Harald. #1 Tim doesn't participate (or even allow me to comment) because he is plain ole scared I think.
Global warming is officially ended ! First of May is international 'Global Warming' Has Ended Day !
[Have I 'won the internet' yet ? ;-)]
"Time for you to go back to school Mack" Wrong, Time for you to get out of school Jeff and stop believing in everything fed to you the classroom. Have you that mental capacity? I think not.
@ 271 StevoR ..."basic physics"...It's not basic physics. See Nasif Nahle over on Jennifer Marohasy . (moderator getting fedup with my above link I would think)
There haven't been too many threads lately, only the monthly open threads (which I believe are posted automatically), and Tim Lambert doesn't participate in them.
No problem here, composer (NW UK). [This site can be useful](http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com) - http: // downforeveryoneorjustme. com - to check for issues.
You can also try clearing your DNS cache - google 'flush DNS' and choose accordingly, as directions for PC and Mac are different.
Having said that, none of that worked when Scienceblogs went down for a few weeks a couple of years back. It turned out that SB had blocked a bunch of IP blocks which included some UK ISPs in order to IIRC prevent some DDOS attacks originating from Turkey.
In which case, connecting via a free offshore proxy server may be the answer.
Lloyd interviewed a number of victims whose lives had been ruined by the vast, swooshing wind towers looking over their homes. They found sleep almost impossible; they couldn't concentrate; they had night sweats, headaches, palpitations, heart trouble. Their chickens were laying eggs without yolks; their ewes were giving birth to deformed lambs; their once-active dogs spent their days staring blankly at the wall.
Professor Simon Chapman, School of Public Health, University of Sydney is maintaining a register titled "Is there anything not caused by wind farms?" [here](http://t.co/Q9niYOs9).
The Hot Topic blog is plagued with this BS, mostly generated by a single alumnus of the University of Bishop Hill.
The level of hysteria among 'skeptic' anti-wind proponents is genuinely remarkable, even by Denier standards, and more than a little chilling... In all seriousness, the hatred - and I use the word advisedly - is palpable.
I really think they are genuinely afraid: wind working out means a viable alternative future is possible, and their little world - usually devoted to a species Libertarian ultra-Capitalism that they somehow imagine is 'Conservative' - will then fall apart.
So they hate the wind with all the fury of cornered fanatics. Hence I'm little surprised the Oz is joining in.
[Christian Kerr in The Australian](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/climate-scientists-cla…) seems to be saying that sending intimidatory emails and making physical threats to climate scientists is okay as long as the perpetrators aren't overtly threatening to kill scientists.
Delingpole has plumbed new depths driven by his pathological hatred of science and his desire for publicity for his cruddy 'Watermelons' screed. I won't link to the article - you can find it yourself, but you'll need a strong stomach. The stuff about Phil Jones is way beyond what should be allowed by any newspaper.
Following on from the piece in the Australian I referred to earlier (#13), one could surmise that Christian Kerr is of the opinion that [death threats, like the graphic ones Andrew Macintosh reported getting,](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/death-threats-to-scien…) are okay as long as they arrive by snail mail, not email.
Ignore the sarcasm at the bottom of the link - it has nothing to do with my point. I'm simply drawing attention to what some know about holes in walls.
Do you know, and I realise you will be amazed at this, but sometimes I don't think those Aussie 'warmers' take me seriously! Well, I mean, I threatened to hit our distinguished host over the head with a wet sponge until he relented and opened his eyes to reality which, of course, was taken by some of you 'feebles' as a "death threat". But now someone has had the temerity to suggest that I didn't mean it and that in reality I'm a harmless old codger who has read too many Jack Reacher stories! Well, let me tell you, I can turn really nasty when I'm riled - so watch it!
Oh, and guess what, it's still not getting any warmer even as the CO2 pours out in ever increasing amounts. 'Something wrong with our bloody . . .', ooops, sorry, used that one before and none of you science swots understood it!
There are several plausible explanations - not mutually exclusive - for your disagreement with the professions of climatology and physics, but none of these reasons are flattering to you:
you're uneducated
you're not intelligent
you're suffering with advancing dementia
you're ideologically opposed to admitting physical fact
you're politically opposed to admitting physical fact
you'd rather make maximal profit that admit physical fact.
Oh, and warming's stopped, ya think? Well, before you go hammering too many nails into the lid of the coffin in which your festering reputation moulders, you might try circumventing the implications of the above list and ponder on [some fairly easily understood science](http://www.skepticalscience.com/john-nielsen-gammon-commentson-on-conti…).
Or you could simply continue to drool idiocy all over the blankie on your lap.
Now do you as an ex second-hand car salesman begin to understand why water is used as the base of a coolant system mix?
Further those rogue scientists, example spotlighted here, who still try to claim that there has been little or no warming over the last nn many years are being increasingly called out for no longer being engaged in science in any meaningful way but advocacy in the public domain. They continue to do this because idiots like you believe them or are ideologically, and illogically, inspired by their message.
Thanks for the "Science" link. The most interesting thing about it was that SKS now seems to be reduced to getting it's "Science" from newspaper articles - in this case the Houston Chronicle.
What happened to the "peer reviewed studies" you're always crowing about, I thought everything else was just malicious gossip!
Bernard, in reply to yours, and in order:
1: No, everyone in the western world is 'educated'.
2: Depends what you mean by 'intelligent'.
3: Not yet but sometimes on 'warmer' blogs I begin to wonder!
4: No, and 'physical fact' has severe limitations as you should know being, er, 'educated'.
5: As above
6: I would admit anything to make a profit, dammit, I used to be a second-hand car dealer!
Anyway, Bernard, I think it's time you brushed up on *your* physics starting, perhaps, with 'uncertainty'!
Weasel @ 29
An article from John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas State Climatologist and a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University which expands on the peer reviewed science from [Foster & Rahmstorf (2011)](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022).
If you think that the Skeptical Science piece has no validity because John N-G wrote in a newspaper, take your protestations directly to the thread itself.
I know that you won't though. You don't have the cahoonas.
So we have one troll who thinks an article isn't valid because it was published in a newspaper and not peer reviewed (oh, the irony) while ignoring a similar article that *was* peer-reviewed, and another troll who thinks an ariel photograph of New Zealand is a better indicator for sea level rise than the actual measured data.
>Thanks for the "Science" link. The most interesting thing about it was that SKS now seems to be reduced to getting it's "Science" from newspaper articles - in this case the Houston Chronicle.
>What happened to the "peer reviewed studies" you're always crowing about
Even GSW realizes that, in a thread containing rational comments about the science and the evidence, "that article was published in a newspaper that mentions prostitutes, penises, and babies, nyurk nyurk" would be out of place.
It's purely an observation that is all. For all the carping from lot about "blog post" science and the "non peer reviewed literature", you're all too happy to employ these resources when it suits.
Don't have a go at me just because you realised your own hypocrisy.
I realise you're as equally thick and/or dishonest as Betula GSW, but an MSM article by an accredited climate scientist referencing peer reviewed papers can't be trashed by a moron like you claiming some phoney equivalence, however much you think you're being 'clever'.
I expect your fellow crank Jonarse may give you as pat on the head.
I would like to point out once again that "ianam" stands for "I am not a moron", so GSW spelling out ianamoron just further establishes him as an imbecile ... as if that weren't clear enough from his cretinous logic that supposedly shows us our hypocrisy based on Bernard J. pointing to the SkS article as an example of easily understood science.
And Brent, another moronic troll who has wandered out of his dungeon upon noticing the absence of the gatekeeper, is too stupid to grasp that the HI did exactly that: they put up billboards of lunatics who believe in Global Warming.
Unfortunately, neither the deniers displaying so clearly their immense moral and intellectual failings nor our pointing them out does a damn thing to solve the problems we face.
Incidentally, for anyone tired of the non-stop cabaret that is the recently mentioned Jonarse thread, [Dr. Inferno](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/) is back online, sticking it to them as only he can. Well, him and [the Baron](http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/) of course.
Great stuff Brent - hopefully that's you satisfied with the Wattard's level of stupidity and now you can go visit your idiocy elsewhere.
While you're there, get a big book which explains hard words, and see if you can understand the difference between the meanings of 'event' and 'trend'.
but in 1972 the big fear tabloid scare story was cooling.
Corrected that for you Brent.
From your own link (as is usually the case when morons link to their 'proof'): "This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles.
In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.
Somehow I doubt you're even capable of understanding the difference.
I hope Tim returns here soon and edits out the idiots who are polluting his site big time! Deltoid is being taken over by an army of complete and utter morons. Brent was once banned, ventures back, and then begins a massive offensive (in more ways than one). He cites Wikipedia to support his long-discredited global cooling myth of the 1970s, when in the very second line it says this:
*This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community*
That's the true 'warmer' spirit, Jeff, ban them because they dare to contradict - well done, that man!
As for the cooling scare in the '70s I can vouch for it not least because I lived through it and sneered at it in precisely the same way I sneer at its successor! At the time, Newsweek provided a detailed report on the subject quoting spokesmen from the NOAA, professors from Columbia and Wisconsin Universities, and sundry "meteorologists" and "climatologists" but of course, according to the denizens of this site, they were not "real scientists". And quite right, too, any more than they are "real scientists" now! They're just lab assistants with a veneer of knowledge but a sharp eye for a bandwagon with incoming government grants.
That's the true 'warmer' spirit, Jeff, ban them because they dare to contradict
No, I'd vote for confining them to their own well-earned 'Threads of Shame' (not banning) for continual and unrelenting stupidity. Not that I have a problem with banning - there are more than enough corporately funded outlets for encouraging stupidity such as Watts and Montford.
As for the cooling scare in the '70s I can vouch for it not least because I lived through it and sneered at it in precisely the same way I sneer at its successor! At the time, Newsweek provided a detailed report on the subject quoting spokesmen from the NOAA, professors from Columbia and Wisconsin Universities, and sundry "meteorologists" and "climatologists"
... and very few published papers and most definitely no consensus.
Not that you're the least bit interested in the science, but cooling due to aerosol pollution was an unknown factor at the time, and some jumped to the conclusion that at this stage in our interglacial period we should be heading into another ice age.
But we're not and almost every scientist working in the climate related sciences accepts that despite leaving no stone unturned we are heading into a warming at a rate that may well overwhelm our capacity and the capacity of the natural world to adapt to.
Still if you're an ignorant pensioner with no interest or comprehension, it's all the same thing, innit? Or you can adopt inane conspiracy theories like Brent, where you can imagine ... well, whatever you like! No evidence required.
At least it would free up some more bandwidth for intelligent, interested people to keep up with and discuss developments in climate science and research.
Yes I can vouch for the 1970's MSM global cooling stories as well, It did actually happen. I remember a BBC Horizon program about it with James Burke, and Starsky and Hutch lookalike Steven Schneider pushing the unscientific (paraphrasing)
"There tremendous uncertainty about this, but if it's half as bad as we think it could be, we're all f***ed"
He continued with this weak style of advocacy for some time (until his death), the only thing that changed was a 180degree turnaround in his reasons for thinking it.
The Heartland Institute has gone completely insane. Putting up billboards of criminals to 'prove' climate science is a scam - lol.
They should be careful, someone might retaliate using posters featuring ACC denier Anders Breivik. I sincerely hopeful no-one would consider crawling into the gutter with Heartland in that way.
Lawson's 'educational' 'charity' the Global Warming Policy Foundation isn't averse to crawling into the gutter. A year ago they featured a picture of Osama Bin Laden on their website with the caption 'Global warming spokesperson passes away' until, that is, the Charity Commission told them they had to remove it because it was incompatable with their 'educational' status.
I was just wondering why you never answered my question @498 in the April open thread regarding your Algonquin trip...
"Jeff, I don't doubt that plant zones are constantly shifting to some degree, but could you share some, if any, of the ecological consequences you experienced first hand?"
In fact, there's not much point in the question even if it hadn't come from someone who has made it absolutely clear that there is nothing possible that would change their minds over AGW.
>When everybody was worried about Global Cooling in the 1970s
Brent then:
>Most of my spare time is being spent on a new(ish) scare story I am hoping to launch: Global Cooling.
and
>I hope we can all agree that the latest news on the AGW scare is all good. There's Solar Cycle 24 which just doesn't want to get started. This'll help cool things down.
and
>By the way, we STILL have frost in the mornings. It's nearly May, fer Chrissakes! Outrageous! If a new Little Ice Age has started, triggered by a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, maybe we should be planning a major CO2 Production Programme. Brrr!
Shorter Brent: "It's absolutely outrageous that these lying scientists said we were about to go into an ice age in the 70's ..... but we're definitely about to go into an ice age this time! I mean at some point! Very soon!"
>I agree with Sou. The Heartland Institute should instead put up billboards of lunatics who believe in Global Warming.
Really? I thought the AGW hypothesis was "logical" and "watertight". It's interesting watching you get more extreme as your confidence in your own genius dissipates.
Must have been that ranting about cold weather in 2010, a year that turned out to be the warmest on record.
GSW,
>It's purely an observation that is all.
Is "observation" the new "conjecture"? Code for "I don't have to commit to anything I say"?
Brent, I am well aware you like to cloak your posts in "irony" and "conjecture" and sarcasm so you never have to be held to any of your angry rantings. This is what trolls do.
Unfortunately, your faith dictates you have to believe in a cooling climate since you shrieked that any more warming would falsify whichever hypothesis you were claiming to believe with all your heart that week.
When you regularly boast about "the promising correlation between sunspot cycles and temperature" and ramble about the "Maunder II" and Cycle 25, excuse me for coming to the conclusion that you expect imminent cooling.
When challenege us to admit we are wrong if there is no temperature rise by 2060, excuse me for coming to the conclusion that you expect imminent cooling.
Here's a question - you claimed you would accept you were wrong if the temperature anomaly went over 0.75+ again within five years. It did in 2010, the year you proposed that. Do you now concede the "AGW hypothesis" is correct, as per your promise?
Even better Brent, perhaps you can give your definitive answer on where all this excess heat is coming from? After all, the natural forcings as described by Foster & Rahmstorf tell us we should be cooling. We aren't. You admit this. Since you are confident I am a "lunatic", tell me - definitevly - what is going on.
Explain to me why the air surface temps are rising, sea levels are rising, agricultural zones are shifting, heat content is rising in the oceans, the stratosphere is cooling, arctic ice is melting and why more energy is entering the Earth than leaving it if it isn't the simple addtion of Co2 (a potent greenhouse gas) to the atmosphere?
Since you are so confident in your views that you can dismiss me as a "lunatic" this should be easy. You should comprensively disassemble the entire theory in this thread now, including the definitive answer for what is happening to the climate in lieu of AGW.
Ah, so you believe in global cooling do you Brent?
Humour me, and tell us all what you predict will be the mean annual GISS January-December land-and-sea global temperature anomaly for the next WMO-defined El Niño year. I stuck my neck out [several months ago on Deltoid](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#co…) and at Tamino's: let's see how close to the mark (or not) you actually are.
I really am curious to see what your opinion is on the subject, given that you are convinced that temperature will head in the opposite direction to that which physics and empirical evidence indicates.
And all you other Dunningly-Krugered denialists shitting on the carpet here - I extend the same challenge to you.
No Betula, I haven't answered your question because I think you may be too stupid to understand it.
Biome transition zones are characterized by often dramatic shifts in ecosystem properties, particularly in soil chemistry. Boreal forests are characterized by acid soils, whereas the Carolinian forests found only a few hundred kilometers south are characterized by alkaline soils. The biota - micro and macro invertebrates, soil fungi and bacteria are often strongly associated with certain types of soil chemistry and certain plant types. Mycorrhizal fungi are a good example. All species all exist within certain climatic envelopes characterized by an optimum and, away from this, increasingly sub-optimal conditions. If temperatures rise rapidly, as is currently happening in many temperate zones, then species adapted to certain other abiotic conditions will have to adapt. At strong transition zones, this will almost certainly be problematical. Deciduous forests will not magically move into acid soils when conditions become too warm in their own range. At the same time, habitat specialists in northern Carolinian forests (or southern boreal forests) will be squeezed between a rock and a hard place. Given that the deniers understanding of environmental science is virtually nil (just check out the comedy act known as Jonas-GSW-Olaus-Brent for that) its not hard to fathom we these illiterates think that its easy for an organism can just head north if the climate changes. They've done it before haven't they? Well.. yes... but not at the rate they are expected to adapt now, nor on landscapes that have been already simplified dramatically by humans through the creation of urban and agricultural areas. And for soil organisms the constraints are even greater, given that they will, disperse much more slowly than their above-ground counterparts. So what will have to happen is that ecosystems will have to reassemble themselves, via new trophic chains and the dissipation of old ones. This is easier said than done. Putting aside Polar Bears, there are numerous studies showing climate change-related effects on species interactions and phenology.
So what is the prognosis for the transition forests in Canada and the United States? Not good. Not good at all. Its just too bad that there aren't enough scientists around to study the consequences of warming on these zones. But I have spoken to enough colleagues who have predicted how life zones will have to change to track predicted changes in temperature regimes. Its easier said than done.
