By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
More like this
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request Flying Binghi has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that FB can post to, and all replies to any comment to FB should go here.
I can't move comments, so I will delete comments that do not follow these rules.
This got mentioned in early 2014 at Planet3.0. To be fair to mt, he wasn't really pushing the video itself, just using it to illustrate his point (which I think is uncertainty-is-not-your-friend; I agree with that), though he did call it "excellent". But since, as I said in the comments there I don…
Over at Cosmic Variance, Sean is pondering comment policies:
So the question is: how can the comment sections be better? To decode this for our more innocent readers: how can we increase the signal-to-noise ratio? Increasing the signal is one obvious way, but that's hard. The real question that I'…
Wow,
Back in #980 you questioned my claim that some of the tempereature records were "dodgy". Tell me, if I show you evidence of a measurement station (dammit, what do they call those white-painted oojamaflooks with the louvres?), will you have second thoughts about the veracity of the hockey stick and its fellow travellers?
Interesting comment by a guy called Roger Carr on Watts Up With That:
"There is more confirmation daily that this never was about âclimate changeâ or science (although many of both good and ill will even now believe it was and is), but was, and again is, about power; about money; about control â and perhaps even bitterness (the loserâs revenge?).
The major difficulty I see in defeating this whole juggernaut is the convincing of good people in positions of power that⦠that theyâve been had (to use shorthand).
These people of goodwill have to be firstly shown they have been misled; then shown they have the support of the people in standing up for truth â because that is not always easy for politician or scientist or policymaker."
When the people wake up we're gonna look on you deceitful Watermelons like something to be scraped off a boot.
Read more at : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/20/quote-of-the-week-zzzzz/#more-251…
Brent writes:
>*Interesting comment by a guy...*
More anti science from the those [shielding themselves](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/moncktons_testimony_to_congres_…).
Brent said:
Seems to me that the people and politicians have been misled by charlatans such as Mr. Monckton and others not by scientists as you are inferring.
You are pathetic in your support for dishonest shysters such as Monckton et al.
Brent brents: "When the people wake up..."
People have indeed woken up - that's why the IPCC was formed. That a dinosaur US political party with its ageing hacks, teabagging party thugs, tame TV weather presenters and other irrelevant allies doesn't like the results is neither here nor there - they'll go the way of the once all-powerful Catholic Church. You can't pervert science and win, no matter what your Bishy and his ilk may try to spin with words (but never, ever any actual science).
You do seem to have a penchant for the anthropomorphic though Brent so regarding this gem from you regarding the Aletsch glacier "it comes and it goes", let me put it this way.
Imagine you're a stupid, cud-chewing cow in a field near an airport. As you ruminate there all day, you see the planes landing and taking off all day long. "They come and they go", you may well think after a while; a rhythm as natural and continuous as the sun rising and having your nipples clamped.
Of course we humans, being somewhat aware of a thing or two, know that this is nonsense. The planes take off as a result of a huge logisitical chain of events from assembling a critical mass of passengers, to supplying enough fuel, to the satisfactory completion of engineering requirements, the airport having an available movement slot and air traffic control having the capacity to handle the flight etc. etc.. Should one of those conditions not be met, a plane doesn't get to go - or of course come back.
Or some outside force like an ash cloud intervenes and none of the planes get to come or go.
So it is with what you term 'natural cycles' which don't actually 'come and go' like some divine pendulum swinging back and forth but because of forcings which act rather like Newton's First Law. If a state of being changes, it will continue like so until some other force changes it again, and so on. This is what scientists do - they apply the scientific method to find out why things happen the way they do and what the results of that are. Study of climate is no different to any other branch of science.
You on the other hand are quite happy to stare vacantly at the sky, farting methane and imagine things ... just come and go.
> Does any one of you slippery neoapocalypticist thermageddon merchants have the honesty to confront the question of oscillation,...
It's hard to take seriously someone who calls people dishonest adjectives, impugns their honesty without evidence, and presumes falsehoods about their position and the science (even as he relentlessly promotes dishonest "scientific" claims of his own that he has been repeatedly corrected on).
Try looking at the log in your own eye first, Brent. Then try to formulate a question that isn't loaded with false assumptions.
And once you've done that go back and *honestly* try to understand the science, which has **already** dealt with "...the question of oscillation...", despite your posturing naive goldfish stylings with regard to the question.
And **then** you can come back and discuss what people think about "oscillations" and why.
>*When the people wake up we're gonna look on you deceitful Watermelons like something to be scraped off a boot.*
Alert poeple adhering to evidence are awake. I wonder how many see you as the bootscraping you project.
Bent:
You're a pathological liar Brent.
I usually avoid this thread like the plague, but my attention was drawn to the cropping up of the Cherry Blossom Festival data.
[Brent claims](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2796069) that:
Hmmm⦠Youâve made a few big mistakes in arriving at your conclusion, dude.
As I have stated several gives with respect to these data, they are regional - they pertain to the area around Kyoto, and not to the planet, and hence any inference about the actual size of the planetary temperature anomaly needs to be done with a calibration of Kyoto temperatures to global temperatures. You have not done this.
The cherry blossom data do however support the shape of the trajectories described by other climatology hockey sticks, and they refute the McShane and Wyner version. The graphs in my [updated post on the McShane and Wyner thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and…) illustrate this well.
Further, you have given no evidentiary support for your claim that the rate of contemporary temperature increase, over the span of time that such has been increasing, and from the relative starting point of the temperature increase, is actually comparable to historic upturnings. Nor do you include a relative comparison of the magnitudes of the various positive and negative forcings that operate(d) during each of the increases â doing so will tell a very different story to your assumption that the increase is random, and uncoupled to particular forcings.
Brent, youâre an idiot. Even Tim Curtin attempts to incorporate data into his analyses, even if he buggers it up in the process. You simply take a bit here, and a bit there, without context, in order to manufacture a facade of thin credibility to support your own ideological world-view.
Personally, I think that itâs a great pity that you get so much oxygen here. Iâm all for leaving you to talk to yourself on this thread â you have nothing sensible to say, so itâd just save others a few minutes of their time if they didnât post.
If it werenât for the simplicity of demonstrating your bogus use of data in this small example, Iâd not have bothered to comment here myself.
> Tell me, if I show you evidence of a measurement station...will you have second thoughts about the veracity of the hockey stick and its fellow travellers?
Clueless Brent - forever mistaking the local for the global. It's just about his only pseudo-scientific party trick, and he keeps repeating it with a painted-on clown grin in the forlorn hope that maybe *this* time we'll find it convincing.
> Brent, youâre an idiot.
Fair point.
Seems like we've hit a nerve with Bent here...
> Back in #980 you questioned my claim that some of the tempereature records were "dodgy"
No, I stated categorically you have never given any proof the records were dodgy.
? Tell me, if I show you evidence of a measurement station (dammit, what do they call those white-painted oojamaflooks with the louvres?),
Stephenson screens, you idiot.
> will you have second thoughts about the veracity of the hockey stick
Uh, all you've said you'll do is show me a stephenson screen that contains a thermometer.
This is no proof that the records are dodgy, you gypsy lying bastard.
so....
wackywow thinks brent is a pom,
and wackywow thinks sunspot is a yank,
sunspot thinks wackywow is ian fry !!
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/sf0
someone throw him a pair of concrete boots and a snorkel
Looks like I hit a nerve with spots too.
what a 'merkin that kid is...
Wow, is this true? Are you Ian Fry? (Sunspot's link in #1012)
Can we all agree that Ian Fry is the patron saint of wacky heart-on-sleeve cobblers-talking green hystericals?
"I woke up this morning crying, and that's not easy for a grown man to admit", the man says as the waves lap around his ankles. He's a "career environmentalist who once worked as a Greenpeace political liaison officer". Drives a gas-guzzling Yashimoto Four Wheel Drive Wankmobile.
This is so reminiscent of soviet commisars gabbing on about "the people" and "sacrifice" whilst grabbing armfuls of luvverly western clobber in the shops reserved for party apparatchiks.
The kind of hypocrisy we see in you Deltoid Watermelons is taken to a higher plane by this Fry slimeball. While you can, get on that NGO gravy train quickly boys: it's about to derail.
These vacancies are just the tip of the iceberg:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about/jobs/
Hands up those with (like Mr. Fry) aircon in their cars and houses. (It's.... gone.... so.... quiet. We can barely hear the sound of slimy sourpusses slithering away.)
Awwww, the two kids nobody likes are starting a double-act.
Isn't that cuuuute....
Pity they can't manage an entire thought between them. And Bent is especially confused, asking me what spots thinks!
I'm smart, but not smart enough to read that mind, simple though it is.
Looks like Brenty's reverting to his normal less than zero intellectual contribution style ... again.
There can be few public humiliations worse than having to plagiarise insults from Mad Monckton the hereditary has-been, science charlatan, literal liar and pop-eyed pillock.
Brent and sunspot are not just stupid and liars, but show every symptom of being pathological liars. They are incapable of distinguishing truth from lies.
There is no sense in trying to engage them in rational discussion. Instead they are deserving only of our concern for their mental stability.
Poor dears.
And yet, dear Lumie, you persist!
May we continue the Dodgy Data discussion? I asked Wow in #1000 if, in the event that some Stephenson screens are âcrying Wolf!â â I mean reporting temperatures a degree or so higher than the untainted surroundings â I mean UHI â would he have doubts about Hocketstickworld.
Wow replied (in #1011) (I use the name Wow, but I figure that heâs ashamed to reveal his real name, and maybe itâs - boo hoo â Ian Fry) that I hadnât presented any evidence. (Or as Bernard J would say, âevidentiary substantiationtudeâ)
Well, Wow, if thatâs your real name, howâs this:
http://www.geography.uc.edu/~kenhinke/uhi/HinkelEA-IJOC-03.pdf
In short: The measurements on which a few lousy tenths of a degree temperature rise are based depend on instruments situated in the airflow of extractor fans of Chinese takeaways in the arctic. We're worried about wokheat.
âUHIâ stands for Urban Heat-Island Effect.
So can we agree that the dodgy graphs are a symptom of poor instrumentation practice, and the coming-and-going of the weather has always been happening?
If we can take these small steps we can dismiss all this global warming tripe and go down the pub for a few jars.
At risk of labouring the point: Wow, if UHI makes it clear that there is no global warming, will you quit The Church of Global Warming?
Welcome back to Climate 101 in which the visiting "sceptic" will complain about adjusted (read:fixed, fudged, false) GISS temperatures because obviously climate scientists are completely unaware of UHI.
Or was it only the raw data they trusted? I really can't keep up with septic amateur demands when they're in Galileo mode.
Yes, Chek, wouldn't we all feel stupid if - ha ha - this whole Christmas tree of Global Roasting Trend were down to a (yes, I know, absurd!) few badly-positioned thermometers.
In the automotive industry we have a discipline called MSA: Measurement Systems Analysis. We need to be sure that a gauge will give a meaningful result regardless of when how and who. We analyse "R & R": repeatability and reproducibility.
Seems obvious, eh? But just imagine an aircraft's autopilot controlling the plane when, say, an airspeed sensor was pranged or iced up. Or your car's ABS being perturbed by a faulty braking sensor. Potential disaster, yes?
Could it be that the GISS data is corrupt?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/22/arctic-isolated-versus-urban-stat…
I doubt that you'll understand this, but my point is that faulty measurement can distort our understanding of a machine or a natural system; in the event that the metrology is severely wrong, profoundly inappropriate actions may be the result. Imagine (if your dogma permits) a fridge whose thermostat is out of position. It reads, say, the radiator's temperature rather than the icebox. What, would you say, would be the effect on the fridge's performance?
Brent - get a life.
You're out of your depth and drowning in self inflicted nonsense.
And please - don't ever ask me to believe that you ever professionally analysed anything in your life, ever again.
Well Brent's getting more desperate and less convincing (if that were possible). He's got nothing, and this thread has run its purpose in exposing that.
Sonny, I asked you a specific question on the consequences of faulty instrumentation.
Your slippery slimy evasion speaks volumes. Either contest the point or concede it.
Jakerman: I assume that you also will want to avoid addressing the question of measurement error.
The choice is between blind faith and reasoned debate. With the latter you have the opportunity to explain how the GISS thermometers are to be trusted rather than giving artificially high readings.
