still stringing together fabricated facts and figures about global warming.
What, can this be true?
[David Duff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-21…) and [Betula](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-21…) believe that the CFC/ozone relationship is another scientific 'fraud' or beating-up?
Apparently they do not keep up with the [state of the science](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5928/781) regarding ozone depletion.
Ouch!
And so it is with most science - extraordinary claims are generally left wanting after closer scrutiny. Interestingly, in the middle of last year [RealClimate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/science-at-the-bl…) mentioned this phenomenon of shooting from the hip. It's a shame that the science denialists here don't at least keep up with a good summary, such as that blog, for lay people, if they can't be arsed to actually read the primary literature of the science that they are so willing to disparage, and to so do without the bona fides of appropriate education or experience.
I'm sure there are many words for that type of behaviour...
Gosh, all these Chinese names, have you noticed how they all look like each other?! Just for a moment I thought Bernard, up above, was referring to this Chinese paper that says global warming is not caused by CO2 but by CFCs. (What's the Chinese for 'Oh, bloody hell, make up your minds!'?)
http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012
I can't speak for my new best friend, Betula, but I never accused anyone of scientific fraud. All I have ever expressed is doubts because even those who think the globe is warming cannot seem to agree on why - as I have just demonstrated.
And as for 'Realclimate', they should be sued under the Trade Descriptions Act! If I'd tried selling my old bits of 'shrapnel' (I was once a second-hand car dealer) along the same lines as they try and sell global warming, oops, sorry, global change, I'd have been up in front of the magistrate - sharpish.
Incidentally, can I just say how much, by and large, I have enjoyed this conversation with no-one getting really ratty. Such a change!
Bernard J. @155
Betula believes "that the CFC/ozone relationship is another scientific 'fraud' or beating-up?"
That's a great claim Bernard. Care to back it up?
@Betula
How about that you claimed total ignorance of CFCs while also providing a link that can only be interpreted as attempting to cast doubt on the strength of the CFC/Ozone relationship, by the author of a clearly balanced and fair-minded book entitled "Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse".
So, you know nothing about CFCs but believe the science to be in some way wrong, questionable or overstated?
@David Duff
> I never accused anyone of scientific fraud.
Really? So precisely what did you mean with this crack:
> 'self organise' all that peer-reviewed stuff
Pop quiz - is an implication of wrongful manipulation of the peer-review process an accusation of scientific fraud?
> I was once a second-hand car dealer
Ahh, I see so clearly now...
DAVE...
You're another one. Are you really that clueless or are you just playing the part of being you?
I challenge you (still waiting for Bernard), to provide the link where I claimed to be clueless about CFC'c...
In addition, if you cared to read the link I sent you, you would have noticed the Author states the following:
"By the way, for anyone who cares about my own take on the ozone hole/CFC issue":
"Despite a great deal of continuing scientific uncertainty, it appears that CFCs do contribute to the creation of the Antarctic ozone hole and perhaps to a tiny amount of global ozone depletion."
Are you really that pathetic Dave?
So Dave, if you, Bernard and Vince have the urge to discuss CFC's with sinners who are asking questions about science, may I suggest you go back to my link and join the comments section.
I feel it would be more cleansing for you, rather than stay here and insinuate you know my level of knowledge about a subject, based on something I didn't say,regarding a topic I didn't bring up.
Here...go attack these people. I don't know who they are or if they have an agenda, but I do know you can argue with them...
1. "Neil Harris, the scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge."
2. "Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany."
3. "John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany."
Finally, since I said "I don't ever recall discussing CFC's", I'm still a little baffled how the subject came to me in the first place.
Can I bring up the next subject?
Could you please explain to me the drawbacks, if any, of using hybridoma derived monoclonal antibodies to determine the electrophoretic mobility of JEV proteins?
Well, they did organise it themselves, and they admitted it - inadvertently. Such fun, haven't laughed like that in years.
[Betula](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-22…) asks
Certainly.