As far as first hand goes, I'd need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can't describe things first hand. There were very few winter birds present, that was noticeable: few crossbills, redpolls, siskins, gray jays and others indicating low seed production in the conifers. One thing I did notice was that the winter collemboles were active in January - when normally you would not expect to see them until late February or even March. I also saw insects active from several other orders as well as spiders. Normally unheard of in january and early February. Yes, it was a very mild winter. Record warmth was experienced over much of eastern and central North America. The climate is certainly changing there.
Gosh Brendy, them is awful big cost figures you is trying to scare your cretinous pals and any stray ignorami with.
As you no doubt already know (chuckle), the nuke industry is very coy about its costs ... but, holy cow! The wind farm build cost is only slightly more than the cost of decommissioning the nuke stations currently coming to the end of their lives: ["In May 2008 a senior director at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority indicated that the figure of £73 billion might increase by several billion pounds"](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/7421879.stm), let alone the building of 10 new ones at [£4.8 billion each](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times) plus in turn their own similar decommissioning costs when their life is over. And the windfarm 'fuel' is 'free', with scrappage costs likely covering their own decommissioning when the time comes.
Lets not even so much as mention the bank bail out amount of money (raised instantaneously - no consultation required) of £1,162 billion - or £1.62 trillion.
Big programs require Big Money, Brenda.
Meanwhile I recommend you stick to haranguing your local parish council about bin collections or dogshit or whatever. That would be much more in keeping with the scale of your mental (in every sense of the word) horizons.
@ 70 jerkrideau, You don't have to worry about the Pope.He's got science alarmist Ramanathan (SOD's favourite)feeding your bullshit AGW into his shell-like.
@ 91 Geoff Beacon....perhaps,may,might,should,"could simultaneously stimulate employment".... Same sort of words used in your science Geoff. See my perspective here... http://adoptanegotiator.org/2011/11/18/a-skeptics-approach-to-climate-a…
Brent, there is no debate I see here. We have warmists realist vs deniers, and it's a bit like watching smart kids tease dull kids in class. I have yet to see even one valid and/or game changing point raised by the dull kids.
"I've just scanned some of the biggest Deltoid threads in an attempt to gauge who is winning the Warmist/Sceptic battle of ideas."
What the ....??!!!??
Who cares? It wouldn't matter if every single post, notion, sentence and phrase displayed on here agreed with any particular participant in this imaginary "battle of ideas".
Physics is the silent particpant, referee, judge, jury and executioner. Physics will 'win' - if that's even a valid concept. Even if not a single word ever spoken, written or copy/pasted here referred to it.
Tim has a cockroach infestation - *blatella denialata* I believe. That's what happens when you leave your house unattended for a while. Apparently they like the dark and feed on garbage.
It matters not a whit that there are denialists here who cannot be converted, and who will instead remain recalcitrantly impervious to reason no matter how much they are shown it. One can lead a mule to water but one cannot make it drink, especially when it has already filled up at the Well of Stupid.
Still, it's interesting to see Brent's (very poor) level of intellectual rigour.
It's also interesting to see Brent pad out his list of 'good guys' with obvious socks. It says a lot about what he has in his pants.
On other matters, I'm not sure of the reason why [Brent wants to bring UAH into it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…)... unless of course it has something to do with his notion that "[a]s some here may have noticed, the competing UAH-MSU dataset has diverged from GISS, and now shows 0.3C lower." Hmmm. Many have also noticed that the satellite data are prone to errors and other divergences from the empirical data collected at the surface...
But back to the point. All these datasets are anomaly based - if there is no warming trend it shouldn't matter which is used, as long as one is consistent. I chose GISS because it is defensibly more accurate than HadCRU or UAH: anyone who claims that there will be no further warming can do so without introducing other datasets.
And way to go Brent, dodging my original reference to the next complete El Niño year and going for a year that's already currently in progress. I'm not interested in whether you can read a chart that already shows a third of the data; I want to know what you think will happen in the near future, in the context of the underlying temperature trend.
Ah ,nice to see Duffer & beBunkum spreading the trash denial of reality around.
In the mean time, "Heartland Institute" of very questionable tax exempt status, just took a shotgun to blow it's mononeuron all over the beltway in Chicago.
Anthony Watts, kicks own goal on this matter and is not impressed by the actions of Joe Bast's sole mononeuron. He believes, this action has sullied his activities and all "Climate Denialati". He uses the title "Heartlandâs Billboards and Joe Rommâs stunning hypocrisy", thus kicking his own goal.
As usual, in the current 262 spam bot comments. His readers musings, range from full on denial, cognitive dissonance, gish gallop and living on another planet. It is not the first time Anthony Watts, one track one thought a time mononeuron, has kicked his own goal and nor will it be the last either.
Eli Rabett, has exposed yet another reason, as to why "Heartland Institute" , should have it's 'tax exempt' status revoked by the IRS.
Me, instead of sitting on the fence, now is the time to start assorted counter campaigns and pillory the various companies and corporate entities that support "Heartless Institute". For watt goes around, comes around.
Grab the smelling salts, Adelady, you are in for a shock! You see, I agree with you! Dread words, I know. But when you write "Physics is the silent particpant, referee, judge, jury and executioner" you are absolutely right.
The problem, it seems to me, is that we are not dealing with classical physics in the sense of a force acting on an object. Instead we are trying to cope with a plethora of physical interactions taking place in a huge variety of times and places. The word 'chaos' hardly describes it. If you throw into the mix the fact that our means of measurement are crude and doubtful you can see that conjecture (or wishful thinking) in ALL directions has plenty of space in which to fly free. There-after, of course, psychology rules, not science! In the meantime, physics marches inexorably onwards and only "that old common arbitrater, Time" will settle it.
Is that supposed to be insightful Duff? You just posted what hundreds of denier trolls dutifully post in climate change threads every day - that because we do not know everything about climate change we should do nothing. Where is the shock? - the fact that you are a silly old fool is already well known.
Mike, To be honest, this is what those who deny a range of human effects on the biosphere have been doing for years. And, yes, in contrast with Jonas' willful ignorance, many of them are part of a broader anti-environment movement (one which has been well studied over the past 20 years and on which I often present public and university lectures).
About ten years ago I had on-line exchanges with a Canadian libertarian who argued that human effects on the biosphere were minimal (he was a Lomborg supporter, although, like Lomborg, he had no expertise in any of the fields Lomborg superficially covers in his book, TSE). Like other contrarians, he appeared to argue that without 100% proof, nothing should be done to deal with acid rain and other anthropogenic environmental problems. Duff's tactic is therefore not new. Its part of the A-E arsenal. Of course, there never will be 100% proof of complex processes, so the result will be to do nothing.
"Acid Rain"! Golly-gosh, I'd forgotten that one! That must have been back in the '70s, along with 'global cooling', when sundry 'experts' insisted that acid rain was on its way from Europe and would wipe out all British woods and forests. And you'll never guess what happened ... oh, you have! Quite right, nothing much happened.
Duffer, the phrase 'dangerously uninformed' might have been invented just for you. Like your fellow knuckleheads who also believe the C2K or 'Millennium Bug' was also a myth (news to those of us who spent months in 1999 checkng RTCs), your ignorance is similarly astounding.
The connection between the two is that [taking action in time](http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/08/19/acid-rain-20-years-on/) to prevent the worst manifestations of the problems went a long way to reducing their impacts. The lessons for dealing with climate change are exactly the same.
For God's sake Duffer what do you imagine the point of your publicly pontificating about that of which you know nothing or less is? Not that it's really possible for you to appear any more foolish than you already do.
Seriously, go get thee to a medical practitioner, and have an examination to exclude the high likelihood that you are non compos mentis.
If testing determines that you do still retain a resonable degree of faculty, then the only alternatives are ignorance, stupidity, or ideology - or the usual possibility of a combination thereof.
Here's a clue. What do acid rain, ozone depletion, and Y2K have in common? And don't be obvious with the denialist version of what constitutes an answer.
First, read Bernard's response. The read mine. And let the facts sink in.
Nothing much MORE happened because of Clean Air Acts that were passed across much of the world which reduced the amount of sulphates being emitted from coal-fired plants. Acid rain is still a significant threat to many temperate forests - check out the Appalachians especially at higher altitudes and you'll see exactly what damage it has wrought. The point being that if measures are taken, then systems can and do recover. Acid rain also decimated lakes in boreal forests of the north temperate zone, and many are still recovering.
"Thanks to governmental emission regulations, catalytic converters and smokestack scrubbers, yes."
I do realise that most of you weren't born in the 1970s but I don't think the satellite states of the Soviet Union gave a Marxist fig for 'Greenery', least of all if the result of all their pollution was damage to neighbouring democratic states.
I hope the very fine fellows and outstanding partners in our local education authorities at C2K took no offence, nor was any connection with havoc and devastation being wrought on computer systems meant or implied subconsciously or otherwise.
Duffer @108 - stop blathering and digging yourself deeper into your pit of ignorance. As far as I know the direction of the prevailing winds are still west to east at European latitudes, just as they have been since the 1970s and indeed centuries prior.
Quite what your ranting about ex-communist regimes causing environmental damage which you denied occurring just over an hour beforehand has to do with anything (apart from your mental condition) I'm not sure.
A few of the lines in this article caught my attention:
Jeff: âOn our trip we experienced climate change at first hand"
Jeff: "In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real."
I was curious. Why didn't Jeff mention the climate change he saw or experienced first hand? Was he misleading the reader? Was he exaggerating? Can someone actually see climate change first hand and realize it's climate change and not weather?
I had to know, so I asked on the April thread and then again here:
@66..."Jeff, I don't doubt that plant zones are constantly shifting to some degree, but could you share some, if any, of the ecological consequences you experienced first hand?"
After some back and forth which included displays of Jeff's past uncivil behaviour, I finally received a response @78 stating:
"I haven't answered your question because I think you may be too stupid to understand it." Of course, I forgave him for this because, as we all know, he has a superiority complex.
This was followed by a 370 word rambling @78 that didn't answer the question. Of course, I forgave him for that because I realize he can't help himself and he thinks I'm too stupid to realize he didn't answer the question.
After his usual rambling, Jeff seemed to have an afterthought and realized he didn't answer the question...so he answers it @79:
"As far as first hand goes, I'd need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can't describe things first hand."
"The problem, it seems to me, is that we are not dealing with classical physics in the sense of a force acting on an object."
Gott in Himmel!! There's more to physics than the inertia experiments we did in yr 9 50 years ago. Repeat after me .... radiative transfer equations. That's physics too you know.
"...a plethora of physical interactions taking place in a huge variety of times and places." For pity's sake. These are mere details in the planetary scheme of things. For global warming it really is quite straightforward. Solar radiation keeps energy coming in just as it always does. The earth's 'skin' at the top of the atmosphere radiates energy away. If _something_ makes that skin thicker or less efficient, it can't radiate as much energy out of the system as it would otherwise. More energy retained in the oceans, ice and atmosphere changes how all those things behave.
The fact that we have some problems knowing in advance where to look and what to look for as examples of where that energy is and what it is doing doesn't alter the big picture. Your 'plethora' of 'interactions' sounds an awful lot like someone focusing on ferns and leaf mould and peeling tree trunks and chirping insects and fungi on fallen branches so much they fail to notice that it all adds up to ... a forest.
And it's the forest, or the physics, as a system that matters. Details are very interesting and may be important in various ways. But they are details.
The article was written for the NIOO web page. One of your aims in doing the trek was to bring attention to the potential effects of climate change on biomes bordering other biomes, where biotic and abiotic factors determining community structure and function become more complex. Its an area that is currently receiving some attention amongst systems ecologists.
Given your kindergarten-level understanding of ecology, its not that I have a superiority complex (in spite of the fact that my expertise in said field blows yours away), but that, like other deniers, you have a one-dimensional view of the field and expect absolute answers. Sorry I cannot oblige, but there are examples of shifting biomes in Canada that were presented by a colleague at the University of Toronto in a seminar at NIOO three years ago. He showed how temperatures in central Ontario were approaching values experienced in the south of the province 40+ years ago, and how the life zones would have to track this. This winter was extremely warm - 10 C above normal during our expedition - and the longer trend is also significant. Just because I didn't do a comprehensive study whilst plodding over 170 km does not mean that nothing is happening. If the area is warming as fast as records indicate, then something will *have to happen*. Your response is exactly the same kind of thing I was saying in response to a posting by Mike H above (in response to a post by Duffer). You and your equally daft deniers use the strategy or arguing that, without 100% proof of a process, then the problem does not exist. This tactic has been used by the deniers to downplay a wide range of human-mediated environmental problems. The tragedy from your perspective is that the processes I describe are found in the empirical literature. Of course transition zones will suffer more than areas at the heart of biomes as things change. No news there. Except for idiots like you. You posted a bunch of stuff I'd said about you above, and I stand by all it it. You belong back in grade school if you think you can make hay of the NIOO web page article.
You really are that monumentally ignorant, aren't you? Don't let mere historical events and facts stand in the way of your loudly-broadcast, made-up-as-I-go-along opinions, will you?
As an indication of what might happen to the Appalachians, it is my understanding that acid rain from Manchester in the 19th century (together with over-grazing) was a major factor in the conversion of oak forest into cottongrass moorland. Duff probably thinks that moorland is 100% natural.
Jeff Harvey...
Apparently you're having a hard time reading what I actually write, because you're arguing some point I never made.
To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that parts of Canada are predicted to see major shifts northward of plant and animal species?
Okay, it's a prediction.
My question wasn't about a prediction, it was about the climate change you saw first hand...your words on the NIOO web page, not mine. You then admitted you can't describe things first hand. So you were caught in a LIE.
Meanwhile, you say you "stand by" all the uncivil things you said, so you admit you are UNCIVIL.
In addition, you denied having a superiority complex in a fashion that only someone with a superiority complex could do. In one sentence, you make an insult to make yourself feel superior, then you deny you have a complex, only to follow it with a statement about how superior you are.
Honestly, I can't make this up, here it is:
"Given your kindergarten-level understanding of ecology, its not that I have a superiority complex (in spite of the fact that my expertise in said field blows yours away)"
So to sum up, you're an uncivil liar with a superiority complex who is arguing a point never made.
Betty, I suspect there are, indeed, many children in pre-school who already have a better grasp on the concept of ecology than you do, as one has to really actively resist any organic and intuitive understanding of the natural order and work at it - probably over many years - to achieve such a very-nearly pristine level of ignorance.
Honestly, we couldn't make you up. Well, if we did, we'd be accused of laying it on waaaay too thick...
Which brings us to the old Duffer, wheezing around like some heavy-handed caricature of his old occupation, right down to the faux bonhomie. Would you buy a used Ideology from this man? -
Of course, I could do the decent, principled thing and send the money back* but alas, dear reader, that would break an even higher duty to which I needs must bow the knee; it is enshrined in The Honourable Company of Second-hand Car Dealers: 'Never Give a Sucker an Even Break!' Perhaps one of my many well-educated readers could translate that into Latin, give it more of ring, 'know wot I mean, John?'
Caveat emptor, indeed!
*A pension, we're told - what would Hayek say? But then again, as always, Ayn Rand led the way...
Duffer gibbered re; acid rain..."And you'll never guess what happened ... oh, you have! Quite right, nothing much happened."
Gee, I don't know why I bothered to apply the brakes and stop before the railway crossing as the express train approached. Nothing much happened. I should've just kept going.
Duffer, you're not still permitted a driver's license, are you? There's something about your posts that conjures to mind those terrible news stories one occasionally hears of an addled senior driver careening through a crowded market...
Interestingly, it's my understanding that the Betula pollen season has already been responding to climate change with implications for hay fever sufferers.
>A new study examining nearly 40 years of satellite imagery has revealed that the floating ice shelves of a critical portion of West Antarctica are steadily losing their grip on adjacent bay walls, potentially amplifying an already accelerating loss of ice to the sea.
Your posts are annoying more than anything else. Simply because of the profound ignorance you embrace. Nothing I wrote is in any way 'controversial' in spite of what you are trying to make out of it. There's a lot of evidence of ecological stresses induced by climate change and other anthropogenic factors at biomes transition zones. And of course what the NASA report even failed to say was how species adapted to alkaline soils will be able to adapt to biomes with acid soils. Shifts like this normally take thousands of years to occur, giving the above and below-ground biota a chance to more realistically adapt as well as to manipulate their new local environments to create alternate ones. We know that there is a strong feedback between processes in the soil and the plants that grow in them, as mediated by a stupendous array of biotic and abiotic processes. Its certain that soil communities in boreal forests are adapted to these conditions and actually regulate them in this way, whereas soil communities in alkaline soils are very different. Expecting shifts from one biome to another in the space of 100 years is perhaps an unprecedented challenge for many ecosystems in transition zones and will certainly cause major ecological upheaval in these zones if - and I emphasize this - if AGW proceeds along some of the predicted trajectories. You and your denier brethren better hope that it many millions of years. I'd also like to point out that if I were to be doing research in these zones I would find a lot of evidence to support what I say, so its no use burying your head in the sand and saying that as long as nobody studies it all is OK. If we did not study extinction rates, you'd deny that there was any concern over this, either. I could cite a lot of articles in the literature providing evidence for what I said, but I should not always have to do your homework for you. Jonas uses the same strategy over on his own thread: that is, he demands that I and other list studies for him, and when we do, he ignores most of them and cursorily reads a few others and dismisses them with a wave of his hand. The GSW and his other clan members swoon at his omniscience.