Brent said "faulty instrumentation"
And I said, get a life primrose, you're drowning in nonsense.
Let me know when Watts' "thoughts" pass peer review by 16 year olds.
If you disagree, then pray explain how;
1.) The trend is affected,
and:
2.) How a few isolated arctic villages and their even more barren, godforsaken airfields made this year's arctic ice melt hit its third lowest recorded [extent.](http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0134877e4f79970c-800wi), with a day or two still to play for.
Don't worry, I'm not really expecting any coherent answer from the Klueless Koncession Kid.
Shorter Brent:
*Look at me, look at me!*
Brent, with hundreds of posts you are going no where. Perhaps in another life you might educate your self better if you stock response was more than empty abuse.
So too little too late buddy to be asking questions to keep the attention going.
We know that you are immune to evidence and employ abuse and ad hom in its place when you get cornered by evidence.
GISS thermometers obey the laws of physics. They measure change, and they are cross referenced to find error, and to correct artificial change such as change in housing, location, technology etc, UHI. And they use methods that are tried and tested, published and scrutinized.
Further more they are comparable to satellite measurements and to other temperature indexes. And their difference are explained by the ground warming faster than the TLT and GISS better coverage of the rapidly warming artic.
Brent, I doubt this evidence will sway you in the slightest, because of what you have demonstrated about your approach in the many hundreds of your posts. So your view doesn't matter.
Hey Brenty, as I have a suspicion that you may not be with us much longer, I had an idea I'd like to run past you.
As we know all too well, you and your fellow cranks are apparently completely convinced that the Great Global Warming Scam is all the result of faulty science and left wing politics. Which is all very well, but is way too easy for a collection of bored right wing misanthropes with nothing but ever more dyspeptic views on the world and death to look forwatd to. What you need is a challenge with some excitement.
So I propose that you and your credulous mates form a society pledging to cover any costs (before insurance companies step in) arising from the extreme weather events predicted due to AGW which you and your cohorts are fully convinced isn't happening and therefore nor can be any consequences thereof.
We could put say Monckton, Watts, you and the Pielke's down to cover say the first $10 million of any once in a thousand year (or rarer) disaster events which happen either globally or on your own home country turf. Put your real money where your mouth is - after all it's not really happening.
We could call it the Sceptics Reimbursement for Extreme Weather Events Defence - or ScREWED for short. After all, you often remark how think it's a great idea to stand up for your convictions in a practical sense.
Funny how Bent puts all of his faith in the CET data and scorns the scientifically rigorous GISS data.
I have three questions for you Bent:
1. Do you know when thermometers were invented? (hint: they were called thermoscopes at first)
2. Do you know when "degrees" (Centigrade and Fahrenheit) were invented?
3. Do you know when the Stevenson Shelter was invented so that reproducible temperatures could be measured?
Once you have the answers plot the dates on the CET graphs and think about how meaningful the early data may be.
So you put your faith in such data but refuse to accept numerous data sets which all show the same thing. There is no contradiction between the various temperature graphs including surface measurements and satellite measurements.
How does this support your view that the recent rise in temperatures is due to UHI effects? Can you show us the large cities in the Arctic where temperatures are increasing the fastest, or show us the cities in space which are warming the troposphere?
You are pathetic.
Brent,
>"...wouldn't we all feel stupid if - ha ha - this whole Christmas tree of Global Roasting Trend were down to a (yes, I know, absurd!) few badly-positioned thermometers?"
I agree, totally absurd. Badly positioned thermometers have no bearing on other indicators of global warming like [snow extent](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001.../2000GL012556.shtml), snow season [duration](http://nsidc.org/sotc/snow_extent.html), and ocean [heat content](http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Papers/Wills_2004.pdf). You have been debating Bernard on cherry blossoms, and yet you are mentally incapable (or unwilling) to realise that cherry blossoms only flower early if it is ACTUALLY warming.
It speaks volumes that you are too daft, or wilfully deceitful, to realise this.
chek,
>"So I propose that you and your credulous mates form a society pledging to cover any costs (before insurance companies step in) arising from the extreme weather events predicted due to AGW..."
Even better, Brent, given the depth of your conviction, why not start up a new insurance company to insure specifically against AGW events? It should be a slam-dunk...
[MFS](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2813467), pitty the poor policy holders.
> ...wouldn't we all feel stupid if ... this whole ... Trend were down to a ... few badly-positioned thermometers?
Shorter Brent: *I'm reduced to fantasising facts not in evidence in order to support my religious beliefs - [just like the last time](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2809382)*.
Strangely enough, Watts spent huge amounts of time and other people's effort based on this very premise - and when his results were analysed by scientists they showed that - if anything - what he classed as badly sited weather stations added a slight **cooling bias** to the **trend**. (Yes, sadly one needs to remind both Watts and Brent that it's the **trend**, not the *absolute values* that we're interested in here. But then we can't *all* be competent at basic logic.)
Watts and his co-believers **should** probably feel stupid though - not about the cooling bias, which they couldn't know until the data was collected, and which is small - but about the assumption that a fraction of the thermometers providing coverage for a small fraction of the land mass which is itself a small fraction of the global surface would have a big enough impact to offset the magnitude of the observed warming trend. A back of the envelope calculation before they started would have shown how unlikely they were to find results that indicated a significant error in *global* trends. (But then as Brent demonstrates, some "skeptics" have a severe "my local represents global" pathology...)
You can at least thank Watts for asking the question whose answer suggests that actual warming may even be proceeding a *little faster* than the official record.
I have no doubt Brent has been informed of all of this before. Curious readers might amuse themselves by counting how many times on Deltoid alone...
Shorter Brent #2: I've got fantasy and a complete lack of shame at endlessly repeating other people's debunked claims - so look at me, look at me!
Time to look at something more interesting and intelligent, methinks.
> (But then as Brent demonstrates, some "skeptics" have a severe "my local represents global" pathology...)
But spots things Bent is not UK and Bent considers only the Central England Temperature record to be the One True Word of climate change.
Brent:
> I asked you a specific question on the consequences of faulty instrumentation.
Well, faulty instrumentation would cause that record to be faulty.
a) You've not shown that the record is faulty
b) You've complained when data is removed from the record because it's faulty:
[Russian IEA claims CRU tampered with climate data â cherrypicked warmest stations WuwT](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/16/russian-iea-claims-cru-tampered-w…)
(apologies for a wtf link there, but Bent loves this guy. You know, REAL man-love love...)
c) You've not shown any proof of a faulty instrument
> With the latter you have the opportunity to explain how the GISS thermometers are to be trusted
You have to prove the assertion that the GISS record is faulty first, Bent.
> rather than giving artificially high readings.
You've yet to show that they are artificially high readings (also note: you didn't think they were faulty when 1938 was the hottest year in the US, did you. you believed the record then...)
> In the automotive industry we have a discipline called MSA: Measurement Systems Analysis.
You are also measuring the same thing again and again, then reaching the conclusion that since the thermometers are reading different temperatures at the same place that they must be reading wrong.
Logic fail. But not unexpected.
And what's this "we" business? You don't work, Bent.
> We need to be sure that a gauge will give a meaningful result regardless of when how and who.
This is called calibration. And thermometers get this. It's quite simple to do: take the thermometer and put it in a pot of water (at about 1 atmosphere) that you cool until it freezes. The thermometer should read, as the water starts freezing, close to 0C. Then you boil the water and as the water bubbles, the thermometer should read close to 100C.
This is calibration.
It's a thing we do in the real world, Bent. And it's done to thermometers.
> At risk of labouring the point: Wow, if UHI makes it clear that there is no global warming, will you quit The Church of Global Warming?
Yes.
Now at the risk of labouring the point, Bent, if yuo can't show that the UHI is the explanation of all or most of the rise in temperature, will you quit the Church of Global Warming Denial?
> In short: The measurements on which a few lousy tenths of a degree temperature rise are based depend on instruments situated in the airflow of extractor fans of Chinese takeaways in the arctic.
Really? The ONLY temperature measurements are from an instrument outside a chinese takeaway in the Arctic???
Really???
I guess that makes Watts a fantasist since he thinks that there are several hundred thermometers in the USA.
Poor deluded man, you should go set him straight, Bent.
Wow, this is maybe over your head, but the premise we are discussing is that instrumentation errors may bias our assessment of the globe's temperature. I make a straightforward and (I thought) uncontroversial point about the need for unpolluted data; you respond (in #1033) with a good point about the need for calibration. But your point is only partially true: a correctly calibrated instrument in the wrong place gives a false reading (hence our insistence on "measurement systems" in the car industry).
Did you read the WUWT link I posted in #1020? It gives cause for concern, I would say. If I were arguing on your side of the fence I would be keen to ensure that my house is not built on sand. (Ah.... you took literally the thing about the Chinese takeaway extractor fans.... oh, God.)
MFS (1029): Thank you for agreeing that faulty measurement would be problematic. I take your point that other indicators of Global Warming must also be taken into account; but I am trying to focus on this single aspect of the evidence.
But, since you mention the Cherry Blossom data, let's assume that it is a good proxy for local temperature and even that that local area is a good proxy for global. Question: Given the many upticks and downticks, is there not a need to explain the cooling periods, and not just focus on the warming ones?
Suppose we created a new parameter based on the cherry blossom proxy: call them "temperature-shift-decades" or TSDs. Granted, we see between 1530 and 1560 a score of +3. But the previous three decades score -3. Shouldn't we consider them equally significant? Or equally insignificant? My point is about symmetry. Our alarm at rising temperatures in recent decades seems out of proportion to our view of the equal-and-opposite over the past millennium or two. Is this reasonable?
Have another look:
http://i34.tinypic.com/119cvm0.jpg
The cherry blossom tells us that since 1820 it has been getting hotter (by some 2.7C). Wouldn't you agree that the apparent cooling from 1400 to 1540 (c2.4C) is equal-and-opposite?
(Wow-the-literal: you butt out. We don't need you to point out that 2.7 and 2.4 are not quite equal. I imagine your adenoidal falsetto voice whining, "May I point out that swings and roundabouts are two utterly distinct categories of playground equipment".)
Goldfish Brent,
You've been [told already](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2814061):
>You've not shown that the record is faulty
>You've complained when data is removed from the record because it's faulty.
>You've not shown any proof of a faulty instrument.
AND you just tried to dodge the issue that all other pointers suggest that the temperature record is accurate, NOT faulty. AND when the supposedly suspect stations were removed from the temperature record, the warming trend was accentuated, not decreased... You really do not have a leg to stand on and we've gone over this so many times...
>...but I am trying to focus on this single aspect of the evidence.
BUT Brent, you have not provided any evidence, and cherrypicking an aspect that you don't understand, but you think could be dodgy if only you wished it hard enough ain't going to make it so.
> Wow, this is maybe over your head
Highly unlikely you'll manage anything that's over my head.
Inexplicable by any rational mind, yes, but not over my head.
> but the premise we are discussing is that instrumentation errors may bias our assessment of the globe's temperature.
No, instrument errors WILL bias the assessment of the globe temperatures.
What has been failed to be shown is that this has happened.
You see, GENUINE people who actually WORK for their living know about something called "Quality control". It's where you try to remove any errors and fix any problems.
> I make a straightforward and (I thought) uncontroversial point about the need for unpolluted data;
No, what is controversial and COMPLETELY WRONG is the statement that we don't have such a data set.
We do.
GISS is one such dataset, but there are others.
> Did you read the WUWT link I posted in #1020?
Did you read mine?
> It gives cause for concern
No it doesn't. It only means that the other WTF link that I gave is proven self serving drivel. Your link from WTF says that data should be abandoned because it's got problems and my link to WTF shows that when data is abandoned, the VERY SAME PEOPLE complain that this data MUST be used.
What your post gives is the knowledge that the dataset needs quality control.
The only concern is that the QC given is insufficient.
You have not shown this to be the case.
So, have you abandoned your membership of the Global Warming Denialist Church, Bent?
Brent - given your "analysis" skills, have you just swallowed whole what Watt's spews on his disinformation site-of-shame, or have you taken, for most genuinely interested parties, the logical step of actually visiting the [NASA GISS site](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) and examining their methods and data?