At [#152](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-21…) you said:
and in so doing provided a link to a piece by an author who claims:
This same author also quotes himself as having previously said:
So here you have linked to a piece by a person who imputes a beating-up of the CFC/ozone relationship. And this was my point: [David Duff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-21…) essentially claims the CFC/ozone relationship to be a fraud because it is a:
and [you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-21…), by your choice of link, impute at the least, that it is a scientific beating-up.
That is my claim, and it is backed up by your own words and by David Duff's.
Betula whines:
Matey, you need to curb your impatience - and you need to learn that the world is bigger than the US, and that Australia is more than half a day ahead of the States, and that Australians are sleeping for much of the time that USAdians are at their computers.
Oh, and your sentence structure is dodgy, because I never said that you were "clueless about CFC'c [sic]", and your comment imputes that I did.
To what end Betula? You have already been pointed to sources that indicate that the Rex et al claims were soundly refuted: why should we waste time flogging that dead horse?
As I said previously, you are not keeping up with the state of the scientific understanding. Interestingly, this fact itself imputes the claim apparently made by another, and which so aggrieved you, of your "cluelessness".
By all means bring this subject up. I spend 5 years making and culturing hybridomas and using their supernatants for western blotting and for ELISAs, so I will happily tell you about their limitations.
Your suggestion is merely a ploy though to direct the discussion according to your rules, or to simply appear to be clever, so I doubt that anyone will actually heed your irrelevant-to-the-thread request.
...spend... spent...
You're wrong Bernard, it doesn't "appear to be clever" - I'm sure all of us know that those who suddenly start spouting out-of-context non-sequiturs cloaked in an impenetrable jargon are anything *but* clever - they are basically running and hiding to protect their ignorance.
Betula - educate yourself about the events leading up to the Montreal Protocol and its effects. Those historical facts amply prove you wrong in your silly assertions and predictions regarding CO2.
Bernard,
Finally, someone picked up the point I was making and reemphasized it.
You were the only one who noticed the purpose of my sarcastic follow up to this statement:
"I don't ever recall discussing CFC's", I'm still a little baffled how the subject came to me in the first place"
You astutely picked up on the point that my sarcasm was in response to the most likely reason CFC's were introduced into the discussion in the first place.
You said it perfectly, so I will now direct your comment @163 to Dave @116...
"Your suggestion is merely a ploy though to direct the discussion according to your rules."
Thanks Bernard.
On another note, I was a little disappointed in your attempt to back up your comment that I believe "the CFC/ozone relationship is another scientific 'fraud' or beating-up?"
I'll admit, you did manage to bring to light your ability and eagerness to stretch your imagination in order to insinuate what others believe...
I'll give you that.
Betula, your credibility did indeed suffer yet another blow when, in the below post, you suggested we refer to denialist crackpottery for information about CFCs:
--------
Vince @116...
I don't ever recall discussing CFC's so I'm not sure why you would be asking me a question about them.
May I suggest you end your obsession by directing all further questions to Markus Rex...
http://reason.com/blog/2007/09/27/ozone-hole-science-revisited
Thanks.
Posted by: Betula | January 11, 2010 12:35 PM
--------
This issued forth from one of Betula's orifices:
SO, in a nutshell, you are saying that just because you linked to to a site to which we should "direct... all further questions", doesn't mean that you actually concur with the content of that site, or with the author's opinions?!
You have dry rot if you think that it requires any stretch of the imagination to make the inference that you concur with the link you provided, and indeed one should expect that most people will make exactly such an assumption, absent any normal indicator of irony. You may post hoc claim irony as a defence, but if that were the case your exercising of irony leaves a lot to be desired.
Of course, it might simply be that because you had your dignity chipped to sawdust on the matter of the link that you provided, compared with the reality of CFC impact upon ozone, you are running from your previous postings.
Well, run little man, run.
You can run all you want to, but you can't hide from the record of what you have said. Posting your protestations might make you feel better, but as Vince [points out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/happy_new_year_1.php#comment-22…), your reputation here is blighted worse than a potato infected with phytophthora.