"but I should not always have to do your homework for you"
So there Betula...listen to what teacher Jeff tells you. But hang on, he says it may be many millions of years, so I wouldn't be too much of a hurry to get your homework in.
"I'd also like to point out that if I were to be doing research in these zones I would find a lot of evidence to support what I say, so its no use burying your head in the sand and saying that as long as nobody studies it all is OK."
It is way past time to quit arguing with the wilfully ignorant, those who are so ignorant that they cannot appreciate how ignorant they are as Jeff Harvey's exchange with Betula demonstrates.
Duff of course is another of similar ilk, he thinks that it is fun to behave like Dana Rohrabacher throwing out what he perceives as crippling points accompanied by the written equivalent of the 'look how clever I am' smirk displayed by Rohrabacher during his exchange with Richard Alley at that 2010 Science & Technology Committee hearing - see Brain v Blowhard on YouTube or at Climate Crocks.
Duff always avoids answering direct questions so why bother to reply to this prime example of bad behaviour?
The pair of them deserve a Wendy Wright award . Note how strident Dawkins is, NOT. I cannot understand how the likes of Madelaine Bunting can keep accusing Dawkins of being strident. To be sure the opening paragraph of Chapter 2 of 'The God Delusion' was rather accurate, using the Bible for guidance, but to confuse accuracy of description for stridency is to lose sense of proportion.
It is said that the reason we continue to debate these 'spoilers' is so that casual visitors can grasp the sheer desperation of their tactics and perhaps take away a realisation that AGW is real and a big problem. Unfortunately these recent open threads, and the continuing blog bog role that is Jonas, are now of little real value IMHO and serve only to stroke the egos of these scientifically illiterate and rude time wasters.
Rohrabacher is amazing in that video - you can really see in the gleam of those shiny, tiny eyes that somewhere in the shiny, tiny brain that rattles around behind them he really, really imagines he's on to something! One almost feels sorry for him, except that he's incapable of realising he deserves our pity.
Dunning and Kruger, look no further: you have your poster boy!
Of course, his fellow afflictees just love him to bits...
If I were like Jeff Harvey, I would be walking around my house claiming to have seen my son's State Cup soccer trophy "first hand"
Let me explain:
My sons team has a very good chance of winning the Connecticut State Cup Soccer Tournament. The Tournament is single elimination and has just started, though it will take many weeks to complete.
All the statistics lead to a consensus among soccer experts that his team will "very likely" win. Let's review the data:
The following peer reviewed data shows that his team is already ranked #1 in the State, they win over 82% of their games and have a goal ratio of 5.07.
Now, if I were Jeff Harvey, not only would I have already built a shelf in my son's room for the trophy, I would be claiming that I've seen the trophy in the house "first hand". If someone were to ask me to describe the trophy I've seen in the house "first hand", I would tell him "of course I can't describe the details (of the trophy) first hand" and then proceed to tell him he is "too stupid" to understand my son may win a trophy.
I would then label him a State Cup Soccer Champion Denier and go on (and on) to explain about the history, rules and nuances of soccer, expounding on my knowledge about each teams strengths and weaknesses based on the current coaching staff, each individuals strengths and weaknesses, how they match up to other teams, the quality of practice time and the current injury list. I would finish by calling him a soccer player in diapers and ask him to go away.
If I were you I'd be worried about my son's future, and especially the future for his children if he is to have any. I'd be concerned that the planet our generation is going to leave his will be a lot more impoverished than the one we inherited from our parents. I would be worried that the damage we have wrought and continue to inflict on complex adaptive systems will rebound on his and later generations, and that the conditions emerging from these systems that we habitually take for granted that permit our species to exist, persist and thrive will no longer be a 'given'.
Your post above, as expected, is gobbeldegook. The kind of stuff I hate to have to respond to here, because it is beneath contempt in its rank stupidity. Essentially, you are saying that its perfectly fine to drive at high speeds along a road while blindfolded because 'nothing bad has happened yet'. That, until all the evidence is in that driving this way will eventually lead to disaster, that there's nothing wrong whatsoever with continuing as you are. The truth is that humans are headed for a massive abyss of our own making, not just with relation to climate change but in the other myriad of ways that we are assaulting systems across the biosphere. Ed Wilson, promoting his new book, last week said quite correctly that humans are an enigma: a species with a Paleolithic brain but with immense technology that is being used to drive natural systems to hell in a hand basket. Against this background we have those like you desperately clinging to the notion that somehow our species will muddle its way through the bottleneck we have created and emerge unscathed out the other side. You probably don't even think there is a bottleneck at all, in spite of all the evidence that says *au contraire*. Every natural system across the planet is in decline. Every one. Qualitatively and quantitatively. Essentially, it appears that humans want to drive systems towards a point where they will only support micro-organisms, cockroaches and a few weeds. The Biosphere II experiment flopped because humans cannot replicate self-sustaining biome or ecosystem, and thus we rely utterly on nature to sustain us. No amount of technology can replicate most critical services. And, as I said, our species does not seem to have evolved in some ways very much in 30,000 years. We are still in many ways a rapacious bipedal organism with highly tribal tendencies. If we are to make it through the bottleneck we are in we are going to have to change our ways as a species, socially and politically. To be honest, I am not that optimistic. if your views, Betula, represent those of 'Joe Public' in the west, then I think that pessimism is not misplaced.
The only reason I write into Deltoid is to counter disinformation from the likes of people like you who clearly think they know a lot about environmental science when it is obvious to me that they don't. I certainly know where my professional strengths and weaknesses are, but that does not stop the pretenders on this and other threads who have no background in any relevant fields trying to give the impression that they are self-trained 'experts' in many different fields of endeavor. Like you, Betula, they come into these debates armed with their idealogical blinkers which explains their vehement denial. I am wasting my time on them and on you; my aim is to reach out to those who want to know more and who are not clouded by their own political agendas.
I agree with everything you wrote there in #132 Jeff.
I will suggest that Betula, and Duff and the rest of The Bash Street Kids, find copies of E.O. Wilson's 'The Future of Life' and for more context 'The Diversity of Life' and read them.
They may then, just, grasp what a knife edge the biosphere that sustains us is poised on and also the value of the services which it provides.
They should also grasp that even at our current level of 'mining' such resources (they should read Jared Diamond too) we are consuming the capital and not surviving on the interest. Why is it that most economists cannot see this?
But of course they won't. They will continue to stand in the corner with hands over ears and eyes and stamp their little feet whilst uttering, 'It isn't and anyway I cannot hear you'. They are behaving like children at the moment will they mature? That is the question.
Lionel, would that be the same E. O. Wilson who published a paper in NATURE in 2010, along with two mathematicians, which blows kin selection, so beloved of 'Archbishop' Dawkins and his 'Darwinista Sect' out of the water and replaces it with group selection?
And would it be the same E. O. Wilson who in July last year expressed great confidence in the future of Africa as agricultural methods improved and more and more people moved to the cities; and who joyfully pointed out that Africa was "the fastest urbanising continent in the world"?
You see, I always fall for a pretty lady! (Er, I am assuming here that Adelady is indeed pretty.) She tells me that when it comes to radiative transfer models (regretably they are not pretty ladies!) it is all easy-peasy: "For global warming it really is quite straightforward".
Well, of course, being a gent of the old school I took her word for it but just by accident I was skimming through Wiki, as you do, and I came across this:
"The radiative transfer equation is a monochromatic equation to calculate radiance in a single layer of the Earth's atmosphere. To calculate the radiance for a spectral region with a finite width (e.g., to estimate the Earth's energy budget or simulate an instrument response), one has to integrate this over a band of frequencies (or wavelengths). The most exact way to do this is to loop through the frequencies of interest, and for each frequency, calculate the radiance at this frequency. For this, one needs to calculate the contribution of each spectral line for all molecules in the atmospheric layer; this is called a line-by-line calculation. For an instrument response, this is then convolved with the spectral response of the instrument. A faster but more approximate method is a band transmission. Here, the transmission in a region in a band is characterised by a set of pre-calculated coefficients (depending on temperature and other parameters). In addition, models may consider scattering from molecules or particles, as well as polarisation; however, not all models do so.".
I thought I had summed all that up with my usual elegance and wit, thus: "Instead we are trying to cope with a plethora of physical interactions taking place in a huge variety of times and places. The word 'chaos' hardly describes it." But alas, the stern disciplinarian, Adelady, still lashed into me although, for the life of me, I can't see why?
That's the trouble with you lot, even when I agree with you you disagree with me! What's a chap to do?
Yes, Duffer, this is the same E.O. Wilson, who said in an interview last week:
*Weâre destroying the rest of life in one century. Weâll be down to half the species of plants and animals by the end of the century if we keep at this rate. Very few people are paying any attention, just dedicated groups. The only way weâve been able to get peopleâs attention is through big issues like pollution and climate change. They canât deny pollution because you can give them the taste test. You can say, âWe just took this out of the Charles River. Here, drink.â But they can deny climate change. Weâre in a state of cosmic or global denial. However, there are changes. The general direction is going up the right way. The only question is how much damage are we going to do to biodiversity before we catch on. Right now Iâm going to national parks around the world â Iâve been to Ecuador, Mozambique, the southwest Pacific, all of Western Europe. Iâm going to write a series on national parks â what the basic philosophy of national parks and reserves should be, and how it relates to our own self-image and our own hopes for immortality as a species*.
Kind of blows your attempt to downplay what he says about human impact on the environment out of the water, doesn't it? As for 'blowing kin selection out of the water', all his paper did was present one perspective. As a scientist, it always amuses me when the scientific illiterati (you being one example) take single studies they like and make big noises about them, whilst ignoring many more that they don't. As if you can interpret the science in the first place. Group selection is still very controversial, especially if there is a low coefficient of relatedness amongst different genotypes in a population. It is very likely that kin selection still has a major place in evolutionary biology, as many scientists have already weighed in critiquing both the Nature paper and Wilson's ideas in his latest book. But that is what good science is all about.
I love you, Jeff Harvey! Of course, I love Adelady, too, but then I have always been generous in my affections. Why do I love thee? Let me count the ways?
Well, only one reason, actually. You wrote this and I treasure it: "many scientists have already weighed in critiquing both the Nature paper and Wilson's ideas in his latest book. But that is what good science is all about."
Consider yourself covered in kisses - oh brace up, man, it's not that bad! I truly never, ever expected to see your last sentence on this blog.
Part of me wonders what David Duff thinks of Heartland's latest massive embarrassment, and just what knots he'd tie himself in while trying to direct attention elsewhere.
Thankfully, since I block all his comments, I never have to worry about finding out.
I think you've made the right move there, Dave H. Duff's latest stuff is just embarrassing (and tipsy, perhaps?). Like Rohrabacher, in his mind he clearly imagines he has some kind of point, and is so pleased with himself he even manages to drip condescension.
Duff's every bit as extreme as HI - as the most cursory skimming of his blog (even that's more than is recommended!) will reveal.
Remembering Singer's recent efforts as well as this latest HI fiasco I reckon we'll be seeing the 'respectable' faction of Denial attempt to further distance themselves from the extremist nutters, at least as an exercise in public perception; the problem for them being that the extremist nutters are Denial, in a very real sense, constituting the majority of what passes for their 'intelligentsia' and the overwhelming majority of their foot-soldiers.
The short of it is that Duff is egregiously cherry picking and confabulating*, and has no clue how he is doing so.
And at his age, there's probably not enough time left to teach him where his gaping holes of ignorance are. The only consolation is that his grandchildren will one day remember how he was an obstacle on the road to attempt to make theirs a less worse world than it otherwise will be.
[* He also seems to be hankering after the sexual shennanigans of a public school dormitory past, hey what, but best to leave that one alone...]
Since when did 'straightforward' become 'easy-peasy'.
The physics of sport are pretty straightforward - lots of that 'classical physics' of inertia and the like. But just try playing tennis against Federer or Nadal or Djokovic, easy it ain't. Or even stringing their rackets - straightforward issues of materials science, probably backed up by lots of arcane physical equations about tensions and resistances and elasticity. Once again, easy it ain't.
When it comes to science, duff, you and I are like the audience at musical performances - and so are all the rest of the world's citizens who aren't musicians, composers or musicologists. Our singing in the shower or plinking on a guitar or a piano are not equivalent to the expertise of those who perform professionally, let alone to designing and building musical instruments.
We can appreciate the elegance of various flawless interpretations of a Bach cantata, or the consummate skill of a tennis player or a soccer goal shooter in the same way as we can look at science or scientists as a more-or-less informed observer. How do they _do_ that! is a legitimate expression of admiration.
The fact that looking more closely makes you realise just how much hard work - physical or intellectual - is required to perform at that level makes no difference. It really is quite straightforward to understand and appreciate as a non-participant. Seeing what's really required to qualify as a participant should enhance, not detract from, our appreciation.
Speaking of participants, here's a really neat demonstration of what Jeff keeps on reminding us about, the importance of maintaining diversity in various ecologies.
And what I talk about in actually doing science. 14 uninterrupted years of mainly routine, often tedious, concentrated work in establishing and maintaining experimental plots. Observing and recording minute details not obvious to the uninitiated eye. Analysing those records and producing a paper showing what most of us - but clearly not all of us - expected to see anyway. More variety and more complexity in plant communities produces measurably more plant biomass and associated living material than simpler communities with less variety of plants.
Lionel, would that be the same E. O. Wilson who published a paper in NATURE in 2010, along with two mathematicians, which blows kin selection, so beloved of 'Archbishop' Dawkins and his 'Darwinista Sect' out of the water and replaces it with group selection?
It's "beloved" because they think the evidence supports it. But E.O. Wilson et. al. may well be right about inclusive fitness and Dawkins may well be wrong ... which has none of the implications that an scientifically illiterate illogical imbecile like you seems to think it does. (Among other things, Dawkins' anecdote about the scientific ethic, about an old professor who thanked the young scientist for showing that the position he had held for many years was mistaken, comes to mind.)
Meanwhile, E.O. Wilson -- that E.O. Wilson -- blows you and all other faux-skeptics out of the water over global warming.
Since when did 'straightforward' become 'easy-peasy'.
Beyond this switcheroo, Mr. Duff completely changed the subject, like if you had pointed out that heating a pot of water causes it to boil, and he then quoted a text on turbulence. That turbulence is chaotic has no bearing on whether it's straightforward that heating a pot of water causes it to boil ... it is. And that's the kind of thing we're talking about when we say that weather isn't climate -- the pot will boil, even though we can't make predictions about the location or size of the bubbles.
But for an intellectually dishonest scientific illiterate like Duff, "argument A blows argument B out of the water" simply means that he would prefer the conclusion of argument A to be true.
The Climate Comission have published a rebuttal to Plimer's creationist-inspired tome "How To Get Expelled From School".
I haven't read the book, and upon reading Plimer's "questions" I am frankly shocked at how far he is willing to go in order to mislead children for political motives.
Many of the questions and answers in Professor Plimerâs book are misleading and are based on inaccurate or selective interpretation of the science.
Plimer question 99:
Why do those advocating human-induced global warming vilify scientists who disagree rather than addressing genuine scientific questions?
DCCEE answer:
Genuine scientific disputes are normally addressed through publication of alternative theories in peer-reviewed scientific journals. However, the scientists and others disagreeing with the consensus on human-induced climate change have rarely published in such journals, therefore avoiding critical scientific assessment of their work. There is no single paper, or set of papers, that provides a plausible alternative explanation of recent warming. The few papers that do exist have been demonstrated to be flawed by the weight of peer-reviewed literature. There is now a vast body of literature supporting the mainstream understanding of climate change.
@136 Duff "argument from personal incredulity" only works with people who are thicker than you. In your case we are talking about a group that would fit into a phone box.
Gosh,you science swots certainly confuse an old chap like me. First one of you quotes E. O. Wilson with warm approval, then another of you leaps with joy because Wilson's paper is "blown out of the water"! Well, I'll leave you to fight that one out but I'm happy to hold your coats.
As for the HI poster campaign I can describe it in one 4-letter word - crap! (See, toujours la politesse, that's my message.) It goes alongside all those ridiculous pictures of polar bears floating on tiny lumps of ice and similar examples of agit-prop.
Having just embarked on a love-in with Adelady I have no wish to spoil it with a minor spat before even the honeymoon is over! "Straightforward" and "easy-peasy" are more or less the same adjective, that is, any subject to which they are attached can be easily understood. Thus, even I could (just about) understand the law of levers. I can even understand radiation. But when you have different types of radiation coming at different levels at different times and re-acting differently, not only with the same recipients at different times and in different circumstances, but also differently with different recipients which are themselves being subjected to different influences as well as interacting with each other, and all thes einteractions are virtually impossible to forecast with any degree of accuracy, then I would say that you have a chaotic system. Whilst I salute efforts to get to grips with it and to attempt to forecast future events, you will foregive my doubts as to the likely success.