I actually already know that you haven't, but thought perhaps a moment of self-realisation might just occur for you when you realised. But it probably won't, what with you being so attached to your moronic preconceptions.
Brent's exhausted all scientific arguments (apparently it's the thermometres now, not the sun) so he's scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Amusingly, as I showed him in a graph above the CET data shows warming, which is probably why he's abandoned that line.
Mark my words, soon he will be accusing climate scientists of falsifying data in order to get money for research grants and around the goldfish bowl we'll go again.
"Exhausted all scientific arguments", John? I don't think so!
The present discussion is on the reliability of data from the small number of arctic/antarctic stations, and their possible effect on the "poles are heating faster than other latitudes" meme, also known as "maybe, citizens, you see no sign of global warming where you live, but in the far-flung places which really matter it's another story!" (Reminds me of Tony Blair and the Iraqi nukes: "If you knew what I know....")
The notion that the sun may have some effect on climate (yes, Jonny, I know that you have guilt pangs when you open a bottle of Coke - hiss - pang - guilt) but even the New Scientist is breaking Unsceptic ranks: "The idea that changes in the sun's activity can influence the climate is making a comeback, after years of scientific vilification, thanks to major advances in our understanding of the atmosphere."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727793.100-the-sun-joins-the-cl…
So you see, Jonno, there's a big fat question mark over whether the world actually is getting warmer by more than a few lousy tenths of a degree, and a decent prospect that these little ups and downs are due to the sun. (Just remind me: How do Warmists explain periods of cooling other than by yelling "liar, moron, imbecile!"?)
More good news: UK Treehugger Jonathan Porritt is saddened that the Thermageddon Disaster Threat is being quietly dropped by UK politicians, writing about Clegg, "the first speech by a Party Leader in the 21st Century that doesnât even mention climate change".
More good news: BBC reporting twice today added 'health warnings'. "The new zillion-pound offshore windfarm.... but critics say it is inefficient, expensive and unreliable" and "Pachauri.... calls for resignation... 2035 predictions... loss of trust..."
Chek (1038): I'll try and find time to study the NASA GISS site as you suggest. I doubt if they make it easy for sceptics to "do a McIntyre", but I'll try. I had a quick look earlier, but the language suggests an ideological starting point: "Cold Snaps Plus Global Warming Do Add Up", "What Global Warming Looks Like"...
The footnote saying "Scientific inquiries about the analysis may be directed to Dr. James E. Hansen" was amusing. Even the Serbs wouldn't have dared write "Human rights queries on Kosovo may be directed to Mr. S. Milosevic"...
> The present discussion is on the reliability of data from the small number of arctic/antarctic station
That WHOOSH you heard was the goalposts being moved by Bent Contracting.
Nope, you stated that the entire record used to assess the climate change currently underway was suspect.
Not "a small number of arctic/antarctic stations".
You still haven't shown that the records are dodgy.
Never have, never will.
> there's a big fat question mark over whether the world actually is getting warmer by more than a few lousy tenths of a degree
Yes, because it could be warming by more than a few terrible tenths of a degree.
But the sun being part of the climate equation was ONLY left out by you alarmist doom-saying denialists.
> and a decent prospect that these little ups and downs are due to the sun
You never read the link, did you, Bent. It doesn't say that. NO MORE THAN 30% of the temperature change can be attributed to the sun's output.
It's only the denialists who deny that the sun has an effect.
> I had a quick look earlier, but the language suggests an ideological starting point
More examples of the nutcase who doesn't understand themselves.
Wow, you say: "Nope, you stated that the entire record used to assess the climate change currently underway was suspect.
Not "a small number of arctic/antarctic stations".
Corblimey, what a semiliterate! The number of arctic stations being so small, the effect of corruption here is amplified. Thereâs a whiff of corruption in the Arctic.
Guys, I know that your capacity for humour is - oh, God, how do I phrase this kindly? â why does Pope Benedict come to mind with a host of unfunny puns? â but you gotta see some of the sheer joy being expressed on WUWT over Pachauriâs discomfiture:
>Dear Penthouse Letters, I never thought this would happen to me. I was a happy-go-lucky engineer in India when I was picked to be...
> Salute this man! Pachauri did what no climate sceptic is able to do. A Trojan Horse that destroyed the IPCC from the inside.
>He should stay so that the demise of the IPPC is hastened. His political statements and support for phoney science will surely cast doubt on any further IPPC pronouncements.
The last thing needed is a âcredibleâ replacement.
>Please donât show that picture. It scares me, so think what it will do for any children who happen to pop by.
The longer Pachauri is in post the better. He brings the IPCC and âclimate scienceâ
>If Yeo, the BBC and other watermelons want Pachauri to go, then I say, Pachauri, stay where you are!
What's that saying about the Devil having all the best tunes?! Even the loathesome Lotharsson must crack a smile at the above!
> The number of arctic stations being so small, the effect of corruption here is amplified.
There's a whiff all right. But the CRU dataset doesn't USE those data points. And they still don't show cooling.
Those straws are running out fast, Bent.
And how does the artic change the non-arctic areas??? By your alchemy of denial?
Bent's riotous display of discomfiture certainly has ME entertained.
Anyone else?
Brent's desperation shows in his "look at me, look at me" cry:
>*citizens, you see no sign of global warming where you live*
[Goldfish or liar](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2795291), which is it Brent?
*The idea that changes in the sun's activity can influence the climate* is fundamental and always accepted and never went away. The editorial is sensationalist (surprise surprise) and sloppy on this point.
The claims that were vilified were truncated charts together with claims that solar forcing was responsible for most of our current warming. That [has not changed](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727793.100-the-sun-joins-the-cl…):
>*So how large are these effects? In its 2007 report, the IPCC stated that changes in solar irradiance accounted for less than 5 per cent of planet warming since 1750. The scale of the effect is unlikely to change. *
So Brents a flagrant disstorter when he says:
>*here's a big fat question mark over whether the world actually is getting warmer by more than a few lousy tenths of a degree, and a decent prospect that these little ups and downs are due to the sun.*
In fact the top down and bottom up effects are "*too weak a forcing"*, they are cyclical, not a trend.
The Cosmic ray forcing is also tiny, and it correlation with warming was spurious and broke down [under scrutiny](http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm).
>*So how large are these effects? In its 2007 report, the IPCC stated that changes in solar irradiance accounted for less than 5 per cent of planet warming since 1750. The scale of the effect is unlikely to change. *
Ian Forrester (1028): The challenge you pose is good. Youâre right: it hadnât occurred to me to compare the start-date of the Hadley CET record with the invention of thermometers! I assumed!
Iâll need a little time here: There is a question mark over the CET data between, say, 1659 and Fahrenheitâs 1709 invention of the alcohol thermometer (and its deployment in Central England at some later date).
Iâve been hanging my hat on this venerable record, but if it is dodgy then Iâll have to admit that then-and-now comparisons are corrupt, at least in the first century or so.
You also say, âSo you put your faith in such data but refuse to accept numerous data sets which all show the same thing. There is no contradictionâ¦â. Well, Ian, I am reading just such contradictions. For instance there is a growing divergence between GISS and MSU, and in #1018 I linked to a bang-to-rights expose of UHI in one arctic location from the International Journal of Climatography.
It will take some effort to summarise the wider grounds for suspecting dodgy data, but if you insist I will put that time in and report back.
No disrespect, Ian, but please say whether you are comfortable that the datasets in the public domain (GISS, Hadcrut, etc) are clean - or even âclean enoughâ â of gremlins such as dodgy sensors, dodgily located sensors, deliberate or unconscious bias in interpretation.
I first heard of Roy Spencer on a TV programme where he said, rather embarrassed, that heâd declared a certain temperature to be rising year on year, only to then discover that the satelliteâs altitude was decreasing, escalating the readings. He said that it was an embarrassing mistake but, once discovered, corrected. As one must. These were the words of a man of integrity.
It is integrity that I seek. In the people, in the systems, and in the conclusions. Pachauri in his multiple well-paid roles, and the Sicilian Mafia with their shiny windmills, have a vested interest in corrupting things as their fingers snake towards your wallet and mine. If men of integrity insist on the truth and the whole truth, weâll chop their greedy fingers off with a meat cleaver before they pocket the proceeds of their rackets.
Brent,
Only a total moron would say that Arctic warming must be due to faulty readings, when the extent and volume of arctic ice continue to plummet to unprecedented levels.
This bring us back to the empirical evidence thread. Help me out guys, how many tens of thousands of natural indicators show warming again?
>It is integrity that I seek.
So the times you fraudulently changed your position, or posted here under different names etc. were just you showing integrity?
Oh that's right, lying is okay for you because you're on the side of truth. Any day now you will be handed evidence that it's all the sun, and boy, will there be egg on our faces!
Oh, and Brent, I don't feel guilt. I am notoriously heartless and mean. I don't even feel bad for you.
> I first heard of Roy Spencer on a TV programme where he said, rather embarrassed, that heâd declared a certain temperature to be rising year on year, only to then discover that the satelliteâs altitude was decreasing, escalating the readings. He said that it was an embarrassing mistake but, once discovered, corrected. As one must. These were the words of a man of integrity.
ROFL!
Integrity? You keep using that word. [I do not think it means what you think it means]((http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-anything-john-…)).
And you have the facts *backwards* - or have been quietly misled by Spencer being selective with the truth. [At least one of his processing errors introduced a false **cooling** bias to the trend](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/):
> In the first Science Express paper, Mears et al produce a new assessment of the MSU 2LT record and show that one of the corrections applied to the UAH MSU 2LT record had been applied incorrectly, significantly underplaying the trend in the data...
Worse still, he had been told he seemed to have a problem but for almost a decade Spencer insisted that his data was correct - and refused to release the raw data for which he was the only source, and which could be used to resolve the question. Sounds like a man of integrity, right?
And he's quite fond of [putting unjustified spin on his papers or claiming unjustified results outside of academic publication](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-gra…) and even [making claims that are demonstrably false](http://www.grist.org/article/the-great-global-warming-blunder-roy-spenc…). Most of his papers claim climate sensitivity is very low but don't stand up to scrutiny - even shorn of the spin - because the analysis leaves out factors that contribute to climate sensitivity. It beggars belief that he is honestly making the same class of mistake over and over again despite being repeatedly schooled on it (but then it beggars belief that Brent does the same here). Or as RC put it:
> Now, thereâs nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing â indeed encouraging â the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.
So Brent, are you really that gullible and stupid, or do you just play it on TV?
Brent, I just read that NS article and it reveals the shocking fact that the sun has a marginal effect on climate. So thanks. That was a big help. Really changed my mind.
"Pachauri in his multiple well-paid roles,..." Yes!
I'd like that IPCC salary, look at all those zeros.
Whoops! There's only zeros. I hereby formally withdraw my application for this position.
Lotharsson (1049): So Christy and Spencer are fiddling the figures are they? There's a company called RSS working the same satellite data. Here's the comparison:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html
You can't get a cigarette paper between the graphs.
In contrast, if you compare GISS (or "Hanson's Warmista Enclave" data with the crosschecked RSS/AUH graph, we see the effects of ideology on data:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png
I generally stay out of Brent's thread because of his extremely myopic views of the world. But to cite anything - ANYTHING - from Milloy's shite web site in defense of an argument takes the cake.
This only shows that Brent will absorb any garbage no matter what its source, that supports his pre-conceived views of science. Exactly why I gave him the opportunity in the first place to learn some basic ecology by suggesting that he read a strong book on the subject aimed at laymen - Fragile Dominion - and he muffed it. Now this. Piling indignity on indignity.
> ...I linked to a bang-to-rights expose of UHI...
Er, you realise that the **existence** of UHI is not disputed - in fact a great deal of scientific investigation has been done - so your use of "bang-to-rights" seems a little...uninformed, if not triumphantly naive?
> ... in one arctic location from the International Journal of Climatography.
Feel free to explain how the current UHI correction methods for the major datasets are suboptimal. You should have no difficulty doing this as there is plenty of literature on the subject. Indeed, you should gain significant scientific credibility - and make an actual contribution to climate science - from having your work published in a reputable journal.