Anyway, it's Bank Holiday Monday so I'm off to put my wellies and raincoat on and go out to enjoy the drought which yet another bunch of 'scientists' forecast!
Duff does not understand the difference between weather and climate. Shocked, we are, shocked.
I also find it amusing that record rainfall - as, um, predicted by the whole AGW thing - is now being used by Deniers to discredit the Met Ofice, and this somehow discredits AGW, because the Met accepts the reality of that, so, that proves that... well, um, Deniers in general don't get the difference between weather and climate.
What we're really in danger of drowning in is The Stupid...
"...all these interactions are virtually impossible to forecast with any degree of accuracy, then I would say that you have a chaotic system."
Clearly you've never been inside a commercial kitchen at 7.45 pm. The people seem chaotic and any physical or chemical description of the actions and interactions going on in all the pans and pots and flames and ovens at any one instant would be completely impossible. Funnily enough, half an hour later the diners are all served, there's still some frenetic activity in the dessert and pastry preparation area but it's all apparently under control.
All science is hard. We _think_ we understand a lot of things we're familiar with in daily life, like cooking and laundry. But the underlying science is not so simple, it's only familiarity that makes it seem so.
Unfamiliar concepts like very large numbers or very long time spans or remote regions like ice caps or the deep oceans or the stratosphere are even harder to deal with because we don't have familiarity to give us the security of feeling that we know what we're dealing with.
I have saved you all in the nick of time! As you know I have been tireless in my efforts to offer you an alternative "End of the world is nigh" scenario as your global warming 'Shlock-Horror' slowly sinks into the history of utterly useless predictions. But now I bring you a super-swot, Mike Hapgood, a space weather scientist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford, no less. He is already making for the hills because anytime now, according to him, there is a really, really, big chance of a scary solar storm that will blow away civilisation as we know it! Asked what the chances were he said:
"A recent paper [published in February in the journal Space Weather] tried to estimate the chance of having a repeat of 1859 and came up with a value of a 12% chance of it happening in the next 10 years. That's quite a high risk."
There you are, you see, I always deliver on my promises.
Incidentally, my dear (if I may be permitted that very respectful endearment), may I remind you that the results emenating from kitchens are not always what is forecast and thus expected by either chef or consumer!
*Incidentally, my dear (if I may be permitted that very respectful endearment)*
From you, Duff, its an insult. The sad thing is that you think you're having fun here with the crapola you are writing. But you are the only one laughing. Why Tim hasn't banned you is anyone's guess. You deserve your own little myopic corner of the blogosphere, but just expect most others not to want to be a part of it. You remind me of someone who would be cracking jokes to the passengers of the Titanic soon after it struck the iceberg. Your premise would be that its unsinkable, even as the mighty liner began to list. As the concern and panic grew, you'd be fiddling away on the upper deck in sheer delight even as the predicament became more and more apparent.
To be honest, you are, in my honest opinion, warped. I am sure that most of us here wish you'd take your stupidity elsewhere.
From my perspective, it's almost funny - despite the somewhat weird apparent intention. Addressing remarks in a tone much like someone indulging a teenage niece or neighbour looks downright absurd on this side of the screen.
To put duff straight - you've been addressing your remarks to someone who's likely more of an old fart than you are. Not just that, an old fart who's actually a bad-tempered cow spending a lot of time at a keyboard because pain prevents more productive activity - and provokes the aforementioned bad temper.
It's entirely possible that I'm older than you. In my case, it doesn't stop me from respecting the work of people half my age or twice my education or both.
Don't them let you put you off David, I'm enjoying it.
Maybe in a different part of the country to you, but it's been droughting down here for the last few hours. For all the 'Global Weirding' going on elsewhere, it's a fairly normal Bank Holiday Monday weatherwise. Good excuse for staying in to watch the snooker.
You lied about experiencing climate change first hand, I call you out on it, and as a result, you accuse me of denying climate predictions...
C'mon Jeff, you need to question your assumptions. Try reading between your own lines, afterall, you're an honest scientist without biases "clouding" your vision, aren't you?
But Jeff . . . Jeff, baby . . . I thought we had just become engaged, er, with each other's opinions, that is:
You wrote this and I treasure it: "many scientists have already weighed in critiquing both the Nature paper and Wilson's ideas in his latest book. But that is what good science is all about."
And I agreed with you! And together we walked off into the sunset (which, as I warned you above @156 is a terrible, frightening threat to all mankind) but now you have turned against me. Does that mean "critiquing" (or 'criticisng' as normal English-speakers put it) is now off your agenda? Tell me it ain't so!
Go away. You write an utter piffle of an analogy which, frankly, I found even to be idiotic for you, in spite of the crap you normally contribute here. IMHO you appear to be fairly stupid. Get over it. A lot of deniers are.
The article in question was written by a colleague for the NIOO web site. There's no way in a million years that one could say that they experienced climate change first hand and not expect the deniers to scream foul, but there are a lot of ways in which patterns can be seen in th ecophysiology of plants and animals over time. Many of these changes are occurring at biome boundaries. And the empirical literature is full of similar examples. Get off you backside and look for some of them. Its not my job here to do that for you. But don't play the denier game: that its up to me to prove to you than warming is having ecological effects. IT IS. Find out how for yourself.
But OK, I will play your stupid game. I saw little evidence of snowshoe hares which should have been abundant in the park. Lynx are virtually gone. These are species at the southern edges of their ranges. Its certainly possible that these species are moving north in response to the warmer climate. Many Carolinian species are certainly advancing northwards. Virginia Oppossums are found in areas they were absent from 30 years ago. Red-Bellied Woodpeckers are moving northwards. Many other species of birds are in population freefall. Warming in Europe is haveing all kinds of disruptive effects on species phenologies. African crop pests like Spodoptera littoralis are now overwintering in Europe. Plutella xyslostella, the diamondback moth, a south temperate and tropical species now thrives over much of central Europe. Plants are expanding their ranges from the south.
As for GSW, what an utter hypocrite. He once wrote, "Polar Bears, frogs and coral reefs are doing fine". Wrong. Try again. When called out on it, he then claimed that they aren't necessarily doing fine at all, but that climate change is not a factor in negatively affecting their status. For instance, he then tries to pawn off global amphibian declines as being exclusively due to a pathogen. Wrong again. Many factors are involved, and some secondary stressors facilitate primary stressors that manifest themselves in increased mortality. Direct and indirect effects are abundant in natural systems, so that cause-and-effect relationships are not black and white. But why expect GSW to understand this any more than Betula or Duff? The three of them belong together in their pit of ignornace.
Then GSW claims to enjoy Duff making an arse of himself. Or should I have said, 'classic GSW'.
I have just read in The Telegraph that it was 'the dinosaurs wot dunnit'! And this is from a pair of real scientific swots of the kind that are so admired on this site. Apparently:
''A simple mathematical model suggests that the microbes living in sauropod dinosaurs may have produced enough methane to have an important effect on the Mesozoic climate,'' said study leader Dr Dave Wilkinson, from Liverpool John Moores University.
I mentioned this outstanding discovery to the 'Memsahib' but she reckoned dinosaurs had absolutely nothing on me! What can she mean? Anyway:
''Indeed, our calculations suggest that these dinosaurs could have produced more methane than all modern sources - both natural and man-made - put together.''
I can claim to have first-hand experience of the effects of climate change in my own region.
Over the last few years some of the orchardists in the district have started to replace various pome and stone fruit because the number of chill hours that were experienced several decades ago has been decreasing, and they are being forced to change to varieties that require less chilling.
The salmon farms where one of my in-laws worked is looking at diversifying to (or possibly completely moving to) other species in the next decade or so, because the darned salmon are starting to suffer ever more heat stress in summer, when water temperatures reach almost to the species' thermal limits. In the past they could shoulder the small amount of heat death; now it's becoming a real concern.
Thirty years ago the roads in the valley over the hill, inland, were blocked by snow almost every year for three or four days, at least. It stopped my kids' mother from going to school. There hasn't been snow on these roads for at least a decade, and there haven't been blockages for at least double that length of time. And a couple of generations ago the village where I live used to get a foot or more of snow at least once a decade - that hasn't happened for at least fourty years, going on fifty.
Talk to the old horticultural neighbours here and they'll tell you that temperature-sensitive spring flowering over the last three or four decades has been steadily occurring earlier, by two or three weeks now compared to then. And many old timers will point to trees that used to turn red or red-purple in autumn, that now manage only orange or orange-red at best. Chinese pistachios are a good example - a relative of mine has one in the garden, and for years it hasn't managed to come up with the red I was once shown when a preserved leaf was sent to me in my interstate days.
Bernard, I am not "an active denier of human-caused global warming", it's just that I have been reading the arguments of 'warmers' for years whilst also reading those of 'deniers' and all I can say is that you have failed to convince me. But I have changed my mind, or even made up my mind, on different subjects over the years, so all you have to do is convince me.
I should add, that actually given that the temperature of the earth's atmosphere has never ceased to change then, all things being equal, I would much rather have warming than cooling. Warming brings huge benefits where-as I cannot think, off hand, of any benefits from cooling.
Gosh,you science swots certainly confuse an old chap like me.
That's because you're an imbecile.
First one of you quotes E. O. Wilson with warm approval, then another of you leaps with joy because Wilson's paper is "blown out of the water"!
An imbecile who doesn't understand the scientific enterprise and how it differs from argument from authority. Also a liar who blatantly misrepresents the discussion. And a pathetic hypocrite who himself offers E.O. Wilson approvingly (with the lie that his paper blew kin selection out of the water) while at the same time completely discounts what Wilson says about global warming.
You'll never convince us of your position, Duff, for the same reason we can't convince you of ours: you're stupid, ignorant, and thoroughly dishonest.
Warming brings huge benefits where-as I cannot think, off hand, of any benefits from cooling.
If that is your position then I take it you do not like eating and think that you can live on sunshine and water just like the green slime you resemble?
Food production will be seriously affected by global warming. Food shortages due to climate change are already occurring in certain parts of the globe.
You are one pathetic and despicable person but you already know that.
This paper by Walther et al. - which is now 10 years old - won't stop the armchair denial experts from claiming how much they know more than the scientists, but it puts into perspective what we knew about the biological effects of climate change even by 2002. Fig. 1 is illuminating: it shows the heterogeneous distribution of temperature changes that had occurred in only just over 20 years, and highlights Canada as an area that has experienced rapid warming. It also supports the temperature trends in the transition zones I alluded to earlier which by definition must be having ecological effects. Furthermore, many more studies have been published since this seminal paper came out in 2002 that provide irrefutable proof of biotic responses to warming, as well as how warming is increasing the stress on species interactions and phenology. We can attribute, for example, the decline of the Pied Flycatcher in much of central Europe to changes in spring temperatures as these affect bud burst in oak, emergence of oak-feeding caterpillars, peak food abundance for the flycatchers and reproductive success. This study alone (conducted by colleagues here at the NIOO) shows how climate change is affecting trophic interactions negatively with consequences for the survival of the flycatchers in much of their breeding range. This study is certainly the tip of an iceberg. For instance, climate warming has been implicated in the declining body sizes of North American passerines, as recent articles in Nature and TREE attest. Eric Post gave a seminar at our institute 2 years ago and he showed how warming in Greenland was affecting reproductive cycles and optimal browsing vegetation quality in Reindeer. He also showed how the increased intensity of NAO events is strongly correlated with poor reproductive out put in some North American passerines, especially at the heart of the range of these species (e.g. Summer tanager, Yellow-Billed Cuckoo). This research alone counters the pseudoscientific babble being spewed out by Mr. Know-it-all next door. The Walther article is here:
As an aside, note how hypocritical Mr. Know-it-all claims that his opponents are 'asinine' here, then attacks me for my insults. Talks about asinine! I was willing to give the twit the benefit of the doubt, but he muffed it, and couldn't keep his massive, bloated patronizing ego in check. And he still hasn't answered the one question he's been asked a million times: what is his profession? Since he uses a pseudonym, its not like he will give his identity away. The reason Jonas doesn't answer this is because he is afraid of being humiliated when he tells us all the truth. That we'll laugh (we probably will). Any guesses from people here what out resident egotist does for a living? All answers welcome.
"Warming brings huge benefits where-as I cannot think, off hand, of any benefits from cooling."
So don't _think_, use your imagination.
Where I live, we're fully aware that shopping centres are not really commercial enterprises, they're temples dedicated to the worship of summer air conditioning.
When summer temperatures can exceed 40C without breaking any records, you're not really interested in it getting any "warmer". And watching 15% of our trees dead and dying over the final couple of years of a drought in a city famed for its parkland setting was particularly galling. In my own garden at the time we lost half a dozen fruit trees, not happy at all. No 'benefits' that I could see.
And around here? The wine growers are picking earlier and earlier and starting to get worried about quality. And grape picking during the middle of the night? Unheard of a few years ago. Not this wet year though, it's green everywhere and winter hasn't even started. Feels quite odd.
But my dear Adelady, your shit is my manure, so to speak! If indeed you warmers are right then those viniculturalists of yours will simply have to up sticks, I mean up vines, and move back to southern England where they used to be a few centuries ago. However, I should point out that there is absolutely no sign of global warming here, quite the contrary. However, we can boast of the wettest official drought - anywhere! Some scientific swots have insisted it's a drought and who am I to argue as I wrestle with my brollie in gusting gales! They may, or may not, be the same sort of scientific swots who for the last three summers have been forecasting non-stop heatwaves, and needless to say my BBQ, which I haven't used in three years, is getting rustier and rustier. I cannot stress to you strongly enough that I really do wish that global warming was happening - but it ain't! And were you to tempt me, you naughty Adelady, you, I might have a small wager that global cooling is more likely over the next few years not warming.
Swotting has nothing to do with it. People with low scientific IQs like duff duff can swot all they like, they'll never understand enough to pass the exam.
I realise that some people don't much care about droughts or flooding on the other side of the world, but surely most of us care what's happening a couple of hours' drive away.
For the past 17 months there has been extremely low rainfall across a large area of England ... It has been the driest six months on record for eastern England. ....rain received in the first part of March ... has not reversed the impact of two consecutive dry winters. In central, eastern, south east and parts of south west England ... we will start spring 2012 in a worse water resources position than spring 2011. In contrast northern England and Wales will start the spring with resources in a normal position.
Despite the amount of rain received throughout April, East Anglia, the south east of England, south and east Yorkshire, the south west of England and the Midlands remain in drought..
Don't know how many of your not-quite-neighbours would agree with your casual sneer about wanting more warming.
Here's definition of "swot" from the Urban Dictionary that fits Duff well:
A word used by morons to insult a person of superior academic abilities.
Said morons believe to have such intelligence and excelling at education and gaining qualifications is laughable and therefore to be called a 'swot' is a horrible, undesirable humiliation for the victim.
Heh, if David Duff the denialist doesn't like the cold, he should ponder on the likely eventual effect of global warming on the Altlantic thermohaline circulation.
Of course, he'll be pushing up daisies before that time comes, but if he's going to try to be objective about it he should be acknowledging the science and promoting the opposite of what he does.
But then, it's never about the science with Duff...
Hey Davie, you still haven't answered the question - have you told your grandchildren yet that you want to FUBAR their world and their lives, by actively promoting inaction as a response to the conclusions of objective science and empirical evidence?
"Warming brings huge benefits where-as I cannot think, off hand, of any benefits from cooling."
So don't think, use your imagination.
Don't get sucked into Duff's idiocy, Adelady. Benefits of cooling are irrelevant; the issue is that we're facing an increase of global temperature of several degrees, and there's a rather large benefit to not having that happen.
I don't believe I did tell you that. I also never told you that you had a superiority complex or that you were a liar.
I did, however, ask Jeff to give details of his first hand experience with climate change in Algonquin and he replied he couldn't. Of course, he just recently contradicted his contradiction @167, saying that the little evidence of Snowshoe Hares and a lack of Lynx are signs of climate change:
"I saw little evidence of snowshoe hares which should have been abundant in the park. Lynx are virtually gone. These are species at the southern edges of their ranges. Its certainly possible that these species are moving north in response to the warmer climate"
It's possible, yes, if that's what you want to believe to fit your message while leaving other information out:
"I can claim to have first-hand experience of the effects of climate change in my own region"
You list 4 examples, all of which may or may not have to do with climate change. For the sake of argument, let's say they all do. Is it all detrimental?
1.Orchardists are planting new varieties.
2.Salmon Farms are adapting:
âThe Tasmanian salmonid farming industry is well placed to adapt to the challenges of climate change."
3.Roads are no longer blocked so kids can go to school
4.In some cases, early spring flowering may increase and lengthen plant productivity, assuming the pollinators also emerge early.
So are there positive and negative predicted effects, or only negative predicted effects? Is there a negative to positive predicted ratio? Does the predicted ratio change by region and species? Is the predicted ratio weighed against other predictions?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying predictions based on other predictions, I'm questioning if these predictions are currently facts (experienced first hand), in which case, they are no longer predictions. And if the predictions are currently facts, are the predicted effects all negative.
Pot luck really. If the required pollinators emergence relies on day length rather than seasonal warmth it's all a bit sad.
"Orchardists are planting new varieties." and later ...
"...are the predicted effects all negative."
I'd say losing your investment in a few thousand trees and having to purchase replacements long before their anticipated end of productive life counts as negative.
Hmm, what is the ratio of positive to negative effects of raising the global temperature by, say, 4 degrees Centigrade? 6 degress Centigrade? This may help:
Betula's response @ 188 reveals in detail why its a waste of time responding to him.
Dozens of times I have explained that species and especially local populations are adapted to cope wtih certain biotic and abiotic conditions. Dozens of times I have explained that species do not exist as isolated entitites but depend on an array of interactions with other species in food webs: mutulaists as well as antagonists. Numerous studies have shown that the strenght and resilience of food webs is determined by feedback loops within these food webs, and recent theory predicts that more species-rich food webs are more stable because they offer more alternate pathways for the circulation of resources through the system. We also know that there is inbulit redundancy into most systems, so that when a key driver of ecosystem processes delcines, other species within the same functional guild fill in for them and sustain the role the declining species filled. But some systems have a lot less in-built redundancy: for instance, ecosystems in higher latitudes with, because of thermal contraints, are less species-rich. But these species are well adapted to thrive under such conditions as a result of millions of years of evolution via frequency-dependent selection. Enthothermic species exhibit thermoneutral zones: this is where the organisms must invest variable amounts of energy in response to temepratures that fall within or outside the range of normal temepratures they would generally experience in their habitats. A rapid shift in temperature will likely shift temperature regimes outside of the normal range, meaning the organisms must expend more energy to regulate their internal body temperatures.Invertebrates are also adapted to certain temeprature regimes. The distribtion of a species represents its optimal habitat window as determined by intrinsic (physiological) and extrinsic (ecological) constraints. Innumerable paramters are involved, but when constraints fall outside of the norm, then we can expect the predictions of the Thomas et al. (2004) article to manifest themselves: local declines of species followed by the extinction of genotypes, populations and eventually the species as a whole.
Putting this all together, climate change represents a profound challenge to biodiversity. And I mean the kind of changes that are occurring now, well outside of normal boundries for a largely deterministic system. The Walther et al. paper already gave plenty of examples where climate warming was either shown to be or implicated in the declines of species and food webs. Since it was published, many hundreds more have appeared in the empirical literature. Essentially, Betula, like GSW and the other deniers here, wants us to cross our fingers and hope all turns out hunky-dory. Duff hasn't got a clue either and can also be excused for his ignorance. Jonas is a waste of time: he is too wrapped up in his own bloated ego and the reverential praise he receives from GSW to understand the basics of environmental science. Heck, he's afraid to tell us what his day job is, instead giving us cryptic clues that it is 'relevant' to the discussion. Well, one thing is for certain: he and his acolytes do not understand basic environmental science. We get fatuous remarks from Duff calling it 'soft science', when I am sure Duff could not analyse the illustration below showing a 'simple' aphid-parasitoid-hyperparasitoid food web (courtesy of the van Veen lab):
To reiterate, this is a simple food web. Throw in thousands of other biotic interactions - intraguild predation, associational resistance and susceptibility, and then try to analyze the chemical and physical factors in the environment that account for the structire of this food web. Go ahead David D. Perhaps you'd like to use our HPLC and analyze the secondary chemistry of the plants at the basal end of the food chain or use an HPMS to analyze the plant volatiles while you are at it? And then write up your results using PCA?
This is where the effects of warming will and are being borne out. On food webs and species interactions. And the prognosis is not good. Certainly warming and other stressors are simplifying food webs through differentiual effects on various species in them. So when I see people arguing that warmer is better because it means the kids will have more snow-free days to get to school, or because farmers can plant more thermophilic fruit trees, I cringe. If this is what the public's attitutide is towards climate change and its possible effects, then we are in deep, deep trouble. A PhD student here recently showed here that the soil microbial community can be hammered by even short bursts of extremely host conditions. Soil-plant feedbacks mediate many key ecosystem properties, as described in the Janzen-Connell hypothesis. Uncoupling of soil- and above-ground processes will certainly affect ecosystems and their productivity. And, as I have also said dozens of times, warmer conditions will not be accompanied a simple shift of biomes to the north, at least not at the temporal scale being envisaged. Moreover, the landscape has been greatly altered across most of the biosphere by man. We are certainly living in the Anthropocene. Adaptation is challenging enough, given that we are talking about a century. But juxtapose that with the fact that species will have to cross vast expanses of agricultural and urban landscapes that create artificial barriers to dispersal. Habitat and dietary specialist herbivores are already showing signs of being negatively affected by warming.
In summary, the Betula's of this world are those who desperately cling to the notion that humans will 'muddle through'. It doesn't matter that the evidence is all around us that we are pushing systems towards a point beyond which they will be unable to sustain life in a manner that we know. And the evidnece is large and growing. GSW belittles the 'Planet under Pressure' document without really having a clue what it is about. He then runs off to his hero and mentor, desperate for reassurance that all if well with the world. Much of what the deniers understand comes from appalling anti-environmental sites like BH and WUWT. Not from the primary literature. The studies (or people) who are not liked are routinely ridiculed by people who are afraid to write up rebuttals for science journals, knowing they would be shredded. So they bang the drum and pound their chests on the blogs, while in real life they are a bunch of cowards.
I've been repeatedly called a liar by the lay-deniers on Deltoid and I have learned that one has to have a thick skin to deal with these people. My colleagues are forever telling me that I am wasting my valuable time responding to them. And they are probably correct. But what has kept me here are the voices of reason and not the right-wing nuts who are living out their D-K fantasies.
Thankyou. Your effeorts here are much appreciated - by some of us anyhow.
If we ever get to meet in person I'll be honoured to shout you a beer - or other poison of your choice.
@1. Harald Korneliussen | May 1, 2012 1:48 PM
There haven't been too many threads lately, only the monthly open threads (which I believe are posted automatically), and Tim Lambert doesn't participate in them. What's up?
@ Tim Lambert - Hope you are well and happy. Please sir, can we have some more {/Oliver twist voice.) Any chance you can let us know what's going on here, please?
Adelady's already pointed you in the right direction, but let me add to her comments.
1) Local orchardists are already running close to the break-even margin, and having to remove mature trees is a huge financial burden. To say nothing of the more general cultural and biodiversity significance of losing to extinction (often valuable) varieties because there's simply nowhere to grow them successfully.
2) Salmon are much better adapted to aquaculture than are local species. And believe me, I know - I have had the privilege of maintaining some of our local species in capitivity, and they are a completely different kettle to salmonids, which I have also husbanded. One big issue is that indigenous species simply don't grow as rapidly as do salmon and trout, so they offer no profit after housing and feeding - and that's aside from their less forgiving response to captivity.
3) The loss of (the very limited) snow cover in Australia will have profound consequences for a number of species, and indeed for (the Australian version of) alpine ecosystems. You might not give a shit, but those of us who understand think rather differently.
4) Phenological dissociation... well, that's a whole discipline unto itself. If you don't appreciate the significance, you probably aren't competent to operate machinery or to hold sharp implements.
As others have repeatedly pointed out, you're simply a waste of space.
Chris Berg rooting for adaptation as a response policy is like the fox begging to be put in charge of hen house security.
However, if things have reached to point where the Productivity Commission has concluded that adaptation is actually a front-line strategy, then the fight is already lost.
Which, when all is said and done, I suspect is indeed the fact of the matter...
From the abstract: Our results hence show that the observed evolution of Arctic sea-ice extent is consistent with the claim that virtually certainly the impact of an anthropogenic climate change is observable in Arctic sea ice already today.
"Liars", eh? Is this really the best you lot can do? Deniers are hurting at the moment. Their desperation is out there for all to see. First we had Heartland's insipid billboard campaign, and now we have McIntyre flogging a dead horse from nearly three years ago to prove lord knows what.
I suspect the main motivation behind revisiting this ancient scandal in such a sensationalist and hyperbolic tone ("liars", Watts? What has been "lied" about exactly?) is to deflect from the mammoth negative publicity for the deiners that Heartland has happily created.
As Anthony Watts himself said âWhen youâre suffering battle fatigue, sometimes you make mistakes.â
Duff would know all about lying, what with claiming that sea levels aren't rising even though all evidence points to the contrary (90 year old ariel photographs of New Zealand not withstanding!)
At least he's consistent - Duffer having scored a big fat zero with every piece of regurgitated disinforming slime that's dripped off him for months now. And he so wanted all of it to be true, his faux joviality notwithstanding.
Another clear sign of 'battle fatigue' is Watts' rapturous 'cosmic jackpot' carry-on re Svensmark's latest paper. Seriously, this is 'skepticism'?
Re Duff's faux joviality masking something altogether more, um, disquieting - I completely agree - remember this?:
You know,being a 'warmer' must be terrible nowadays, a bit like being a mother and seeing your new baby slowly dying before your eyes. Do you know, I almost feel sorry for you, but, nah, I'll just give the baby another kick - heh, heh, heh!
"A week ago, the Information Commissioner notified the University of East Anglia that he would be ruling against them on my longstanding FOI request for the list of sites used in the Yamal-Urals regional chronology referred to in a 2006 Climategate email. East Anglia accordingly sent me a list of the 17 sites used in the Yamal-Urals regional chronology (see here). A decision on the chronology itself is pending. In the absence of the chronology itself, Iâve done an RCS calculation, the results of which do not yield a Hockey Stick."
"In todayâs post, Iâll also show that important past statements and evidence to Muir Russell by CRU on the topic have been either untruthful or deceptive."
[...]
"Conclusion:
In their original statement on Yamal, CRU stated:
'We would never select or manipulate data in order to arrive at some preconceived or regionally unrepresentative result.'
Undoubtedly this is how they think of themselves. But their history shows that they have had a strong sense of what their results âshouldâ look like and have, on other occasions, selected and manipulated data so that their results accord with âpreconceivedâ results."
"The âBriffa bodgeâ was a completely arbitrary âadjustmentâ of Tornetrask MXD data so that the answer made âsenseâ. The âBriffa bodgeâ was the predecessor to the âvery artificial adjustmentsâ described in Climategate source code documents."
"Likewise, CRUâs decision to âhide the declineâ by deleting MXD data after 1960 was evidently done so that the MXD temperature reconstruction accorded with preconceived ideas. This was done by CRU themselves and was a different manipulation of data than âMikeâs Nature trick (as described in more length in previous CA posts.)"
Now Duff's over at McIntyre's Climate Fraudit. Move around the ant-science sites, don't you Duffer? Methinks you have a sad, boring life. Like McIntyre, if this is his 'science'.
The fact that the denialtwits have to cling to the long debunked climategate crap shows how really desperate they are. Since their credibility is hanging by a thread, don't expect them to let go of whatever they can.
But Duffer would much rather believe a rank amateur like McIntyre - who we will remember created a tissue of lies and memes (automatic red noise or principal component analysis, anybody?) that were included unexamined in the Wegman Report and later exposed.
McIntyre is of course too vain to admit he's an incompetent and out of his depth and out of his field, even after the McShane and Weiner epic fail showed beyond all doubt that statistical analysis uninformed by a background able to understand the paleobiology was somewhere between worthless and misleading.
Not that it matters to the drooling Duffers of this world, who only want to believe they're victims of a conspiracy. And so the same old crapola goes around and around and around and back again, hoping for a different result each time as the insane are wont to do.
Reading Duff is like getting slimed in Ghostbusters.
Repeatedly...
Over and over...
All the time...
Can he be banned? Pllease can he be banned, please? All he ever really wants to do is annoy people, and why not, he has quite the spectacular gift for it, but this is a science blog, not a repeatedly getting slimed in Ghostbusters blog. I suppose the topic is a siren song for obvious trolls, but surely Duff wore out his welcome long ago...
Bernard...
I'm guessing that Dutch Elm Disease and Chestnut Blight were a result of Climate Change. Of course, the introduction of Hemlock Woolly adelgid and Emerald Ash Borer here in Connecticut is obviously from Climate Change. About 15 years ago we had a year where Woolly Beech Aphid was a major problem because of Climate Change. I haven't seen it much since because of Climate Change, which of course means less Canker due to Climate Change. One year we had a major problem with Army webworms, though in wasn't much of a problem before or since...no doubt it was Climate Change. I'm seeing Coyotes, Wild Turkeys and Bobcats more and more, though they were unheard of around here 40 years ago. Climate Change. We used to catch Weak fish in Long Island Sound, now you never see them, though there appear to be more Bluefish and Bunker...all because of Climate Change. Someone not to long ago hit a Moose on the Merrit Parkway, and more recently someone hit a Mountain Lion that wandered here because of Climate Change. Yet, I can remember as a child 45 years ago, my father said he saw a Mountain Lion in our backyard...only I was too young to realize it was there because of Climate Change. Sawfly on the Mhugo Pines wasn't a problem for the past few years, yet we are finding it everywhere this year. I wonder why? We are trying to control certain invasive species here like Mile-a-Minute Weed, not a problem 10 years ago...it's here now because of Climate Change. We are on the lookout for Asian Longhorned Beetle, we aren't seeing much Midge or Psyllid damage and we are finding a lot of Aphids because of Climate Change. We don't expect to have much of a problem with Anthracnose this year, probably not much Leafspot, Phytophthora, Cedar Apple Rust or Scab due to this years dry spring. Though lately we've had a lot of rain because of Climate Change. Excessive amount of Chickweed this year, very little Snowmold compared to last year and an excessive amount of Red Thread as a result of Climate Change. Irrigation Companies were scrambling to get their systems on, but now with the rain they are scrambling to adjust them because of Climate Change. We are spraying the trunks of White Birch trees with Safari to prevent Bronze Birch Borer, a secondary invader that tends to attack trees that are weakened as a result of Climate Change. The Ticks, active over 40 degrees, have been abundant due to Climate Change, so we will probably hear about more cases of Lyme Disease, Ehrichiosis and Babesiosis due to Climate Change. It's been a dry spring so there seems to be less Mosquitos which means less cases of West Nile Virus because of Climate Change. Now, if you will excuse me, I have to cut this short because I think I see some leafminer damage on the Ilex...
Lionel, would that be the same E. O. Wilson who published a paper in NATURE in 2010, along with two mathematicians, which blows kin selection, so beloved of 'Archbishop' Dawkins and his 'Darwinista Sect' out of the water and replaces it with group selection?
Unfortunately you have fallen into the 'we must have a conflict' trap installed by the author of tat piece. After all that is what fits the agenda of the publishers â conflicts in arguments sell copy.
I sense from your use of terms such as 'Archbishop' Dawkins and 'Darwinista Sect' that you have not read either Dawkins or Wilson, let alone others such as WD Hamilton, Robert Trivers, Peter Medawar or even Charles Darwin himself. For if you had you would appreciate that those such as myself come from a position of wide reading and understanding of the facts yielded by much exhausting field work and carefully thought out logic. Religion it is not.
I would suggest that you read the text of Dawkin's 'The Selfish Gene' and not just the title. Do you know what it is really about? Hint it is mostly not about selfishness. I would suggest looking out the 30th Anniversary Edition (2006), my current copy (this must be about my fifth, my children having borrowed previous copies and passed them on to college friends) as this has worthwhile additional material in the form of Endnotes, new Introductions and an updated Bibliography. The indexing is superb not only giving page number in text but, in parenthesis, also Note numbers where applicable.
Chapter 13 'The Long Reach of the Gene' contains an exhortation to read Dawkin's own favourite of his writings 'The Extended Phenotype'. If you know not the meaning of 'phenotype' then it is worth your time. You will also find 'haplodiploidy' which word you should have come across if you had studied the sources you cite with due diligence.
When it comes to disagreements over particular aspects of evolution then the dispute is rarely of a violent nature, any such is often the result of media stirring by those who either do not understand the field or who are afraid of their own parochial world view being convincingly challenged.
After all this is the same E.O. Wilson of whom Dawkin's writes, 'Not since Darwin has an author so lifted the science of ecology with insight and delightful imagery.
Now Dawkins has produced many examples in his writings of delightful imagery and non so fine as his exposition in the Chapter, 'A Garden Inclosed' in his superb, easily readable 'Climbing Mount Improbable', which is a sort of a many who-done-it on figs and wasps with many twists to keep you amazed. Dawkins also explodes many shibboleths in his other excellent easy reader 'Unweaving the Rainbow'. Those who cannot grasp from where Dawkins is coming should read this as well as the collection of essays, by Dawkins and others, that is 'A Devil's Chaplain'.