No doubt your paper will reference "the two weather monitoring sites in the area: the National Weather Service (NWS) office near the village, and the Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory, located on the tundra some 7.5 km to the northeast." I'm sure you will be careful to robustly distinguish UHI effects from ocean moderation of temperatures. You would do well to further investigate and constrain the Hinkel et al's concern about the unknown errors introduced by variable snow depth relative to the sensors used in their study. And you should especially analyse the likely contribution of UHI to the meteorological sites given that heat escaping buildings and rising (especially on calm winter days) has the biggest measured effect in Barrow.
And no doubt best of all you will be able to substantiate your claim of "...instruments situated in the airflow of extractor fans of Chinese takeaways in the arctic" - at **both** sites, the one south of the airport and the other one off in the tundra.
Once you've achieved that please reference the paper so that we can see the change in global temperature trends as a result of your improved correction methods.
Alternatively you might admit that you weren't aware that UHI corrections were applied to the relevant data sets...
> For instance there is a growing divergence between GISS and MSU...
Please describe what MSU sensors measure and what the GISS data set measures. Then please reiterate if you still assert that they measure the same thing, or that they should change in lockstep. For bonus points reference the different expectations over land and over sea.
> ...the Sicilian Mafia with their shiny windmills, have a vested interest in corrupting things as their fingers snake towards your wallet and mine.
Yes, they do. But if **you** had any integrity you'd admit that:
(a) they seek to corrupt **anything** that they can make money out of, and I doubt you'll find any readers here who think that kind of corruption should not be stopped, no matter what field it is attempted in.
(b) whether or not they seek to corrupt "windmills" has **zero bearing** on climate science - nor should it have any bearing on policy responses to climate science. It is primarily a matter of appropriate legislation and law enforcement.
(c) "Pachauri in his multiple well-paid roles" is a smear that is inconsistent with the known facts.
When you said "It is integrity I seek" I must admit I burst into laughter. You may well *fool yourself* that you seek it, but you both *demonstrate* and *laud* non-integrity.
> So Christy and Spencer are fiddling the figures are they?
Yes.
You have to when you're using satellite radiance as a proxy for surface temperatures.
Converting the satellite figure into a temperature profile requires a COMPUTER MODEL.
So are you saying that computer models are fine?
I .. think .. I'm ..losing .. the .. will .. to live.
Brenty serves to prove that you can lead an idiot to data, but you can't make him understand them.
Perhaps, as has been suggested, it's about time to pull the plug on this outreach program.
> So Christy and Spencer are fiddling the figures are they?
Nice try at shifting the goalposts, but no score.
Go back and read **what I said**, not what you fantasised I said. Hint: use of tense in English *carries meaning*. Bonus hint: your tense is different from mine. Double bonus hint: integrity does not mean "I corrected my data set because I was forced to by others" no matter how many cute stories you tell about misremembered or misrepresented claims made on TV.
Feel free to argue why you think Spencer has "integrity" in the light of the information I've pointed you to.
> In contrast, if you compare GISS...with the crosschecked RSS/AUH graph, we see the effects of ideology on data...
Your fantasies here are as naive as they are repetitive and previously corrected. Go do your homework and then come back and apologise for making false assumptions - not limited to attributing to "ideology" what is attributable to be "science" - and promise to "seek integrity" more diligently and effectively in future.
> You can't get a cigarette paper between the graphs. ... if you compare GISS ... with the crosschecked RSS/AUH graph...
You can't even [get very basic claims correct](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/uah/trend…). The GISS and RSS trends are almost identical, and the UAH **diverges from them both.
Hint: junkscience.com isn't a very high **integrity** source.
Jakerman (1044): You linked to Skepticalscience.com' refutation of the cosmic ray/cloud hypothesis.
There has been some interseting writing by Roy Spencer on WUWT on this subject. Without attempting the detail, it seems that cloud altitude is important. Clouds, of course, keep us warmer at night and reduce insolation during the day. Yes, it's horrendously complicated, but the Skepticalscience pat statement that "increased cosmic rays would lead to more cloud cover, resulting in a cooling effect" is too categorical.
A great deal of work remains to be done on precisely how the sun drives climate, and its importance relative to other drivers. If only it were as simple as "CO2 warms the world"!
>A great deal of work remains to be done on precisely how the sun drives climate
Begging the question.
It doesn't matter what mechanism you propose, in order for the sun to be responsible for the trend in global average temperature there would have to be a trend in some property of the sun over the same period. [There has been no such trend in the sun](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/sidc-ss…), as [you have been told](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…) dozens of times already.
30 POST'S LATER - jeff pinochhio harvey the fibber:
'I generally stay out of Brent's thread because'
14 POST'S LATER - Bernard burny J
I usually avoid this thread like the plague, but my atten
wankers
Just in case Brent can't see how close GISS is to RSS - and how much UAH is diverging from both - [here's a graph where it's easier to see](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/offset:-0.23/p…).
No doubt Brent will have some new explanation of how how this shows GISS is "ideologically corrupted", but if *his* logic were to prevail and he had any *integrity* then he'd have to argue that **UAH** is the victim of ideology.
Bet he doesn't.
> There has been some interseting writing by Roy Spencer on WUWT on this subject.
Is this the Bugs Bunny version of "interesting"? Because it may be interesting, but it's DEFINITELY wrong.
Funny how denialists go on about how the mechanism for CO2 producing 3C per doubling is an unverified assertion, but the completely missing mechanism for cosmic rays causing the temperature change AND masking CO2's effects is somehow irrefutable.
yeah right slothy
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/t9s
and while i'm at it http://www.tinyurl.com.au/fe0
Sunblot,
You are an idiot. A complete and utter idiot.
In my humble opinion, of course.
Using the innane logic that people like you and Brent peddle here, we must wait until there is 100% rock solid proof that climate change is driven by human activities.
Until then we must 'stay the course' and carbonize the atmosphere as fast as we can. Besides, as other like-minded idiots have exclaimed here, C02 is plant food and the world will benefit from mass-increases of airborne C02.
If only it were that simple.
The same illogical stupidity has been used to downplay all kinds of anthropogenic threats to the environment. "We want 100% proof!!!" the merchants of denial cry. Of course, by the time the absolute proof arrives, then its too late. This is the 'Titanic' mentality. Stay aboard the ship in full knowledge that it's sinking until it goes under.
As I said before, this thread is, IMO, a complete waste of time. Let the time wasters like sunblot and Brent hang out here, rehashing their nonsense.
you haven't been in for a while pinochhio, i thought you might of run off with paddy ?
many times i've said there are more important environmental problems than CO2, spit it out pinochhio, what is the more imminent danger to the biota, CO2 or GMO's ?
Sunspot,
I have been absent for two reasons:
1. This thread is going nowhere fast; most of the other posters have long vanquished the feeble arguments posited by the likes of you and Brent;
2. Unlike you, I am a scientist and I do actual research. Not the kiddie's stuff that you apparently partake in.
Moreover, it is pretty rich of YOU of all people to call me a liar. But if you get your kicks on doing it, what with the fact that you apparently tell porkies all of the time, and consistently misunderstand the importance of scale, then that is fine by me.
As to your questions: IMHO C02 and GMOs both pose threats to the environment. Given the rate of increase of atmospheric C02, which is probably unprecedented in hundreds of thousands of years, there will be all kinds of non-linear effects on complex adaptive systems - both terrestrial and aquatic - and across a huge range of scales. I have already discussed this at length on the appropriate thread and there is no need to go further with that here. As for GMOs, I see inherent ecological risks, but the socio-economic aspects are, in my view, of greater concern. But I will save that for another discussion.
The answer spotty is, of course, CO2.
If we succeed in changing the climate by accident, then all bets are off for human civilisation. There will be survivors, but civilisation - no. Perhaps a thousand years later.
Your liar sites and their backers will not be there to help or reward your loyal service.
> yeah right slothy
Don't bother with sunspot's links. Yes, I realise that's a fairly reliable general principle, but just in case anyone's curious, in this case he's cherry-picking the 1998-2010 period. Again.
I realise he's too dim to understand the dozens of times that under most circumstances you need about 30 years to generate a reliable trend, but most readers will get it.
And [furthermore](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2816296), imagine what the response would be if _our_ case consisted of "we think the warming is caused by CO2 but we don't know how" and on top of that the CO2 level hadn't risen anyway.
Brent [then](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…):
>If [well known tobacco and oil shill's site] [junkscience](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy) is seen as a partisan site then I apologise
Brent [now](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2816251):
>junkscience.com [...] junkscience.com
The BBC's Environment Analyst Roger Harrabin has been turned. I'm puzzled by what has made him change his tune, but it's welcome anyway.
Up to and during Climategate he was like a born-again Warmist, every story slanted towards (yawn) melting icecaps, the imminent loss of Holland, future British pineapple industry (er... he never said the last two... I'm extrapolating).
Climategate, I think it's fair to say, revealed plenty about the Hockey Team's withholding of information but wasn't the smoking gun we'd hoped for: no juicy stuff about fraud. It has been a PR disaster Climatography: great!
It was maybe the sight of world leaders shivering in the Copenhagen snow, and motorists stranded in snowdrifts which gave this - er - English Language graduate pause for thought. But my pet theory is that his BBC bosses quietly warned him about imbalance.
He recently did a couple of intelligent radio pieces about uncertainty, and confessed that the media (and also the politicians) lean on scientists for a yes/no answer when the right answer is one of probability.
I say "scientists" as a shorthand for fuzzy science like Ecography. In fuzzy science, as opposed to hard science, the wiggle-room is enormous. The likes of Pinnichio can spout generalities in grave sombre tones and escape censure when their pontification turns out to be hot air.
Today Harrabin today launched a "Weather Test" intended to answer the question "who can we trust?":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9029000/9029232.stm
It's an "open project", inviting different bodies and also the public, to enter a competition to forecast the weather, subjecting the various entries to rigorous statistical testing. The Royal (Science -is-Settled) Society has refused to participate.
Here's my guess: that it's an attempt to educate the public on the limits of forecasting whilst having some fun. If Grandma Smith's seaweed scores better than the Met Office's Large Hadron Crayputer then (a) we'll all have a laugh and (b) the vast public resource being squandered on attempting to calcualate the incalculable may be pulled.
So Rodgie Baby is coming along nicely. If the day comes when Pachauri is yanked from his office by a maddened crowd (fat chance: his misdeeds are less spectacular than Saddam Hussein's, although I'd love to see people whacking his toppled statue with flipflops!), Rodgie will be able to do a piece-to-mike: "Patchy's downfall is a result of his organization's certainty when wiser men remain uncertain. He coffin will be buried in a Himalayan glacier with the inscription: 'Do Not Open Until 2035'!"
Interestingly, the Titanic sank a lot sooner than it would have, at least until a rescue ship arrived, if the chairman of the White Star Line had not told the captain to keep sailing regardless of the damage done to the ship.
These idiot science denialists are modern day White Star Line chairmen.
> Climategate, I think it's fair to say, revealed plenty about the Hockey Team's withholding of information
No, it isn't. What's fair to say is that the emails stolen from CRU show their attempts to avoid vexatious and illicit FOI requests and has been spun by those with an axe to grind as being proof of something or other.
After all, the DoD refusal to release the launch codes for their nuclear armament is withholding information.
> It was maybe the sight of world leaders shivering in the Copenhagen snow
Snow happens in winter.
Your baby protoge spots has the same problem with the seasons. Seems you can't learn from his mistake either.
> and motorists stranded in snowdrifts
Winter again.
> which gave this - er - English Language graduate
Ah, I think I see the problem here. Bent couldn't manage the hard stuff so we went for the soft option and that sense of inferiority has left him with a deep and abiding anger for anyone who knows "sums".
And, Bent, I guess you'll be forsaking the UAH record since it's [dodgy](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/) to say the [least](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/offset:-0.23/p…).
Since we have shown you that the UAH dataset is dodgy, one of the datasets used by denialists to deny AGW, you will be resigning from the Church of Global Warming Denial now, yes?
Is that Brent back on the "weather is climate" train?
Because Brent is a big fan of integrity...
Post Scriptum (maybe Bent et al will believe me now I'm using latin like Monkey does)
> > which gave this - er - English Language graduate
> Bent couldn't manage the hard stuff so we went for the soft option
Because even Bent says his English grade is [primitive](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ur-#Prefix).
[Shorter Brent:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2816706)
Weather, weather, weather,
weather, weather, weather,
weather, weather, weather,
weather, weather, Climategate!!
Johnboy,
For the most part I avoid using the expression "ad hominem" which you Global Warming obsessives bandy about when criticised. I imagine an impartial reader of this site murmuring, "If John's arguments are so strong why must he resort to language like moron, fool, liar, troll etc?" If anything such language is counterproductive, and so I don't complain.
But in posting that stuff about Milloy you surpass yourself. His site is a useful source - or is that 'mirror'? - of data from various institutions. Are you claiming that his comparison of GISS and UAH is in any way inaccurate? You fall into an 'ad hom' trap of your own making! If your worst enemy claims that water boils at 100C, do you doubt it?
Chris O'Neill (#1073): Your choice of metaphor - the Titanic - is revealing. (Careful buddy, it's always safer to knock what others say; advancing your own original ideas and reflections makes you a target. Pottymouth John understands this.)
The Titanic had momentum; Warmists' assumption that a change of temperature over ten time periods must result in an eleventh is understandable but wrong. Only on understanding how and why... oh, sod it, you know where this is going!
As well as Quality Engineering I run an investment portfolio. In the latter there are two schools of thought dubbed "technical analysis" and "fundamental research" (don't blame me; I didn't invent them). With TA, the idea is to guess future prices by betting on a continuation of a trend; FR, in contrast, looks at a company in detail - accounts, culture, knowhow, brands, management etc. FR enabled me to buy BP shares heavily during the recent disaster because the company's asset value far exceeded its market capitalisation: this meant that the shares were undervalued.
The difference between "it's going up, we know not why, and it's likely to continue" and "mathematical laws dictate that the following must happen" is stark whether we're discussing marine engineering, thermodynamics or investment.
Do you understand this?
>Warmists' assumption that a change of temperature over ten time periods must result in an eleventh is understandable but wrong. Only on understanding how and why... oh, sod it, you know where this is going!
Yes, it's going back to denial of the long established physics of the greenhouse effect, which is [more or less where you started](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…).
Wow (#1078): Good link to the etymology of "er"! Respect to you!
Carry on in this witty way and you'll lose the "duh" reputation.
[projecting again](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection), Bent? Your entire act here as been one long string of "duh".
You are the Ur-Duh.
Bent is doing a Walter Mitty:
> As well as Quality Engineering I run an investment portfolio
compare and contrast to earlier:
> At present, I only know how to buy and sell shares
...
> My task for the week is to figure out how to do some short selling
How does he run an investment portfolio if he doesn't know how to run standard investment activities?
Answer: he can't.
> The difference between "it's going up, we know not why, and it's likely to continue" and "mathematical laws dictate that the following must happen" is stark whether we're discussing marine engineering, thermodynamics or investment.
> Do you understand this?
The point is, you don't Bent. That you're lecturing people who DO is merely another sign of your incompetence.
Mathematical laws dictate that AGW must happen. But you come along and say "it's going to go down, I don't know why".
That you have the gall to ask others "Do you understand this?" is why you are a nutcase and a denier.
There's an eerie similarity between Brent's grand sounding claims of expertise in fields he obviously knows next to nothing about (that couldn't be picked up from two wiki para) and Monckton's similar grandiose claims of being the powerhouse behind every historical episode of the Thatcher era, and nobody so much as even mentioning him in any of the autobiographies covering the period.
Based on this I think we can safely add Walter Mittyism to part of the pathology of denial.
Liars attract liars.
(er... he never said the last two... I'm extrapolating).
Actually, that's called "making shit up." Do try to understand the difference before you lecture us about complicated stuff.
Climategate, I think it's fair to say, revealed plenty about the Hockey Team's withholding of information but wasn't the smoking gun we'd hoped for: no juicy stuff about fraud.
In other words, it didn't reveal "plenty," it revealed absolutely nothing relevant or usable to the denialists. Thanks for admitting that.
Bent:
Only it's not an assumption.
Your assumption that it's an assumption is just another example of you being a hypocrite.
You're just being a self-righteous hypocrite.
Brent writes:
>*A great deal of work remains to be done on precisely how the sun drives climate, and its importance relative to other drivers. If only it were as simple as "CO2 warms the world"!*
Unsurprisingly [my post went](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2815494) way over Brent's head, of course that because he ducked and opted to tackle on of his large supply of strawmen.
Worse, the "CO2 warms the world" is only simple when a simpleton like Bent thinks on it.
His poor ole head is unable to hold more than one thought at a time in it, and he thinks that ONLY CO2 warms the world.
Poor old man probably has old-timers disease and is losing brain matter by the minute.
Re [Loth's comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2816415), quite [right](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1975/plot/esrl-co2/from:1975/…).
Anyone notice how promptly Brent dropped the UHI argument like a proverbial hot potato, when the absurdity of it was pointed out?
And yet, You-guys-need-to-learn-to-concede-a-point-Brent, I don't see your concession that you were barking up entirely the wrong tree, anywhere.
Brent?
> I don't see your concession that you were barking up entirely the wrong tree, anywhere.
Brent can't concede a point. It would impede his ability to lecture others on the finer points of trend predictions, mechanics, how to tell who's trustworthy regarding science, and why using cherry-picked data is better than full data.
> With TA, the idea is to guess future prices by betting on a continuation of a trend; ... The difference between "it's going up, we know not why, and it's likely to continue" and "mathematical laws dictate that the following must happen" is stark...
Good Grief. How persistently determinedly completely wrong can one person be? You've been corrected over and over on this fallacy you cling to and *still* you have the ludicrous hubris to try on an arrogant pose:
> Do you understand this?
You realise when you try to lecture people on this stuff, **thousands fall about in helpless laughter**?!!!
And the most pathetic thing is that you claim to understand TA vs FR and why one is a better tool than the other for your investment purposes. In other words (assuming from the copious evidence we have that you're intellectually incapable of directly understanding the mathematical and scientific reasons for AGW, but hoping that you might be able at least to understand analogy) you have a perfectly servicable analogy at hand for understanding why AGW is of concern - but you drew completely the wrong conclusions from it! That takes a special kind of skill.
FR is a far better analogy for AGW than TA. There are forces that drive *long term trends* but lots of noise - and typically factors that are outside your FR analysis - which means it takes medium to long-term timescales for the forced trends to show through the noise. Anyone who tries to use FR to make short-term market bets is a complete idiot, because it just **doesn't apply** on those timescales.
And if after all the free correction you have received at Deltoid, you still think TA (extrapolating a trend) is in any way analogous to the reasons climate scientists are worried about AGW, then ... well, the readers can draw their own conclusions about your integrity or intellectual capacity - or both.
''
One unreported fact about the Arctic is that its geographical boundaries have been expanded. Several years ago the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) decided to expand the Arctic by about 50% or approximately 4 million square miles. (2) Have you seen or heard about this from the media?
What about temperature extrapolations? James Hansen of NASA, an ardent believer in man-made warming announced recently that âThe 12-month running mean global temperature in the Goddard Space Institute (GISS) analysis has reached a new record in 2010. The main factor is our estimated temperature change for the Arctic region.â The GISS figures show that recent temperatures in the Arctic have been up to four degrees C warmer than in the long-term mean. Yet, as Dennis Avery reports, âHereâs what Hansen doesnât report. GISS has no thermometers in the Arctic. It has hardly any thermometers that are even near the Arctic Circle. How do they determine the temperature? GISS estimates its Arctic temperatures from land-based thermometers that each supposedly represents the temperatures over 1200 square kilometers.â (3) Art Horn observes, âYou must be asking how can GISS show any temperature readings at all north of eighty degrees if they donât have any data? The answer is simple, they make it up. In broadcasting there is an old saying that says, âWhy let the truth stand in the way of a good story.â Apparently GISS and NOAA have borrowed that storyline to make the case that the world is warming dangerously due to the way we make energy.â (4)
In 2007 you probably heard about the most expansive Arctic ice melt ever, but were you told of the record refreeze that autumn? During a ten-day period in November, a NASA eye-in-the-sky recorded sea ice in the Arctic Ocean growing 58,000 square miles per day - about the same size as Illinois or Georgia. (5)
Arctic Was Warmer Before
The Arctic was warmer between 1920 and 1940 than it is now. (6) Hereâs a familiar-sounding report about a Norwegian scientific expedition to the Arctic (in 1922), courtesy of Steven Hayward (7):
more here: http://www.tinyurl.com.au/uph
Brent @ 1072:
"turned"? Turned what? Pink? To god? Into a newt?
This is quite possibly one of, if not the, most threadbare "arguments" I've seen you make - and that's saying something. Harrabin writes a piece on an interesting public experiment designed to discover which weather forecast provider is most accurate, and you somehow (I couldn't be bothered wading through too much of your verbose post) manage to conclude Harrabin has changed his views on climate change?
Amazing, fantastic even (in the traditional sense of the word). I was going to say I don't think you could top that Brent, but given your track record so far I'm reluctant to present the challenge.
*The Arctic was warmer between 1920 and 1940 than it is now*
Pure rubbish.
Note how Sunspot's article references just about every crackpot anti-environmentalist author.
sunsick:
sunsick, don't believe everything you read in the papers, especially one loaded with citations of well-known science denialists. It just makes you look what you are, a gullible idiot.
I liked this
âYou must be asking how can GISS show any temperature readings at all north of eighty degrees if they donât have any data? The answer is simple, they make it up. In broadcasting there is an old saying that says, âWhy let the truth stand in the way of a good story.â
CO2 monomaniac's keep on denying !!!!
Another fascinating gem of projection in the article from one of Sunny's preferred experts (TV weather presenter Art Horn) who specialise in turning reality on its head. "The answer is simple, they make it up. In broadcasting there is an old saying that says, âWhy let the truth stand in the way of a good story.â
You don't say, Art. You certainly seem to have a handle on using that technique.
It's almost like sunny and his fellow dupes know no history of navigation and why the fabled North West passage has been so sought after throughout the past few hundred years and now for the first time it exists for summer navigation without icebreaker escort.
Horner's 'record refreeze' is another fabulous piece of meaningless corporate-trained spin which inherently admits the seasonal temporary nature of the new ice but might sound good to a moron. Right spotty?
But why do they bother? Does anyone believe the spotties or Brentoids care a fig for the arctic, or comprehend the sense in having canaries in coalmines?
For an apparently self-identified "English Language graduate", Brent certainly has surprising difficulties distinguishing the meanings of common words such as "weather" and "climate", even after repeated correction.
One almost suspects that he did not in fact pass English.
Sunspot gullibly swallows:
> You must be asking how can GISS show any temperature readings at all north of eighty degrees if they donât have any data? The answer is simple, they make it up.
Apparently sunspot is blissfully unaware of how one can construct a reasonable global average temperature without needing a thermometer on every square metre of the earth's surface.
Firstly, sunspot can't even use Google to find the [GISTEMP webpage](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) that includes the following:
> A global temperature index, as described by Hansen et al. (1996), is obtained by combining the meteorological station measurements with sea surface temperatures based in early years on ship measurements and in recent decades on satellite measurements.
Hmmmm, to some readers that would that suggest they actually have data for the regions that sunspot's source claims they have no data for, and that sunspot's source of claims was in fact "making it up". Some readers might even use Google or something to find the [following webpage](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/), and read the text about Ocean Data inputs.
Secondly, sunspot appears unaware that the main GISTEMP page also points out [my emphasis]:
> The analysis method was documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), showing that the correlation of temperature change was reasonably strong for stations separated by up to 1200 km, **especially at middle and high latitudes**.
sunspot's homework is to determine what the distance from 80 degrees N to 90 degrees N is, and how it compares to 1200km.
sunspot's auxiliary homework is to **think** about what the means for the claims he's been touting and then publicly correct any bogus claims.
Unfortunately it's odds-on that he fails.
>For the most part I avoid using the expression "ad hominem" which you Global Warming obsessives bandy about when criticised. I imagine an impartial reader of this site murmuring, "If John's arguments are so strong why must he resort to language like moron, fool, liar, troll etc?" If anything such language is counterproductive, and so I don't complain.
Nice way to distract from Milloy being a tobacco shill.
The words "moron", "fool", "liar" and "troll" describe so well your foolish lying and moronic trolling.