Those who dare to describe Dawkins as 'strident' have not appreciated the fierce verbal attacks that he was subjected to following the publishing of his first book. Many, clergymen and their cheer-leaders mostly, simply misunderstood the meaning of his carefully crafted arguments. Dawkins takes great care to be precise but fortunately not at the expense of clarity and readability. His later editions of his first book carried note on the rational behind his arguments at first, in later editions and also what prompted him to make the few changes he felt necessary. His focusing of late on religion has been largely brought on by the religious themselves â they poked a quiet unassuming scholar and were surprised at the result, hence the more venomous attacks that have issued since.
The bottom line is that this disagreement as to the relative importance of 'group selection' and 'kin selection' does not undermine the basic truths of Darwinian Evolution.
Lionel,
First of all thank you for the courtesy of your response which stands in direct contrast to other offerings here.
As far as Dawkins is concerned, yes I have read him and a copy of 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blindwatchmaker' are on a bookshelf to my left as I write. He is indeed a very pursuasive writer and I confess to the fact that I swallowed him whole at the time - although then I was slightly younger and trying to learn. Oddly enough, it was Dawkins's own, to use your excellent word, 'stridency' that first set off alarums in my head. As the regular commenters here will know, I always smell a rat if someone "doth protest too much"!
Anyway, his attitude drove me to read his critics and two of them in particular blew away much of his argument. The first was the philosopher, the late David Stove, in his 1995 book "Darwinin Fairytales", and the second was Richard J. Bird and his book "Chaos and Life" which seems to me to offer a very much more convincing explanation for evolution than the Darwin/Dawkins one of zillions of tiny differences gradually changing forms over time. (Bird in bis book references two Israeli mathematicians who worked out that there wasn't enough time in the whole existence of the universe for an eye to develop by tiny increments.
I should add also, that the other thing that set my worm of doubt in motion was the fact that there was so many huge divides amongst the 'Darwinistas' themselves. Does evolution proceed at the level of the species, or the individuals, or, as Dawkins maintains, at the level of the gene? The ferocious arguments between 'experts' that have erupted over that little teaser make this site look rather sedate!
Then there is the thorny question of altruism. If Darwin's theory is correct then there can be no exceptions to his rule that the fight for survival can allow of no altruism. If it does arise by genetic accident then it will be quickly snuffed out. But in humans it survives. As do some other rather awkward characteristics in human beings, like homosexuality and voluntary chastity.
It's fascinating stuff and makes for good conversation but, alas, even as I write I can sense the knuckles scraping along the floor as the mouth-foamers approach! Before they arrive please let me just say in a spirit of good humour that 'there are more things in Heaven and earth, Lionel, than are dreamt of in your philosophy'. And mine, too, come to that!
I realised after posting that the following wasn't clear as to who was in receipt of venomous attacks, text in bold clarifies.
His focusing of late on religion has been largely brought on by the religious themselves â they poked a quiet unassuming scholar and were surprised at the result, hence the more venomous attacks that have been issued against Dawkins since.
As for the level at which evolution proceeds - one has to think carefully about the processes involved and how they are separated.
There has been plenty of time for eyes to evolve, they have repeatedly. Indeed some eyes, such as those in Cephalopoda are of a better design in a crucial respect that those in humans, do you know what that is?
Then the eyes of many arthropods are different again and different between different arthropod species at that.
Some creatures have patches that are sensitive to heat, and what is heat - a manifestation of a wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum outside of those of visible light.
I recommend Richard Feynman 'Lectures on Physics' too.
How long have eyes had to evolve do you think?
Are you trying to make room for some creator here? Seems like it.
Whilst child-boy Jonas continues muttering insanely on his own thread without addressing the results of a single study that have been linked, aside from snide dismissal (thank heaven he is stuck there), more empirical studies on the effects of AGW on species interactions and phenology. Note (1) that these studies represent the metaphorical tip of the iceberg, and (2) that the human fingerprint on the warming is taken as 'given'.
Lastly, Jonas wonders why I don't stick around on his sad little thread. The reason is because IMHO he is an arrogant little pr*** who tries to give the impression that he has wisdom in all areas of science whilst patronizing those who disagree with him. I tried the polite route and in return all I got was his usual psychobabble, condescension and blank-cheque support for the other idiots on the thread. He has yet to address a single scientific article that has been shoved in front of him - instead, we get vague dismissals as if he somehow is some sort of intellectual guru who is an overseer of what constitutes good and bad science. He attempts to defend Bishop's Hill, WUWT and Climate Audit as being 'science blogs' but somehow fails to explain why these clearly agenda-driven blogs don't publish much in the scientific literature and how, like creationists, they are consigned to feeble attempts at tearing down the studies they don't like. And their singular obsession with Climate-gate borders on the psychopathic. These people are so desperate for grist that they try and take molehills and make mountains out of them. I am well and truly finished with Jonas and his arrogant stupidity. Its enough to deal with the pseudos on this thread, let alone a sanctimonious Swede.
Anyway, here are some excellent recent studies. Note that some are reviews, so that the list is far from being remotely complete.
In response to Betula's latest musings, his approach is akin to saying that, since all environmental problems are not related to climate change, then climate change is not a problem. Yes, this is indeed his logic. Go figure.
Lionel, it's probably easier of I just quote from Bird's book:
"Mutation rates would have to be directed in some way in order to produce creatures like those presently observed. On the face of it, there are far too many possibilities that might arise in unpatterned mutation. Ulam(*) has calculated that, if achieving a significant advantage, such as the human visual system, require 10^6 changes, then it will take 10^13 generations to become established. If there is one generation per day this means several billion years. Other attempts to calculate the rate at which changes need to occur for mutations by themselves to become effective have also yielded enormously long times."
(*)S.W.Ulam "How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution" in P.S.Moorhead & M.M.Kaplan, eds, "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Philadelphia: Wistar Press 1967).
To cut to the chase, Bird is suggesting that constant generation by living creatures is simply another version of a mathematical iterated algorithm in which the 'result' is constantly fed back into the algorithm which leads to sudden large and unpredictable results - the very stuff of chaos theory. This seems to me to be much more convincing than itty-bitty changes many of which will actually be unadvantageous!
He also raises the odd fact that evolution seems to be driving overwhelmingly in the direction of greater complexity rather than simplicity which is hardly an aid to success in the fight for survival.
And no, I am not a theist, I am an agnostic and I know nothing about science
There I corrected it for you.
Duffer quotes a 1967 paper by mathematicians on the evolutionary rates of organisms. What a joke. Molecular biology was at a very rudimentary state back then. There were no genetic sequences available to measure changes. At that time evolutionary timelines were defined by changes in amino acid content of well documented proteins such as cytochrome c. By quantifying the number of changes it was possible to correlate changes in this protein with timelines as to when the organisms diverged.
Quoting 10E6 changes equals 10E13 generations is just gibberish.
This is a prime example of why scientists should not venture into other areas outside there area of expertise without doing rigorous background research i.e. if you want to do molecular biology then study molecular biology not mathematics.
itty-bitty changes many of which will actually be unadvantageous!
Natural selection selects the advantageous ones and leaves the unadvantgeous ones by the wayside, Dufus. Most mutations are fitness neutral, but provide fitness opportunities when the environment changes ... diversity -> robustness.
He also raises the odd fact that evolution seems to be driving overwhelmingly in the direction of greater complexity rather than simplicity which is hardly an aid to success in the fight for survival.
It is tautological that more complexity arises later in evolutionary history rather than earlier, Dufus. And as the parasites become more complex, so do the host organisms, Dufus. Meanwhile, simple organisms abound, in far larger numbers than more complex ones, Dufus.
You believe a lot of false things, some obviously so and some less obviously so, because you are stupid, intellectually dishonest, and so arrogant that you imagine that your cherry picking what seems convincing to you is in any way comparable to a body of established fact-based science.
Oddly enough, it was Dawkins's own, to use your excellent word, 'stridency' that first set off alarums in my head. As the regular commenters here will know, I always smell a rat if someone "doth protest too much"!
Yes, we know what a moron you are that you use this stupid ad hominem argument. There are thousands upon thousands of evolutionary scientists who are not in the least bit "strident". But your imbecilic approach is to ignore all them and the massive amount of work they have done gathering and cataloguing evidence and testing hypotheses against that evidence, and instead to ride on your emotional response to Dawkins and thus to seek out those who oppose him without having the knowledge to evaluate their arguments, judge those arguments based on how appealing they are to you, ignoring the numerous rebuttals and contraindicative evidence, and then commit yourself to the contrary view. This is what you call changing your mind. But it doesn't matter what's in your mind because its all based on a process that is not at all effective in finding the truth.
He also raises the odd fact that evolution seems to be driving overwhelmingly in the direction of greater complexity rather than simplicity which is hardly an aid to success in the fight for survival.
Say what?
As Stephen Jay Gould constantly pointed out - arguing, possibly ironically in current circumstances, against the whole notion of 'higher' organisms - in how many other directions could evolution possibly be expected to go?
Well, at least we know your ignorance is as profoundly consistent across the sciences...
>Bernard... I'm guessing that Dutch Elm Disease and Chestnut Blight were a result of Climate Change. Of course, the introduction of Hemlock Woolly adelgid and Emerald Ash Borer here in Connecticut is obviously from Climate Change. About 15 years ago we had a year where Woolly Beech Aphid was a major problem because of Climate Change. I haven't seen it much since because of Climate Change, which of course means less Canker due to Climate Change. One year we had a major problem with Army webworms, though in wasn't much of a problem before or since...no doubt it was Climate Change. I'm seeing Coyotes, Wild Turkeys and Bobcats more and more, though they were unheard of around here 40 years ago. Climate Change....
...[Snip. Hack, chop.]...
Way to go Betula. You not only engaged in the formal logical fallacy of affirming the consequent once, or twice, or even three times, but on multiple times to the point of not being worth counting.
How does it feel to be a prize tit who can't even establish logically-correct attribution for his so-called examples? I note too that it is almost exactly 24 hours since you [previously responded to me on the subject](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…) - so how does it feel to be a slow prize tit who can't even establish logically-correct attribution for his so-called examples?
Look it up - the formal logical fallacy of affirming the consequent - and perhaps you might learn how to, well, learn, rather than to simply reinforce your own ideologies with specious illogicality.
Oh, and that button that says 'enter'... don't be scared of it - it won't bite.
You should take that incredible mind of yours over to Pharyngula and share your wisdom with the denizens there.
In fact, if you're too shy to wander there under your own steam, I think that we should quote you holus-bolus on a Pharyngulan thread - just so that your insights are not lost to those to whom they would matter.
"In response to Betula's latest musings, his approach is akin to saying that, since all environmental problems are not related to climate change, then climate change is not a problem"
No Jeff, think again.
Since alarmists believe all environmental problems are related to climate change, climate change alarmists have problems.
"It is, surely, time to face up to the demands of adaptation." [~ Chris Berg, Inst.-o'-Pub.-Affairs, ed.]
ABOARD THE TITANIC - NORTH ATLANTIC, NIGHT-TIME, 15 APRIL 1912.
The ship is very visibly sinking now. After initial complacency, during which lifeboats went off half-empty, there is now a grim queue for the few remaining places.
A passenger in the queue is startled by an apparition before her. A man has joined the queue dressed in a large diaper and holding a dummy and a rattle. He hollers 'MA-MA!' loudly, and attempts to elbow his way to the head of the queue.
The passenger recognises him as an 'iceberg denier'. For hours now, he's been drunkenly bellowing that 'THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS ICEBERGS!!!'. The passenger confronts him with her good memory, and asks the 'baby' what he thinks he's doing now.
'I'm adapting to the situation,' he tells her...
(PS. I didn't write this but wish I had.)
Seems about right!
Just thought I'd share this with y'all, hope that's okay.
I thought there was a much wittier comment further down:
>One item that writers utterly refuse to distinguish is that there is climate change which is created by our Creator, not mere puny mans' overall doing. It is arrogant and ignorant to even imagine that the dramatic climate change that is coming can be pinned or blamed on mankind. Global emissions is just a small selection compared to all of the relative laws in the universe known to man and you are most correct to state it is a pipe dream of seriously mitigating climate change. The sceptics are correct in the sense that climate change is happening but not from man. It is from our Creator and the laws, rules, rhythms, rules and principles both known and unknown. There has been unmistakeable clap-trap and pseudo-science created by the corporate press and media to collude with those that are 'installing' a $trillion dollar annual system of taxing its citizens without democratic representation.
>The pagan Gaia myth of 'Mother Earth' is trying to replace or counterfeit the real true worship of our Creator. There has been recently many articles worldwide entitled 'God's Judgements or Climate Change' comparing God's faithfulness is greater than humanity's greed and destruction that seems to continued unabated. Our human failure to govern ourselves peacefully and respectfully is waning quickly and people are searching for the divine promises instead of fear, destruction and excessive taxation.
>When dinosaurs were alive the world was very hot, but humans adapted by living in cool caves. If we could do it then, we can do it again. The parts of the world that are frozen now will become very fertile, so the outlook is not so desperate as it seems.
Wow, I suspect you probably just burst Duffer's brain. He's going to be woefully confused about which one isn't the ad hominem now, particularly as, like most of his tribe, he has no idea what it means in the first place.
I'm sure userillusion (ianianam?) will be along to forthrightly point that out shortly.
So, Davie Boy, do you concede that your argument about the direction of evolution is so ludicrously wrong that even you should have been able to figure out the problem with it?
If not, please do consider taking it up over at Pharyngula. And sing out if you do so - I'm sure some of us will want to watch...
I simply pointed out that it took you another day, after your replied the first time, to come up with a completely logically-fallacious second attempt.
It seems that having these truths pointed out to you rankles with you rather a lot...
Thanks Lotharsson. More proof of the human experiment on climate. Again, nature does not lie; *it responds*. Its warming and doing so rapidly. Changes are afoot; many will have serious repercussions on nature. These passages were particularly alarming:
*Up until about 20 years ago, sightings of grizzlies in the High Arctic were extremely rare; a quirk of nature, many biologists thought, that may have occurred because the bear walked the wrong way or strayed too far following mainland caribou that sometimes cross the sea ice to Arctic islands. No one imagined that hybrids such as the one Derocher saw would be part of the land or seascape*.
*But that thinking began to change in recent years as more brown bears and a succession of other animals such as red fox, coyotes, white-tailed deer, Pacific salmon and killer whales began showing up in areas traditionally occupied by Arctic fox, Arctic wolves, caribou, Arctic char and beluga whales. Some of these animals, we now know, are also producing hybrids*
@Chris O'Neill
Just as a point of interest, well, actually I'm not that interested, but what, in my two immediate comments, gives you the slightest idea that I do not accept evolution? All that I have indicated is that the debate between evolutionists as to the mechanism of evolution continues to this day - as it has done since Darwin first put forward his theory. Equally, the apparent exceptionalism of Mankind which irritatingly defies the strictures of evolution continues just as Darwin himself feared because he was intelligent enough to spot the weakness in his own theory. But you, of course, know better!
Yes Bernard, I'm rankled because I have a life, which includes family and work. Ouchie!
It seems my comment @211 really got to you, to the point where you are now hunched in front of your computer screen imagining your own assumptions. Crazy how the mind works isn't it?
Anyway, it's raining here on the East Coast today, so I only have one crew out injecting Boxwoods and Hollies with Imacloprid to help prevent potential future outbreaks of Leafminer and Scale as a possible result from Climate Change. This allows me the few precious moments to share with you how proactive I am in terms of Climate Change.
As you know, the timing is a little late, but that's because we were busy with fungicide applications that we had to start early due to the early budbreak resulting from climate change.
Hey, did you see the passages Jeff listed as "particularly alarming" @240?
"I'm seeing Coyotes, Wild Turkeys and Bobcats more and more, though they were unheard of around here 40 years ago. Climate Change."
Oh wait, sorry about that, that was actually my "logically-fallacious" attempt @211.
Here's some of the alarming passage from Jeff's comment:
"Up until about 20 years ago, sightings of grizzlies in the High Arctic were extremely rare; a quirk of nature, many biologists thought"
"But that thinking began to change in recent years as more brown bears and a succession of other animals such as red fox, coyotes, white-tailed deer, Pacific salmon and killer whales began showing up in areas traditionally occupied by Arctic fox, Arctic wolves, caribou, Arctic char and beluga whales"
>It seems my comment @211 really got to you, to the point where you are now hunched in front of your computer screen imagining your own assumptions. Crazy how the mind works isn't it?
Eh, you're still projecting your own inadequacies onto me?
I too have a life, a family, and much work, but it took me all of a couple of seconds to see that you employed a logical fallacy with which to respond to my own fairly straightforward attribution to climate change. I pointed out as much, and you try to make out that I was the one who went off the rails?
Berfore I begin, let me first apologize for not responding to your comment @245 in the allotted time required. I know I've been keeping you waiting by the computer, but I had to go make an application of Aluminum Sulphate and Iron to some chlorotic Pachysandra. Appears to be a high PH problem due to climate change...you know, leaf color.
Anyhow, you posted this comment:
"Perhaps you should take care with that occupational Imacloprid exposure. It can make the mind work in crazy ways..."
You may be surprised, but I think I have to actually agree with you. Afterall, I keep responding to you don't I?