If any people have qualms I'll point them to the posts in which you posted under different names (that's trolling), declared you held positions you didn't actually hold (that's lying), held inconsistent positions based on whatever you'd read that morning (that's moronic) and repeatedly describing scientists as "shit head shinny arse's [lacking] any idea how to survive in the environment, most of [who] wouldn't know what the sun felt like on their vitamin D deficient, lilly white, blubbery carcasses" (via Sunspot) while claiming not engage in ad hom attacks.
What a moronic troll.
>For the most part I avoid using the expression "ad hominem" which you Global Warming obsessives bandy about when criticised
Except you used it here.
Why do you lie Brent?
> Why do you lie Brent?
[deniers gotta deny](http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html)
> Sunspot gullibly swallows:
There's a reason why deniers are often [teabaggers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests#February_1.2C_2009_tea_…).
They'll swallow ANYTHING.
SteveC (1094): My point about Roger Harrabin was that he has a (very reasonable) bee in his bonnet about uncertainty in science, and the way the media report it. IMHO he deserves credit for his honest rethink, and for identifying one of the philosophical fault lines which separates the two camps. Your lot, and Jehovahs Witnesses, and Trots, know the future with absolute certainty and, when it doesn't happen, have the talent to change it. (Lotharsseons; "He IS the Messiah! I should know; I've followed a few!"; "Capitalism contains the seeds of its own downfall". Birds of a feather, deluded together.
Bravo to Harrabin for identifying this key theme of the Great Debate.
P.S., it's so cold that my lad's watching telly wrapped in a blanket. Is that weather or climate?
Lotharsson (1099): No, silly billy, it's Harrabin-of-the-Beeb who has a degree in English! Mine is in Production Engineering.
John (1102): Comprehension ain't your strong suit either! 'For the most part' is not the same as 'Never'. I'm flattered that you crossreference my writings so thoroughly. So time consuming! Do you have a 'mancrush' on me?
Wow (1104): You've nicknamed our friend Sunspot 'gullbilly'. That's a new'un on me. Is a gullbilly a backwoodsman who lives on the coast? Tell us a bit about yourself, Wow!
Jeff Harvey (1095): You usually reserve your chatroom activities for weekdays when they're paying you at the Uni. It's Saturday, Jeff! Are they paying you overtime now, or are you skiving on your own time?
>Your lot know the future with absolute certainty
You're a liar, as [anyone can see for themselves](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5.html).
>it's so cold
[Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2805438).
Brent [September 15](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2799856):
>In short, the IPCC __acknowledges great uncertainty__
Brent [September 25](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2818861):
>Your lot __know the future with absolute certainty__
Dave R., to paraphrase, "I share your fury at the obscene fra*d that is" Brent.
Although "degree" and "Engineer" are almost as funny.
Dave, by "your lot" I mean zealots like yourself who are "plus catholique que le Pape". Could it be that "your sort" so desires the "end of days" that you add to the IPCC's discomfiture? They write LOSU = low (that is, Level of Scientific Understanding) and you say, "The science is settled". With a fanbase like you lot no wonder they're under pressure!
In the case of aerosols - including volcanic - the LOSU is designated "low" (hey, Dave, what's your LOSU? Any qualifications?). And yet, in the GISSTemp Homepage http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
which Lotharsson kindly linked to (#1100), there appear three darling little volcanosVolcanos raining on the Global Warming parade. These were in 1963, 1982 and 1991, presumably Agung, Chichon and Pinatubo. Mister Hansenâs nest of Warmista Vipers seem to be saying, âit gets warmer and warmer, but pesky volcanos knock two tenths of a degree off and set us backâ.
Now, these babies were mere firecrackers compared to Krakatoa (1883) and the mighty Tambora in 1815 which belted out TEN TIMES as much crap as the worrisome Pinatubo, and caused harvest failures on the other side of the world.
As a driver of climate, your CO2 has some serious rivals in volcanic and solar influences. Itâs irrational to attribute the bulk of global warming to CO2 when the IPCC admits that the effects of its rivals are poorly understood. My guess is that the relative âvolcano holidayâ of the last two centuries, plus the Svensmark effect, explain the few lousy tenths of a degree warming since 1860. If thereâs a repeat of Tambora, and if the lengthening sunspot cycle presages a new Little Ice Age, you lot will have to find a new scare story to support.
[Shorter Brent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2819160) ...and then you'll be really, really sorry. You just wait and see.
Until then, here's some Plimer inspired gobbledegook, from me, Brent, the English graduate engineer stockbroker.
Chek, you're correct: I am a polymath. But the English degree is Roger Harrabin's and not mine (Lotharsson has comprehension difficulties).
Question for you: How are cooling periods since the Industrial Revolution best explained?
Bent:
Are you holding your breath Brent? Hope so.
Chris, the many ups and downs of climate suggest a rough equivalence of warming and cooling drivers. By enquiring why you Warmists are quick to acknowledge the warming influences, yet slow to acknowledge downticks (whether of known or speculative origin) I am slowly coming to understand the asymmetric mentality.
Scary as Eyjafjallajokull was, it was tiny compared to the eruptions our forefathers had to endure. "Holding my breath" for Tambora II? Mate, I doubt if Tambora pays much attention to my hopes and fears!
AGW is hubristic: we know that we have the power to destroy much of nature, and rightly feel guilty about our species destroying rhinos (to name just one example). I see the AGW myth as a tragic waste of the public's 'green awareness'. The gigantic resource being frittered away in combating this chimera would be so much better spent on real issues.
In my work as a QE, much of my effort is spent on retargeting effort to get more 'bangs for our buck'. I suspect that the likes of Jeff Harvey, an influential advocate, could put his schmoozing skills to great benefit if only he would drop the carbon dioxide bollix and throw his weight behind, say, habitat preservation. If I had his networking skills I'd launch a charity called "Shoot a Rhino". We'd give away tamper-proof digital cameras and pay people ten dollars for every unique photo of a rhino. We'd make it more profitable for rhino poachers to photograph rhinos than to kill them. Diverting half a percent of Britain's windmill budget to such use would do some real good.
Man can no more command the climate than it Canute could command the tides. He ordered his throne to be placed at the tideline in order to illustrate the futility of such hubris. The IPCC and its obscene gravy train is a menace to the very ecosystem it purports to protect because we're barking up the wrong tree.
> ...know the future with absolute certainty ...
Liar, liar, goldfish pants on fire. You've been corrected on this point *numerous* times. Perhaps you should reflect on how much of your argument survives if you take away your lies.
> No, silly billy, it's Harrabin-of-the-Beeb who has a degree in English! Mine is in Production Engineering.
> Lotharsson has comprehension difficulties.
ROFLMAO! I am Brent therefore I project!
If you comprehend what I wrote, I allowed for the possibility that **your poor communication** was misleading on this point. And lo and behold, it was.
> As a driver of climate, your CO2 has some serious rivals in volcanic and solar influences.
Goldfish. And demonstrating further communication difficulties - or perhaps merely sloppy thinking - by incorrectly focusing on "driver of climate" instead of the current topic - "drivers of climate **change**". Volcanoes and the sun are not currently driving change, and haven't done so for some time.
> ...the many ups and downs of climate suggest a rough equivalence of warming and cooling drivers.
Goldfish. And stupid claim to boot.
> Man can no more command the climate than it Canute could command the tides.
Assertion from religious belief. Argument by exaggerated strawman.
> ...because we're barking up the wrong tree.
...says Brent **with certainty** despite not having a robust case, and after accusing others of (wrongly) "...know[ing] the future with absolute certainty".
*I am Brent therefore I project.*
>you say, "The science is settled".
[Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2766758).
>Svensmark
[Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2816296).
>If thereâs a repeat of Tambora, and if the lengthening sunspot cycle presages a new Little Ice Age
[Back around the goldfish bowl](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2540746).
>John (1102): Comprehension ain't your strong suit either! 'For the most part' is not the same as 'Never'. I'm flattered that you crossreference my writings so thoroughly. So time consuming! Do you have a 'mancrush' on me?
Why do you hate gay people?
>...says Brent with certainty despite not having a robust case, and after accusing others of (wrongly) "...know[ing] the future with absolute certainty".
Remember, Brent has declared the science "settled" based on nothing more than his religious faith that it's the sun.
Shorter Brent: "The science is NEVER settled unless it settles in my favour, which it will when the Sun is proven to be the current driver of climate far off in the future..."
Bent:
>It's the sun!
Others:
>Solar activity is decreasing while the temperature increases, your statement is illogical.
Brent:
>It's the urban heat island effect in the arctic!
Others:
>Back up your claims. If it's UHI then why is arctic ice vanishing?
Brent:
>It's the sun!
Others:
>Goldfish. The sun is at historically low activity and the temperature at historic highs.
Brent:
>Brrr! I had to use a blanket today!
Others:
>Weather is not climate.
Brent:
>It's the sun!
And so on and so on ad infinitum
And so we go on and on and on...
Brent.
Forgive me if I am rendered dubious over [your claim to be a polymath](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2819197).
My hot pal suggested to me that your boasting might be a math ploy calculated to intimidate those with whom you disagree. He pointed out that it is amply hot across an unlikely large part of the planet, that temperatures map hotly across whole continents, that itâs the type of palmy hot that is only assuaged with a malty hop beer.
Indeed, my wealthy and unscrupulous climatological friend quaffs such brew whilst he sits in the shade of his French chateau. The other day, he spoke to me by âphone of how he watched a moth play by the light of a lamp as the setting sun coloured crimson the mountain that he affectionately refers to as âmy hot Alpâ, in acknowledgement of its receding snowline. He thinks that he may know you, because he grumbled âHa! My plot to commit the greatest scientific fraud of all time has been discerned by that dastardly Brent. Damnation! What if he is somehow able to convince the worldâs sceptics and thereby halt my op?â
He concluded though that if you are the Brent that he knows, there is no way that you are a polymath, no matter how much one rearranges the concept.
Hi Brent,
Hey, I'm glad you've finally found a polymath within yourself. Only 4 months ago you were despondently searching for them when [you said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…):
>"The first is a conjecture by the brilliant Herschel, a man with the lost art of combining intuition with calculation. Oh, polymaths, where are you today? I suspect that the IPCC Armageddon Myth is a consequence of compartmentalisation in science, of narrow-and-deep expertise."
Now, I have to say, I almost snorted my tea through a nostril when I read your claim to be one, I laughed so hard! You're not a polymath, Brent, you're a [Google Galileo](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/google-galileo-five-…) whose every claim (rehashed directly from WTFUWT and other denier claptrap websites) has been comprehensively demonstrated to be trash. You have been repeating yourself and your oft-discredited claims since March, when [you said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…):
>"Whilst much of the supporting logic of the AGW hypothesis is watertight, I doubt the overall conclusion."
And you've been contradicting yourself even since.
Bent:
In that case you doubt that it's likely anyone will need to find a new scare story. Looks like the rest of your life is all set out. You must really be looking forward to spending the rest of your life lying.
Brent @1105:
Sorry, remind me which of the IPCC reports it is that states there is no uncertainty. And remind me again which of the many respected specialists in the multi-faceted field of climate science have said there is no uncertainty. And once you've done that, try to reconcile that reality with your blanket black-and-white generalisations.
And FYI, "my" lot are predominantly biologists trying to learn about a different discipline. I am not, nor am ever likely to be any kind of expert in climate science. But having seen many like you sowing seeds of FUD in the conservation debate, I know what you are and what you stand for.
[Bernard J wins the thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2819638).
> Forgive me if I am rendered dubious over your claim to be a polymath.
I find it hard to believe he's even a monomath - although perhaps he actually did well in his Engineering degree and job, and is merely hopelessly incompetent at everything else he has demonstrated at Deltoid?
I agree - Bernard J has proved himself A Gaming Rank of the thread
Brent on the other hand is just a rank gamer.
(sorry - the second sentence didn't paste into 1126. duh!)
Brent, being rather like Tim Cutin, just loves the attention, even if it's disdain.
Science will have no effect on Brent, but ignoring him will.
> Why do you hate gay people?
> Posted by: John
You see it a lot from Right Wingers with a Religious Bent (pun intended) who are Actually Gay but Hide In The Closet.
The most vociferous anti-gay politicians are frequently found out hiring a rent boy to "help them with their luggage" on their holidays. Or after giving up a high profile political career, say "actually, I'm gay, I just agreed to anti-gay policies against my wishes because I was doing what The People wanted, not what I wanted".
In short: Bent is soooo gay.
> Wow (1104): You've nicknamed our friend Sunspot 'gullbilly'. That's a new'un on me.
It's a new one on me too, since you won't find "gullbilly" anywhere in post 1104.
However, insanely dribbling Bent imagines whatever needs to be imagined at any one time. As can be shown with his posts and his are they/aren't they on IPCC being certain on the future. Since there's no truth in anything he says and he's not tied to reality, he can make it say whatever he wants it to say by just being nuts enough.
After all, from Bent's POV, sanity is a one-trick pony, whereas if you're good and insane, the sky's the limit.
Bent is certainly reaching for the sky in cloud-cuckoo land.
Bernatd J (#1120): Excellent posting! My family is looking alarmed that I'm chuckling at the screen.
Lotharsson: Your 'monomath' also deserves to be mentioned in dispatches.
Wow and John: Look at how your co-religionists manage to be scathing and witty at the same time. Calling people fibbers and benders just doesn't cause the offence you would wish. Only our friend Chek matches you two for 'unintentional humour': his discussion with himself on the subject of race hatred (#698) was cringetastic!
SteveC (1123): Nobody's claiming that the IPCC's report avoid discussing uncertainty. In #1110 we agreed that it's the groupies like the Deltoid Bunch who possess supernatural foresight and greater certainty than TV evangelists.
" In #1110 we agreed... "
Who agreed?
Not me, and I didn't see anyone else with their hand up saying, Me, Me, Me too.
>Nobody's claiming that the IPCC's report avoid discussing uncertainty. In #1110 we agreed that it's the groupies like the Deltoid Bunch who possess supernatural foresight and greater certainty than TV evangelists.
Liar. Nobody here has made any claim to "know the future with absolute certainty". If you wish to dispute this then quote them. Otherwise explicitly withdraw the claim and apologise.
[adelady,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2820126)
It's Brent's narcissism (a necessary component of his socially reinforced pathology) coming to the fore, expressing itself as projection. It is more in the character of religious faith with which he clings to the viral meme of 'global warming is a religious belief' than there is any objective reason for thinking it so.
As it is said, "What a tangled web we weave..."
It's quite interesting the way the person without any rational explanation (or even framework) when challenged is the one attempting to tar others with the religious belief brush. I was going to use the 'p' word but I see LB has beaten me to it.
[chek](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2820300)
It isn't just the projection, it's the denial, the narcissism, the low affect, the lack of empathy and infantile hostility, not to mention the D-K effect, that all raise serious red flags concerning Brent's emotional stability.
What gives some hope is his persistent banging his head against the wall here, exposing his irrational thought processes, revealing the inner conflict between recognizing the repressed deep emotional pain his denial is inflicting on his psyche and clinging to the superficial and delusional fear of ego loss. This shows he is sub-consciously aware he has a problem. The first step in dealing with it, is admitting to oneself and others that one has a problem.
So, how about it, Brent. Are you ready to man up? I'm rooting for ya.
Adelady (#1132): All right, I was wrong to write "we agreed".
My point was that the IPCC acknowledges that nobody understands nuffink about cloud albedo (they say 'somewhere between 0.3 and 1.8 W/m2 of cooling'), and yet the True Followers of Gore who infest this chatroom believe in Global Warming. Er... you DO all believe, doncha? Adelady, you KNOW that Australia must one day be evacuated, donât you?
Governments are basing billion-dollar policies on such vagueness. Imagine if a finance ministry said that between 3m and 18m people were liable for tax, or the defence ministry said that it had between 3 and 18 submarines at sea. The health ministry has beds for somewhere between 3000 and 18000 patients.
Good news: In today's Independent there's an advert by Oxfam: âCLIMATE CHANGE⦠while we have to listen to all the hot air being spouted about climate change thousands of people are dyingâ. Yessssss! Git in thâhole!.
More good news: Labourâs new leader kept schtumm about your favourite fantasy: itâs becoming The Great Unmentionable in polite circles.
Luminous Beauty (1136): Thank you for sychoana.... psycoanal... physch.... telling me what's wrong with me.
Could it be that you and your Unsceptic friends have BWGNS? That's Beardy Wierdy Gullible Numpty Syndrome.
Another day of no data, evidence or references, and lots of hot air from Brent.
How unsurprising.
> ...they say 'somewhere between 0.3 and 1.8 W/m2 of cooling'), and yet the True Followers of Gore who infest this chatroom believe in Global Warming.
What part of "climate sensitivity is very unlikely to lie outside of 2-4.5 degrees C" do you think is invalidated by the uncertainty on cloud albedo? Oh, wait, wait! I know this one! You're insisting on not seeing the forest for the trees again because the forest strongly disputes your case...
> In #1110 **we** agreed...
Given the lack of evidence that other commenters agreed thusly, the most charitable explanation is that "we" consists of Brent and his (imaginary?) friends. It's a shame that none of them has a clue about science...
I think it's time to leave them to have a good time together, which consists primarily of making shit up to make themselves feel good, telling themselves how much cleverer they are than the kids who won't play with them, and trying and failing to invent witty new putdowns for the others.
Bye, bye, Brent. Enjoy your thread.
[Brent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2820686)
It is unfortunate you respond to my sincere concern for your well being with such an inappropriate attempt at humor and childish insult. I assure you the symptoms I list are genuine and as real as a heart attack. Please understand that I'm not being judgmental of you as a person. The mental illness from which you suffer, and those who love you must likewise suffer, is common and treatable.
Please seek professional help.
No, I don't think Australia will be evacuated. I do think that cities like Adelaide and Perth will have a lot of houses built, and many retrofitted, to live partly or entirely underground. The way they currently do in Coober Pedy.
I might add that this isn't so bad. Having spent a little time in Coober Pedy, the one thing you don't need is air-conditioning. The indoor temperature is fine, and the airflow is guaranteed by the structure.
I think that's the royal "we". Brent is delusional after all.
hahaha,
looomie & slothy, monosymptomatic carbon dioxide psychosis is an illness.
It has parallels to delusional parasitosis.
You may have problems adjusting to the realization that the syndrome that you have is only "propaganda of planetary pyrochemical apocalypse" and is now only apparent in an infinitesimally small percentage of the population.
There is help !
Obsessive-Compulsive and Phobic Neurosis and Their Therapy, PopoviÄ M., MilovanoviÄ D. (Lek, Ljubljana, Book, 1981)
WAH WAH wow,
check this out,
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/w0i
brent, its easy to see that little jonny is infatuated with you, sorta reminds me of a blowfly buzzin yer butt when you have a crap out in the bush !
Bent's boyfriend runs to his defence with a "look at the monkeys" shot.
You know, sunspot, you truly are a great example of the logical strength of denier arguments.
I think your contributions, combined with those of Tim Curtin, Brent, Dave Andrews... really are what sets Deltoid apart. It showcases what a bunch of nutters the denialosphere is made of better than any other blog.
m fess you are almost correct,
I did indeed lower myself to the murky waters of the scaremonger's !
However I did enjoy it, however self-flagellation is out of the question.
denialosphere ? nope ! thats your mob !!
You all deny all science that hasn't been whitewashed and filtered by your IPCC gods.
Denial is bringing your mob undone
Note again how spots projects his insistence on religious belief being the only belief possible and makes everyone believe in God (though not the "righ" one, since he thinks that's YHWH).
Also note that he projects his own tribal method of operation on everyone, not thinking that people may agree with facts because they are true, rather than they are in the same tribe.
Sunny said: "I did indeed lower myself to the murky waters of the scaremonger's !"(sic)
The "scaremongers" (note it's a plural, not a possessive) I would contend those who tell the dim and poorly educated that fossil fuel dependence must not change. And you buy that.
"However I did enjoy it, however self-flagellation is out of the question.
Yet you continue to return with every contrarian piece of junk you think supports you, when it is always shown to either not support you, or be total junk. I would conclude that like Brent, self abasement is very much on your agenda.
"You all deny all science that hasn't been whitewashed and filtered by your IPCC gods.
The science of AGW is coherent and supported by every National Academy of Science of every major country and despite years of trying, your TV weatherman and mining engineer gurus have not changed or modified a single principle. That's why they've reverted to simple-minded smears and lies that can be propagated by the likes of you.
"Denial is bringing your mob undone"
I tend to think that the corporate strategy of smearing AGW, in addition to their numerous other crimes, will be their own undoing. Somehow I can't see humanity willingly entering a new dark age in order to maintain unlimited privilege for the decadent irresponsible few. History shows us that numerous times.
>I did indeed lower myself to the murky waters of the scaremonger's !
However I did enjoy it, however self-flagellation is out of the question.
_Now he worships at an altar of a [stagnant pool_](http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/license-to-kill)
_And when he sees his reflection, heâs fulfilled_
Hi, folks! I'm sorry I've been neglecting you lately. We have had some great fun together, haven't we?!
Unfortunately, I have quite a serious issue to resolve with Volkswagen gearboxes, and with BP shares going through the goldarn roof, I don't have as much time to chat with you and battle against your bonkers brainwashed beliefs in Burnageddon.
Please let me know if the world does start warming! Bleedin' heating is on AGAIN. Costing me the Earth, so to speak. It hardly seems five minutes since we had a good ol' laugh together at the chilly Spring in England. Still, I'm sure it's roasting hot where you guys are, and that the seas are lapping round your ankles. Good luck with that!
Hi Brent,
There's nobody here to take your call which is likely to be the same fact-free, substanceless, pointless, uninformed drivel as usual.
Please call back in the unlikely event somebody gives a fuck.
Thank you.
Nobody cares, Brent.
Nobody cares.
Good point, Stu.
The global warming thing goes away, like a puff of wind, as if 'twere never invented. Like Esperanto, like fear of anarchists, like communism, it wafts away from lack of substance.
Hi Brent,
There's nobody here to listen to your call for attention right now.
To be honest it's unlikely that your usual [uninformed](http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2010/heatrecords2010.jpg) dribble will be of any interest to anyone who pays [attention to events.](http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/28/1california-prop-23-los-angeles-h…)
Please call back later in the unlikely event anybody will ever give a f-uck.
Yawn.
Ansaphone (or do we know you by some other name, eh?),
Thanks for linking to the table of record temperatures.
The people of Wilmington must have been crapping themselves about global warming back in 1900 when the thermometer hit a mighty 77.7F. Is the new 2010 record - 77.8F - holy merde! - significant?
Having discovered WAWS (Warmists' Asymmetric Worry Syndrome), I'd like to ask you this: (a) What has the pesky planet been playing at during the lull of past 110 years? (b) Which is more alarming: the temperature drop from 1900 to 1955, or the temperature rise from 1955 to today? And (c) When you see your child on a seesaw do you become alarmed for his/her safety during ascents or descents, twittering, "Eek! Phew! Eek! Phew! Eek!"
Oh, I need the advice of you expert extrapolators. The BP shares I bought at 298p last June have today surged to 430+. Should I assume that the trend will continue, or should I set a trailing stoploss at, say, peak-minus-20p? At this rate of increase they will be worth zillions in a few years (yay!), but I am concerned that market forces may dampen the growth (bah!).
Change of subject: Did anybody catch the Royal Society backpedalling frantically today? You can just imagine the discussions in the backroom: "Gentlemen, if the pesky planet refuses to warm up as predicted, we'll have egg on our faces. They'll be sniggering at us and saying we're not fit to clean Hooke's boots. Whaddya say we lose the Science is Settled And We're All Gonna Fry statements?"
BP shares were worth about 500p last June. Do you not mean this June?
Hey, do you think if there had been shares in Soviet nuclear power they'd have bottomed out around May/June 1986? Everyone loves profiting from a good disaster. Actually, on second thought, I don't think I'll bother talking to you about ethical trading. Oh, and re: the rest of your post?
Nobody cares, goldfish.
Nobody cares.
"It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.