So I was hoping you would get on the bandwagon with me to fight the greedy republican backed corporations and evil Bush administration officials who must have allowed this product onto the market in the first place...
What? It was the EPA under Clinton/Gore?
Well then, I guess you were wrong. Used by someone not like you, Imacloprid is perfectly safe.
Apart from Heartless' recent disastrous PR effort, does anybody have an idea of what's behind the latest apparently concerted effort which has McIntyre, Watts and Montford issuing torches and pitchforks to their orcs in the latest episode of their neverending quest to kill the magick symbol that is The Hockeystick?
If not, it's not important and as I've never provided links to a denier site, I'm not starting now. But I'm slightly curious as to what's going on.
I'd thought they might conserve their co-ordinated forces of denial for the day West Antarctica slid into the sea, but satellite pics show it's still there...
Chek is such a shy boy but honestly he's quite capable of showing a link which proves beyond doubt that Briffa's confirmation of Mann's 'hockey stick' was a load of old hockey balls.
So come on you science swots, get to it and prove that Nriffa's infamous Yamal paper was the scientific equivalent of one of the bits of old second-hand shrapnel I used to sell to the unwary!
Doesn't make for pretty reading is it? -the Yamal stuff. Paints CRU in quite a bad light, as if couldn't be any worse. Doing a good job David and, to use a military term, KBO.
While there is much that is unknown Duffer, what we do know is that McIntyre, Watts, Id and Montford are not and never have been capable of decent science, and are totally incapable of being decent human beings - hence their appeal to you and your fellow orcs.
Thanks for the attempt, but I'll hang on until someone with a triple figure IQ contributes.
Doesn't make for pretty reading is it? -the Yamal stuff.
Which is precisely what is to be expected from partial, edited private conversations made public by those with an agenda, Griselda.
Paints CRU in quite a bad light, as if couldn't be any worse.
Which is precisely what is to be expected from partial, edited private conversations made public by those with an agenda specially manufactured for morons who accept these things at face value - rather like you Griselda.
Attacking the scientists when you can't refute the science is what vested interests do. Just ask your Lomborg-lover Jonarse about that - it's his entire carefully minuted and threaded agenda, when he's not busy creating 'impressions' for dipsticks like you.
Thanks for the response chek, your distorted world view, as usual, consigned to the 'pointless abuse' folder. Jonas asked you for a link to something you considered to be a 'contribution of substance' any luck yet? It's not as if you don't have thousands of your posts to choose from.
Ha! That's a laugh, coming from you. Go back to the thread with the self-righteous 'genius' that you worship. Like you, it seems like his global scientific output is restricted to endless rants on his eponymous asylum thread on Deltoid; the guy is a bloody coward and has no intention of throwing his so-called 'wisdom' re: climate change into the scientific arena where it would be chewed up and spat out in a flash. You clowns can ridicule me all you like, but I have a thousand times more respect in the scientific community than the bunch of you idiots put together. In fact, none of you are even close to me in terms of qualifications, publications, conference invites, university seminars etc. That would not be hard! My guess is the grand total for all of you clods is a big NIL. Therein lies the rub, eh? I've also demolished your wafer-thin arguments re: biodiversity so many times, and in the end you have to run back to the sanctimonious Swede(s) for succor. You have the audacity to ridicule the Planet Under Pressure Report without having a clue what it is about.
Chek, Stu, Ianam, Bernard and others here must be as sick of you and your vast sea of stupidity as I am. And then we have Betula, equally vacuous, who comes up with this gem: Polar Bears evolved from Grizzly Bears - so heck, an increase in hybridization is nothing to worry about? What an fool you are Betula. The diversion, according to the article occurred at least 70,000 years ago, and was probably a transition that took many thousands of years more. You actually appear to think that species 'a' can evolve from species 'b' in a century or two. Are ya' kiddin' me, dopey? I gotta admit that you, like the equally gormless GSW, seems to think you can stand in the ring with me in the field of evolutionary biology. I have to give you both the 'Brainless Balls Award' for that one. So now here you are, claiming that there is nothing at all unusual about Grizzly Bears expanding their range into the dwindling habitat of the Polar Bear, because the two will produce offspring that - let me guess - you think will have higher per capita fitness than pure members of either species? Come again? Do you anything remotely about the fitness of hybrid zones? And how long speciation takes in K-selected endotherms at the end of the food chain? How daft are you? As daft as Jonarse? That is pretty daft, I will admit, but really?
If the article is anywhere close to accurate (you'd better hope it ain't, dumb-boy) than we are seeing the beginning of genetic dilution of Polar Bears and the nail through the hear to of the species. Unlike the views of one Bjorn Lomborg, who actually said that the loss of Arctic Ice would mean that Polar Bears would just have to evolve like their Grizzly cousins - yes, the comic Danish statistician apparently said this, one which had me on the floor - the truth is that there is no way in hell's chance that Polar Bears will evolve within the space of 100 years to adapt to (1) a different habitat, (2) a different diet, and (3) different behavior necessary for radiation to (1) and (2). Hybrid zones are a disaster for a species - just look at what hybridization by the North American Ruddy Duck is doing to the genetics of the European White-Headed Duck, or the Blue-Winged Warbler is doing similarly to the Golden-Winged Warbler in eastern North America. Hybridization with Grizzly Bears is devastating news for Polar Bears. I can't even believe that you, Betula, sunk into the primordial ooze to come up with anything arguing that this is not so bad. Unbelievable.
Its been enough of an embarrassment having to deal with the kindergarten level antics of Jonarse, GSW and their acolytes, as they squirm in their own pit of ignorance whilst trying to give the impression that they hold the intellectual high-ground. Politically and scientifically their views are gumbified tripe. Then you come up with this nonsense. Like it or not, you guys don't stand in the same room with me on evolutionary and population ecology. Aside from trying the belittle these complex fields with childish taunts and put-downs, you guys really just do not have a clue.
Whilst obviously an exercise in kite-flying for the benefit of a coastal constituency, it graphically illustrates the prevalent head-in-the-sand attitude we see globally from those convinced we can always eat money.
Not going to challenge the Darwinistas and nasty strident old Archbishop Dawkins over at PZ Myers' place then, Duffer?
Pity, after being subjected to the dreary monotony of your peri-senile ramblings here that might have provided some small consolation in the form of a little genuine entertainment!
In a Roman Circus sort of way.
Also, here's a challenge for you, 'skeptics' [*cough*]. I am increasingly finding that you simply cannot provide evidence that hails from anywhere outside of your own ideological bubble. Epistemic Closure appears to be nearing completion.
Can any of you give an instance of anything that you're currently squawking about that doesn't hail from The Weatherman's, the Sticky Bishop's, Jo Nova, Fox, the usual gaggle of superannuated Petroleum Engineers, or the dreary bully-boy shock-columnists of prole-feed rags like the Daily Mail or the Telegraph?
Any reports at all by observers who aren't already card-carrying members of your noisy little mafia?
Any science, perhaps? Any published papers to show us?
No?
What a fascinating study of the perils of ideological inbreeding you all represent.
Though I'm almost tempted to commend the sheer scale of your seemingly endless re-use and recycling of the same old rubbish.
I wonder if 'user-illusion' appreciates, or even spots, the irony in this sentence of his
The irony I spot is your employing yet another dishonest fallacy, this time tu quoque, to again avoid addressing or acknowledging substantive points. tu quoque is the most dishonest of fallacies and is inherently ironic, as it is an attempt to defend oneself against a charge of X by accusing the other person of X -- implicitly admitting that X is wrong -- while never denying or even addressing the charge (which is why tu quoque is a fallacy of irrelevance). In most cases of tu quoque, as in this one, the original charge is valid and the turnabout charge is not. If you want to effectively detect rats, look not for "stridency" but for repeated use of fallacies and other forms of dishonesty and illogic.
Equally, the apparent exceptionalism of Mankind which irritatingly defies the strictures of evolution continues just as Darwin himself feared because he was intelligent enough to spot the weakness in his own theory.
Aside from all your lies and misrepresentations, 150 years of intervening science makes us better informed than was Darwin. Ah, but you and David Stove know better ... except that even Stove accepted natural selection.
Yeh, sure. Our species is so exceptional that it destroys its own ecological life-support systems, exhibits tribal tendencies and kills its own species on this basis. Our arrogant anthropocentric tendencies are likely to be our undoing as a species - one that was so arrogantly caught up in its own evolved intelligence that it failed to see that its inability to live sustainably within constraints imposed by nature drove it towards extinction with a whimper instead of a bang. As I have said, humans exist and persist because natural systems permit it. Those pushing this exceptionalism nonsense appear to believe that our species is largely exempt from natural laws: that we can foul the nest indefinitely and not reap the costs of doing so. Pure folly.
"our arrogant anthropocentric tendencies..." Yeah Jeff, but there are none so arrogant as those who entertain the idea that man can affect the global climate.
Anthropocentrism and human impact on the environment are two separate concepts. That you confabulate the two is simply another example of the logical fallacies that you and your cronies are so inclined to use as your first defense.
I'll leave it to you to figure out which fallacy this one is.
[Tim really needs a few exterminators. Perhaps some mod help is in order...]
>This is more of the usual obfuscation - they are confusing the raw data (available online for years), with as yet unpublished analyses of that data, which McIntyre feels he is entitled to for unclear reasons. They are conflating work by mann and colleagues (which didn't include Yamal) with work from briffa's group that did. We'll have more to say on this soon. - gavin
So the latest outrage turns into another fizzer because McIntyre has no idea what he is doing. *Quelle surprise*! Seriously, can you guys get anything right?
Of course, perhaps Anthony Watts is correct. He is an expert on telling lies, such as this cracker about the BEST project:
>Iâm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.
Oh my sides!
Almost as good as David Duff claiming that a ninety year old photograph of New Zealand is proof there has been no global sea level rise!
Bernerd, It's called Man Made Global Warming, I'd be thinking that's pretty anthropocentric wouldn't you. What's the matter Bernerd, you sweating and calling out for the moderator?
Did folks see there was yet another anti-climatologists op-ed. in the Australian the other day? Weds. 9th May or Tues. 8th maybe (read in the library, jotted down author / title missed date) page 12, "Science hijacked atschool levl" by Michael Asten. the gist of which was arguing that high schoolkids should argue with teachers and be told the Climate Contrarains fallacious talking points in classrooms across Oz.
Tim Lambert, if you're out there, I miss those Australians War on Science columns debunking such rot here..
Bernerd, It's called Man Made Global Warming, I'd be thinking that's pretty anthropocentric wouldn't you.
The Contrarians sure love to play semantic games instread of focussing on the actual science don't they?
Anthropogenic vs anthropocentric - there is a difference between a point of view that has Humans at the centre of everything or gives nature human-like characteristics versus something happening as a result of human activity.
Please Mack can you explain why you think changing the level of a known Greenhouse gas from 280 ppm to 395 ppm will somehow have no effect despite basic physics and the observed evidence all suggesting otherwise?
Duffer expresses the angry, unfulfilled little man's resentment and fear of the intellectually gifted. Your ignorance is as good as any posh bugger's fancy book-learnin' any day; right, Davie? ;-)
And aren't you some toy-soldier military fantasstrategist? Good God man, where are your cojones? Since, with your self-described pedigree of unloading lemons on the unwary, you're clearly in a strong position to judge the validity of all aspects of evolutionary theory, why aren't you over at Pharyngula right now storming the Darwinist citadel, setting that strident Archbishop Dawkins to unmanly flight?
*Yeah Jeff, but there are none so arrogant as those who entertain the idea that man can affect the global climate*
Are you serious? Humans have affected the regulation of other processes occurring over huge scales of space and time - biogeochemical, hydrological etc - and you somehow don't believe that our species can influence climate? Time for you to go back to school, Mack
Duffer: I've been called everything on Deltoid by a merry band of idiots who have no scientific qualifications in any relevant fields, and one in particular, a sanctimonious Swede, has said a number of times how much he knows more than anybody else. And then Betula writes some frankly peurile b* about Polar Bear and Grizzly Bear co-phylogeny, appearing to argue that hybrid zones involving these two species are nothing at all to worry about, or else that the shrinking habitat of the former species means they will have to adapt to a terrestrial lifestype in less than a century. GSW once wrote off the top of his head that Polar Bears, frogs and coral reefs are doing fine, which is patently false and frankly misleading. He then tries to atone for this egregious error by claiming that he meant in response to climate change, and then argued that the global declines in amphibian populations were solely due to pathogens, without even having a basic understanding of the concept of indirect and direct causation, and of the link between environmentally sub-optimal conditions (e.g. due to increased abiotic stressors like temperature or moisture) and the sudden shift of sub-lethal effects into lethal effects. You've chipped in with primary school level stuff about human evolution, whilst appearing to suggest that intelligent design or more direct creation may account for our existance. Forget that the late Stephen J. Gould once called humans a 'wildly improbably evolutionary event', which is essentially correct; if you go back through our evolutionary history to ther Burgess Shale you'll find that nature experimented a lot in the Cambrian, with up to 100 organismal body plans that eventually was whittled down to 30 or so through natural selection. Our ancestors, like Picaia gracilens, a primitive chordate, up to Pugartorius, a primitive Tertiary primate, survived as much out of good luck as from good genes. When various changes occurred across the planet duing various transitions, our ancestors probably existed in areas that were most sheltered from volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, and the like, enabling us to get through the various diversity-related bottlenecks that occurred coinciding with the five previous mass extinction events. We are now into the sixth and know the culprit: we are. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Homo sapiens as being a uniqely gifted species, eh? The first mass extinction generated by one of the planet's evolved inhabitants. Now that's something to put on the CV of humanity.
>Bernerd, It's called Man Made Global Warming, I'd be thinking that's pretty anthropocentric wouldn't you.
No. As StevoR pointed out, it's anthropogenic, not anthropocentric. Different beasties entirely. At least, anyone who is literate would know that.
And the bottom line is that the laws of physics don't give a flying fuck how the 'greenhouse' gas concentration came to increase so rapidly. The fact is that GHG concentration is increasing, and that increase warms the planet.
Or are you now retreating to the twin denialist arguments of "CO2 is not increasing", and "if CO2 is increasing, it's natural"? If so, please provide defensible evidence.
>What's the matter Bernerd, you sweating and calling out for the moderator?
Ha! Don't flatter yourself Foulspot. I'm just annoyed at the number of your intellectual cockroach buddies that are crawling around crapping on the science.
Now, back to the fact that you don't know your head from your arse...
StevoR..Anthropogenic vs anthropocentric, point taken,but you would most likely be anthropocentric to say there is anthropogenic global warming. Semantics again eh. But still the arrogance is there. @ Jeff ,Time for you to leave school and think for yourself.
@ Bill
"angry"! Moi? When have I ever appeared angry on this site?
"And aren't you some toy-soldier military fantasstrategist?"
Have a care, sir, I rose to the rank of Corporal, substantive mind, even if it did take me nine years!
@ Jeff
I feel your pain, honestly I do, but I am quite certain that Betula and GSW having read your enormously long list of, er, credits are thoroughly ashamed of themselves - I mean, how many "conference invites" do they receive?!
However, and despite the love I bear for you, it simply isn't on to suggest that *I* am suggesting intelligent design or some supranatural creationist theory. We have what we have, a marvelously beautiful and yet cruel and indifferent universe but who or what kicked it off, I have no idea and as nobody else does either (including all you scientific swots) then I don't bother my head with it.
So that just leaves the existing mechanism by which both the inanimate and then the animate world developed. I do not share the Dawkins et al theory of tiny incremental changes leading to huge variety. I, like several distinguished (I gather) biologists, go with the 'sudden jump' theory, and I think that Richard Bird's theory that constant regeneration is the equivalent of an iterated logarithm in which the result (offspring) are fed back into the algorithm in the next reproduction cycle. As in chaos theory, this proceeds steadily along until, suddenly, the graph shoots off the page. To me, this is a more convincing explanation than any others I have read.
As for Mankind, there can be no arguing with the self-evident fact that we behave differently from other animals, and in doing so we transgress Darwin's theory. Altruism, homosexuality, voluntary chastity and, increasingly in these days of relative affluence, the voluntary choice to have fewer children or, indeed, none at all. All of those characteristics are totally foreign to the animal kingdom from which we are supposed to have evolved. Darwinists need to explain these matters - and do it a lot better than most of the convoluted thinking I have seen elsewhere in which they succeed where that MI6 chap failed by locking themselves into a tiny suitcase from which there is no escape!
@ John
It says more about you than anything you have written that you so obviously despise these words from Anthony Watts:
"Iâm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."
They sum up, of course, the very highest principle of good science which is, sadly, so very, very rare in 'warmer' circles.
>They sum up, of course, the very highest principle of good science
I don't disagree with you Duff.
Of course, you don't realise that when the BEST results came in Watts went back on his claim, obviously showing a complete disregard for "the highest principle(s) of good science", but that's neither here nor there. I don't expect you to *know* things. That you are wrong yet again is simply par for the course around here.