Whilst the extent of climate change is often expressed in a single figure â global temperature â the effects of climate change such as temperature, precipitation and the frequency of extreme weather events will vary greatly from place to place.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 also leads to ocean acidification which risks profound impacts on many marine ecosystems and in turn the societies which depend on them". - [The Royal Society](http://royalsociety.org/climate-change/)
Never take what Peiser's GWPF and Montford (aka The Benny-Hill Show) say at face value. And if you do take anything from them, be sure to count your fingers afterwards.
p.s. Yes indeed, I usually post as sunsplat but I couldn't find my crack dealer today.
I suppose the problem is if nobody throws Bent a bone, he goes and infects the other threads with sockpuppets.
Stupidity is like nuclear power. It can be used for good or bad. But you don't want to get any of it on you.
No, Wow - if that is your real name - it's undignified enough for people to hide behind pseudonyms without having multiple ones, presumably expressing multiple views. My name is Brent. What's yours?
My cyberstalker John found postings I had written elsewhere precisely because I can't be arsed to skulk like you do. In those postings I have consistently wondered at the mindset of Warmist Jeremiahs, at the asymmetric readiness to yell about warming and whisper about cooling, at the dumb numerological extrapolation which turns a few lousy degrees of uptick into a century-long roasting, at the dimly-understood interrelation of complex factors causing climate change.
My workload prevents me from exchanging pleasanteries you Warmistas quite as much, but I'm grateful to you all for helping forge my ideas in the furnace of your gratuitous insults. The concept of the twin battlefield - sensitivity and feedback - was far from clear before. Thank you! Also, I hadn't previously realised how strongly you believers believed. So reminiscent of religious fundamentalists with whom I have crossed swords in the past! When Montaigne wrote "Nothing is so firmly believed as that which cannot be proven", he left us with a valuable insight into human delusion.
As you shiver through the coming winter (hopefully with many a blizzard!), keep the faith brothers. Keep imagining the tarmac melting and it will cheer you up.
Brent said: "Nothing is so firmly believed as that which cannot be proven", he left us with a valuable insight into human delusion".
..and yet Brent is the one consistently unable to back up or reference anything he says. Fascinating self-insight there, Brent. Now that you've recognised your condition perhaps you could act on it.
I love Brent's old fashioned obsession with peoples real names.
Get a life.
>Nothing is so firmly believed as that which cannot be proven", he left us with a valuable insight into human delusion".
>I think we both believe that the sun is the major driver of climate, although explaining the precise mechanism lies in the future.
Whatever.
>I'm grateful to you all for helping forge my ideas
Maybe the forge is too hot, all your ideas have melted together into some unrecognisable runny mess.
> it's undignified enough for people to hide behind pseudonyms without having multiple ones
Shall we bask in the reflection of this glowing irony?
The SockPuppetMaster thinks he's undignified but doesn't know it.
Classic projection, classic moron.
Bent:
Actually, there is something more firmly believed than that which cannot be proven i.e. that which has been disproven. Delusional Brent has provided us with a few examples of that.
>No, Wow - if that is your real name - it's undignified enough for people to hide behind pseudonyms without having multiple ones, presumably expressing multiple views.
Strange words coming from someone who once sockpuppeted in other threads as a "warmist".
Remember when I caught you out on that one Brent?
The less said about "Tnerb" the better.
Johnny, you're right, "tnerB" was a pseudonym, and it took a massive intellect like yours to decode it. With your razor-sharp mind you exposed my secret identity. tcepseR.
As for the Montaigne thing, we might add Aristotle's insistence on the primacy of honest observation. If he were with us today he'd be banging the table and demanding that people walk outside to see the world with the mark-one-eyeball, he'd hear all the poppycock about Greenland melting and yell, "bloody well GO there! Unchain yourselves from your silly electronic screens and EXPERIENCE that-of-which-you-blather!". He'd ask Jeff Harvey if he'd ever SEEN the Pied Flycatchers he pontificates about.
Plato, on the other hand, would back youse guys up. He'd talk about his "Plato's Cave" concept, where we dimly perceive what's going on outside by watching shadows play on the wall before us. Plato would say, "Yes, dear Warmists! Only YOU have the superior insight; only you can interpret these fleeting glimpses of reality. To those without the gnosos the shadow looks like a few lousy tenths of a degree; to us Special Ones it's imminent Ahotalypse!"
I'd grab 'im by the toga, spin 'im round, and say, "Oi, Plato! No! You may be able to talk the hind leg off a donkey, and all credit to you for inventing dialectic, but OPEN YOUR EYES, YOU PILLOCK."
(Final word to Aristotle, live from Greenland: "Greetings! This glacier has retreated so much that a Viking settlement has become exposed. Hah! Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!")
I only dropped back into this thread yesterday.
Has Brent developed a drinking problem?
Careful Brent, if you wave your arms much harder you'll achieve lift off.
By the way, did you see that the arctic was circumnavigated by a fibreglass yacht this season? Never been done before, no icebreakers or nothing. Can't remember what the boat was called - don't think it was Plato's Cave though.
You might like to compare the area of the entire arctic ocean to the area around your Greenland glacier, not that you'll understand of course. Your blind idealogue gene probably won't let you.
Brent said:
Brent did you just make this up or did you copy it from some dishonest website? It is absolute rubbish but typical of the drivel that emanates from your mouth and you confuse with reality.
How typical of Brent, to use something that never happened as his example of the things one should go and actually observe in the world.
There is no farm in Greenland emerging from under a glacier. That claim was debunekded years ago.
What there is, is a farm under the sands. The story of that farm is that it was covered by glacier outwash which buried it, under sand, not under the glacier. Probably a standard glacial event, liek failure of an ice dam or some such. It was cold enough at the time that the sand rapidly froze into permafrost - rapid enough that vegetation and animal wastes under the sand were not subject to freeze-thaw cycles,a dn were remarkably preserved when teh farm was exposed in the last decade.
The farm came to light when the sand thawed enough (get that - its was cold enough to freeze into permafrost, now it is warm enough to thaw - and the thawed sand eroded and uncovered the farm.
The basic elements of this is all very well known. The only excuses for getting it wrong at this late date, by someone who claims to be interested in and studying global warming, are willful ignorance or dishonesty
Ian, Aristotle's visit to Greenland was a poetic exaggeration intended to (oh, Goddddddd, these warmists have the figurative sense of a Walnut Whip) illustrate the perils of mucho theory and poco observation. Look up "Greenland: origin of name and emergence of Viking habitation" and you'll see that, as the cycle returns us to similar conditions to those the Vikings enjoyed, (oh, Goddddd, he won't get it....)
I concede that Aristotle is unlikely to visit Greenland.
Chek, I assume that your mention of the fibreglass circumnavigation implies that this was the first time in history. Certainly, nobody since Cabot's 1497 attempt at the Northwest Passage could have done this. The satellite record is a tad short, so we cannot know how small the polecap was in, say, the Medieval Warm Period. If it was - say - 80% of today's size in the 9th Century, might some adventurous Asians or Vikings have pulled it off?
St. Brendan's 5th Century jaunt in an ocean-going coracle is interesting. They were surprised by a "mountain of crystal floating in the sea". (Where's the loathesome John when you need 'im? "Well, duuuh! It must have been an iceberg, moron...") I'm surprised that Brendan was surprised. We can speculate that during those warm decades the Irish had no concept of an iceberg. If Brendan had sailed during the later Little Ice Age, when the seas were freezing around the British Isles, he'd have twigged.
Speaking of warm-cold-warm, have you seen the good work by Joe d'Aleo on the ocean cycles (AMO & PDO) and global temperatures?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/amopdo-temperature-variation-one-…
True, correlation is not causation, but this is such a good match that several decades of cooling now seem likely. It looks like a sine wave, fer Chrissakes! Now, if the AMO & PDO are, in turn, the result of solar variation, we're in business. I can see Pachauri's next career a-coming, heading up the UNAIAA (Anti Ice Age Authority), pumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere to save us all from freezing.
" ...pumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere to save us all from freezing."
How could that work? If gigatonnes of CO2 can't warm the climate from it's 1900 state, how could it possibly warm this climate enough to fend off an ice age?
Adelady, you're right, it wouldn't work. CO2's effect on temperature is real but minimal. My suggestion that it might remedy a New Ice Age is of course a mockery. Those who claim that CO2 is today 'clogging the radiator' must also want to wheel it out as the solution to any repeat of the Little Ice Age if coming decades are chilly.
When, in the mid-1970s, there were fears that a new Ice Age had begun, CO2 was advanced as the 'blanket' to keep us warm. I forget the name of the Scandinavian nutcase who came up with this harebrained scheme, but his bonkers ideas have been adopted, reversed and recycled by scaremongering Watermelons who say that this one-time saviour is now a villain, that CO2 doesn't keep us cosy but is about to overheat us.
This is gas-ism. Oxygen doesn't get all this opprobrium!Nitrous oxide is said to be a laugh. Sulphur dioxide stinks (according to some... in THEIR opinion... how very judgmental). So why is poor old carbon dioxide the pariah of gases? How very unfair. (Cue John...)
My crack about pumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere is a sneer at those who believe we can geoengineer. Yes, man can destroy species and habitats. No, we can't engineer the climate. These b*stards who have hijacked the green agenda and diverted squillions of dollars to fighting carbon dioxide are a gross evil. The pulic's green good will (I mean, the public's tolerance for green taxes) has been perverted and betrayed: such vast resource could have been put to enormous benefit in habitat and species conservation.
When the orang utangs, the tigers, the rhinos (this is shorthand; these three are mere posterchildren) are all gone we will curse the black hearts of these Harveys who conned us into hating energy companies when logging companies were the real enemy. I wonder if Jeffy Baby has teak in his dining room; I wonder if he produces CO2.
This isn't the first time that society has engaged in a hysterical convulsion. Today we look back open-mouthed at society-wide craziness from past decades and centuries. Our descendants will be highly amused that on our watch we quaked in fear of a gas that everybody breathes out and every plant uses, and simultaneously stood by impotent as the elephants died.
Aww Brent, it's so cute watching you stick both feet in your mouth and march on regardless, blustering away to your toecaps hoping nobody notices as you disappear down your own gullet leaving behind nothing but a pitiful echo.
Go back to your Volkswagen Brent.
".... hijacked the green agenda and diverted squillions of dollars to fighting carbon dioxide are a gross evil."
Where on earth did the 'green agenda' get 'squillions' of $$ from? And then 'divert' it to fight carbon dioxide?
Organisations, $$ numbers, $$ reallocations, please.
And not one penny of the dollars in question should be attributable, by any money trail, to routine meteorology or the rocket science of satellites for shipping or air transport or agriculture or communications. (Presumably any link to the military would be undetectable anyway.)
Brent hates me because I use his own words to hang him. That must hurt.
Brent, obviously when I mentioned "Tnerb" I was being sarcastic. You still managed to ignore the unassailable fact that when you trolled in another thread under a different name and with different views you were engaging in behaviour you yourself describe as "undignified". This is the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.
Why are you so full of hatred Brent? Maybe you should spend less time angrily banging out sarcastic replies full of erring, muttering characters and more time reading the Ar4 report you obviously haven't read.
I can't imagine what passers-through might think. Us with our science and reasonable answers, or you with your ridicule, hatred of science and bone-headed contradictory repition.
This one is funny enough to repeat:
Brent now:
>Nothing is so firmly believed as that which cannot be proven", he left us with a valuable insight into human delusion".
Brent then:
>I think we both believe that the sun is the major driver of climate, although explaining the precise mechanism lies in the future.
John, have you fallen for me? I'm flattered, but I'm spoken for.
Before Newton, your sort would scoff at the notion that the moon surely caused the tides, whilst explanation of the precise mechanism lay in the future. Similarly, in Darwin's time, the precise mechanism of heredity lay in the future. The sun affecting climate? You betcha!
Sorry to shoot you down after all your work poring over my postings. Hey, why don't you try saying something substantive yourself? You know, a few paragraphs of interlinked ideas in your own words. At the moment your postings are reactive.
I understand your need to believe that the world will get ever warmer. Go on, John, be brave and explain your beliefs to us as persuasively as you can. This will look you smarter than "Brent, with whose postings I am intimately familiar, is wrong" does.
All right folks, it's over. Since Brent has refused to follow the rules I made for him here and repeatedly used a sock to post outside this thread, he is now banned. He's had way more than enough time and space to make some sort of case here and failed.
This thread is now closed.