Much like your claims that sea levels haven't risen based on a ninety year old ariel photograph of New Zealand. Don't worry, I don't expect you to admit you made a mistake as you have never one showed one iota of "the very highest principle of good science". *You* are the liar Duff.
You are getting into the nurture versus nature aspect.... that is a discussion all unto itself. Selfish genetic elements still largely influence human behavior IMHO. And as far as incremental steps are concerned in the evolution of life, certainly Gould promoted the idea of sudden shifts and not gradual changes. But none of this presupposes that 4 billion years is not suffienct time to evolve the complexity of life and various traits we see in nature today. Humans are only exceptional in terms of the evolution of intelligence. And yet it is this very trait and its attemdant anthropocentrism that may be our undoing. As far as Betula and GSW are concerned, much like your views on climate and ecology, I find the level of simplicity in their arguments to be staggering. Or perhasps not.
Mackspot: your inability to understand basic environmental science is noted. But this is a usual denier meme.
> ...there can be no arguing with the self-evident fact that we behave differently from other animals, and in doing so we transgress Darwin's theory. Altruism, homosexuality...
Er, dude, go look up the research on topics such as altruism and homosexuality in the non-human "animal kingdom".
**Then** ponder what else you've been so confident is "self-evident" may be wrong. (Hint: start with the implications you draw in that post, which would not follow from the self-evident "observations" you have cited even if the observations were accurate. Then start wandering back towards your prognostications about climate science...)
> It says more about you than anything you have written that you so obviously despise these words from Anthony Watts:
Reading comprehension ain't your strong suit, is it? (But we knew that.)
He didn't despise *the principle proclaimed in those words*; he despised the fact that Watts utterly abandoned the principle the minute those words (and the real world data) conflicted with his pre-existing beliefs about climate science - and then contemptuously told his followers that he had done no such thing.
@ John
So it all boils down to what is the definition of "best". A conclusion I realised within a matter of weeks reading the pros and cons of AGW. Personally, I found the 'sceptics' more convincing than the 'warmers' but I will change what passes for my mind the minute any of you offer a better argument than those offered so far. You see, it's not "a cause" for me! Calling people 'liars', by the way, does not improve your persuasiveness!
@ Jeff
"But none of this presupposes that 4 billion years is not suffienct time to evolve the complexity of life and various traits we see in nature today."
@ Lotharsen
"Er, dude, go look up the research on topics such as altruism and homosexuality in the non-human "animal kingdom"."
I have and my opinion remains unchanged.
But such traits which operate *against* the fight for survival and thus greater reproduction as described by Darwin should not, indeed, could not, have developed in a Darwinian system of 'survival of the fittest'.
No Duffer, BEST is not a qualitative desription, it's an acronym for the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which the denier community including Watts were delighted with when it was announced because it had no warmists onboard and included Richard Muller (a JASON like Happer)and Judith Curry.
The denier community were less impressed when the B.E.S.T. results coincided remarkably closely with all the other existing temperature records, thus proving that the warmists hadn't been fiddling the data.
Of course such an outcome puts intellectual trash like Watts and his fanbois out of business, which is why he had to humiliatingly go back on his word. That's the type of 'integrity' you admire, Duffer. It's not surprising.
"Yeah Jeff, but there are none so arrogant as those who entertain the idea that man can affect the global climate."
Whyever not? We, all by our little ineffectual selves, dig up and shift more soil and rock every year than all the natural glaciers, rivers, winds, storms, avalanches, landslides, oceans and floods put together can do all over the globe.
If we can do it with visible, tangible, dusty, dirty, hard to handle _heavy_ stuff, why can't we do it with invisible, light as air stuff?
>So it all boils down to what is the definition of "best".
Okay then. Duff doesn't know what BEST is. Stop the presses. Alert the media.
Putting the fact you didn't know what one of the major studies of last year was...
>Personally, I found the 'sceptics' more convincing than the 'warmers'
Yes, I realised when you were flaunting the views of seiral conspiracist Nils Axel-Morner that you were easily convinced. Who needs "evidence" when some clown tells you the instruments have been tilted!
Who needs modern data when you have a ninety year old ariel photograph of New Zealand!
>I will change what passes for my mind the minute any of you offer a better argument than those offered so far.
Go nuts. Retract your beliefs that there has been no sea level rise if your mind is so easily changed by actual evidence.
>You see, it's not "a cause" for me!
Duff, you clearly have an ideological cause. Nothing else explains your frankly bizarre and undignified behaviour.
>Calling people 'liars', by the way, does not improve your persuasiveness!
Except that two days ago you said:
>So UEA are now proven liars thanks to FoI disclosures.
>But such traits which operate against the fight for survival and thus greater reproduction as described by Darwin should not, indeed, could not, have developed in a Darwinian system of 'survival of the fittest'.
Oh dear, you really are an ignorant bastard, aren't you?
A Flatlander.
The mechanisms underpinning evolution via survival of the fittest are far more subtle and complex than is appreciated by your obviously limited capacity for understanding. Take your targetting of homosexuality, for example. There is solid evidence to show that this does in fact increase certain reproductive fitness...
I'll leave this little tidbit to ferment in your strictured mind, and for you to determine just how such fitness comes about.
That aside, take a hint Duff. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. This include most all of the scientific realm.
David Duff â unfinished business as your list of blunders grows.
In your #213 you repeated your derogatory, and unnecessary for there is an acceptable alternative, term
I should add also ...amongst the 'Darwinistas' ...
this after other repetitions of citing the work of pretenders such as Stove and Bird. Anybody who feels the need to use a term such as, 'Darwinin [sic] Fairytales' should be treated with great scepticism.
Now as for Bird citing the work of,
'...two Israeli mathematicians who worked out that there wasn't enough time in the whole existence of the universe for an eye to develop by tiny increments.
Presumably they used a methodology as valid as Archbishop Ussher's when that later calculated the age of the Earth. Thus Bird too should be treated with suspicion.
Your question:
'Does evolution proceed at the level of the species, or the individuals, or, as Dawkins maintains, at the level of the gene?
contains a straw-man â Dawkins does not maintain that evolution proceeds at the level of the gene as you should well know if you had truly read 'The Selfish Gene'. Now you may have that book on your bookshelf, as well as 'The Blind Watchmaker' so why don't you take them down and read them.
To be sure some passages in both require a degree of concentration and comprehension ability, if you devoted as much time to studying what others have really written as you do repeating garbage on here then you would be taken a good deal more seriously. The continued usage of derogatory language such as 'Darwinistas' does not help in that latter respect, neither does your over-familiar, sickening, ingratiating and suggestive faux bon-ho-mie style. That may have worked in the barrack-block (I would not know after all I was in the Senior Service) but that is where it should have been left.
You wrote:
Then there is the thorny question of altruism. If Darwin's theory is correct then there can be no exceptions to his rule that the fight for survival can allow of no altruism. If it does arise by genetic accident then it will be quickly snuffed out.
You clearly have a poor grasp of Darwinian Evolution as further defined by the works of R A Fisher, W D Hamilton, John Maynard-Smith and Dawkins himself, amongst others. Where Darwin was unsure about detail he refrained from making stuff up. These latter evolutionary scientists, each in turn, realised something new but which still fitted well within any original Darwin paradigms, indeed they would remark how prescient Darwin was in his postulations.
Another thing that you should realise is that you should never judge a person such as Dawkins by what some others have said, or written about him for they have either through ignorance or deliberate malice misunderstood his meanings, just as you have done.
A useful primer on this aspect is 'Richard Dawkins: How A Scientist Changed the Way we Think' (The Selfish Gene' is that important). On page 48, Marian Stamp Dawkins write:
'We still need 'The Selfish Gene' to explain the widespread confusion that surrounds controversies such as the level at which selection acts, the interaction between genes and culture, the fact that natural selection doesn't necessarily lead to perfection and so on.'
she continues, reporting on the subsequent attitude of one of her students who had been told in a London seminar, 'that Richard [Dawkins] was a genetic determinist' and the student then having been advised to read ''The Selfish Gene':
'Our next conversation was quit different. She hadn't realized how people have distorted Richard's views, and I hadn't either. It made me realize how important it is that people keep reading 'The Selfish Gene', not just reading it once or through the criticisms of other people but honestly taking the trouble to understand the revolutionary view of the world that it portrayed in 1976 and still gives us, with a unique vision of undiminished freshness, thirty years later,'
Another author, and a philosopher this time, whom you should read is Daniel C Dennett and in particular his 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life'.
I could go on and on but in the end t is up to you to make yourself accurately informed, you may then be treated with more respect.
there are none so arrogant as those who entertain the idea that man can affect the global climate
There are none so arrogant (and dishonest and imbecilic) as those who declare that the mere entertaining of an idea is arrogant. There are none so arrogant (and dishonest and imbecilic) as those who a priori rule out some finding from the facts.
@ Lionel - because you were las tin line and I'm pressed for time.
"In looking at Nature, it is most necessary to keep the foregoing considerations aways in mind - never to forget that every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers; that each lives by a struggle at some period in its life; that heavy destruction inevitably falls on either young or old, during each generation or at recurrent intervals. Lighten any check, mitigate the destruction ever so little, and the number of the species will almost instantly increase to any amount. " Darwin: On the Origin of Species, 1st Ed.
Grand style but still, absolutely clear and, please note, with absolutely no exceptions - "every single organic being"!
Here's another quote:
"Indeed, according to this conception of life [see above], there could be no greater error than to think of intelligence and consciousness as external to teh struggle for life, or as a possible source of interference with it. On the contrary, intelligence and even consciousness are just some of the means which have evolved in certain species for use inthe struggle for life, and nothing else; just as in other species, a hard shell, or fleetness of foot, or a certain kind of dentition, has evolved. Theintelligence of higher animals and the consciousness of humans, are merely other weapons employed in the struggle for life, and are entirely subordinate to their possessors' striving to survive, reproduce, and increase". David Stove: Darwinian Fairytales: Essay 10.
Now I would suggest to you that if, one, Darwin's description is accurate and, two, humans do not stand outside and seperate from the animal kingdom then, at the very least, altruism to strangers to the point of death, homosexuality, voluntary chastity, and a free choice not to engender children, needs some explanation.
I will leave you with that whilst I type up another for your perusal.
Don't bother yourself typing quotes from Darwin because firstly I have my own copies just cite chapter and para'
second because you still have not consider the full picture as spelled out by Dawkins and others.
BTW it isn't only humans that display homosexuality. You seem particularly enervated by this topic in particular. Bad experience as a 'sodyer' perhaps.
Another thing is that this is all getting away from the increasing signs of climate change even in the UK. Now go talk with some wild life experts and forestry people if you do not believe it. Spend a few pounds a month joining and supporting a local Wildelife Trust - that should clear your mind.
Most of all, stop being such a small minded myopic prat.
BTW The deniers of your choice will not be able to use the Antarctic Sea Ice as cover for the true picture which those of us who knew the topography of that area could see coming as a result of all that heat energy building in the oceans - you know the sort of heat which does not register on thermometers, that I have repeatedly asked you about.
Your graph in the link @287 is of Global Mean Sea Level, which can't be used to predict the changes in sea levels along coastlines. Since climate change is all about predicting future outcomes, try predicting Relative Sea Level next time...
I see, Lionel, so you're not too keen to continue the conversation. Nor, it seems, do you understand a simple point - homosexuality should not exist in *any* species not just Man, because it transgresses the basic tenets of Charles Darwin. And I can understand your reluctance to try and explain the other facets of life which upset your Darwinian applecart. Well, let's try a bit of Dawkins on you.
"The argument in this book [The Selfish Gene] is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes. [...]This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I shall argue that a predominate quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness"
Of course,being a clever weasel, and recognising the very obvious flaw in his silly proposition, he hastens to assure us that our 'selfish genes' might sometimes instruct us to behave in a way that might be construed as altruistic but, of course, naturally, doesn't need to be said really, they only do it for selfish reasons! Yeeees, quite! He then goes on a few sentences later to urge us all to "try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish". Needless to say, he fails to explain who is to do the teaching when we are *all* helpless puppets controlled by these 'selfish gene machines', nor I might add, does he explain how even the concept of altruism arose in us poor human puppets in the first place!
As David Stove describes with acid accuracy: Where-ever Darwinism is in error, Darwinians simply call the organisms in question or their characteristics, an error! Where-ever there is manifestly something wrong with their theory, they say that ther is something wrong with the organisms. Their theory implies that there is no such thing as natural celibacy, contraception, or feticide, and where all other species are concerned it is true that there is no such thing. But in our species, those and many other anti-productive characteristics do exist and so Darwinians, rather than admit that theory is simply not true of our species, brazenly shift the blame, and designate all the characteristics as 'biological errors'. [...] Here, for example, is a respected sociobiologist, Prof. R.D.Alexander writing in 1979: "... we are programmed to use all our effort, and in fact to use all our lives, in reproduction." Darwinism and Human Affairs, 1979.
This is one of those statements which are so breathtakingly false, that initially their only effect on the reader or hearer is to produce stupefaction.
Anyway, I wait patiently for one of you swots to forego the knuckle-dragging and just try and offer an answer to these perplexities. - and if you don't think they are perplexing, then I can only suggest, gently, that rather like your global warming faith, you have got a bad dose of religiosity!
Darwin's description is accurate and, two, humans do not stand outside and seperate from the animal kingdom then, at the very least, altruism to strangers to the point of death, homosexuality, voluntary chastity, and a free choice not to engender children, needs some explanation.
Yes, totally! Let me just make sure you are right on this. Doop-dee-doop-dee-doop...
Okay, first link for "homosexuality in animals":
"A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them."
Hmm. Looks like you are completely wrong on that one.
Okay, what else? Doop-dee-doop-dee-doop...
First link for "altruism in animals":
Some termites and ants release a sticky secretion by fatally rupturing a specialized gland.
Hmm. Looks like you are completely wrong on that one.
I could go look up celibacy, but you know what, Duff? If your entire argument is "we are not like animals because some of us choose not to have sex", you are not only dumber than a sack of hammers, you are clinically insane.
Thank you, Stu, but you seem to be missing the point. None of these behaviours is 'allowed' under Darwinism whether it's in earthworms or humans because it goes against the implacable, according to the man himself, drive to reproduce the species. Any signs of deviation from this engendering lark will doom the species eventually and the 'practice' will die out - er, except that it hasn't!
"None of these behaviours is 'allowed' under Darwinism whether it's in earthworms or humans because it goes against the implacable, according to the man himself, drive to reproduce the species."
You really don't get out much do you. Come to think of it, you don't stay in much either. I can't believe you're the only person in the English speaking world who's managed to miss every single minute of television news reports, documentaries and other presentations of the natural world.
How on earth do you explain the reproductive 'abstinence' of most meerkats, bees and ants, just to get started with the best-known examples. Humans really aren't terribly exceptional in organising themselves so that significant numbers of adults are allocated roles that assist in raising the children of their family, tribe or village rather than their own personal reproductive 'success'.
The 'drive to reproduce the species' is often well satisfied by being surrounded by healthy growing infants even if they're not from your own loins. In humans we call it family feeling, we might call it self-sacrifice when non-parents or even complete strangers put themselves in danger to rescue unrelated children, but it's all useful in producing, raising and teaching successive generations.
None of these behaviours is 'allowed' under Darwinism whether it's in earthworms or humans because it goes against the implacable, according to the man himself, drive to reproduce the species.
You've never read Darwin, have you? Could you please, please, please stop putting forth your glaring ignorance as some type of argument? Just by saying "allowed" you are showing you haven't clue one.
I hope Tim Lambert actually does a book called "The Australian's War on Science" and gets it out there while their are still traces of public awareness of the Murdoch Empire scandals.
So, we're actually going to argue Darwin and Evolution with someone who clearly hasn't read him, equally clearly hasn't read anything more recent, thinks altruism, celibacy and homosexuality are purely human phenomena, but nevertheless believes himself to be right, and backs himself with outlier arguments from 'experts' who can't even grasp that from single-celled organisms there's really only one direction in which 'complexity' can run.
Gee, that's almost like arguing with someone about the IPCC and AGW who hasn't read an IPCC report, consults only Epistemic Closure world for sources of information, thinks CO2 is a harmless trace gas and anyway its the sun, but nevertheless believes himself to be right, and backs himself with outlier arguments from 'experts' who can't even grasp the most basic laws of physics.
Dear lurker, I hope the consistency in Stupid is painfully apparent.
Other than that - Tim, if you are about - and I'd be delighted to hear the book Marion suggests was on the way! - once we start getting stuck in this kind of pointless and discursive loop the Duffer thread is long overdue, I'd say.
>Nor, it seems, do you understand a simple point - homosexuality should not exist in any species not just Man, because it transgresses the basic tenets of Charles Darwin.
FFS Duff, you really are a myopic prat.
I've already hinted at this particular example, and it's telling that you didn't bother to do some background checking...
I'll make this brief, because it's not my responsibility to teach you everything. In some examples of male homosexuality the genetic association indicates that those carrying the genetics are especially "male attracted" (trivially obvious, in practice). The thing is, this effect seems to manifest in females of the family too (if not in exactly the same way), and family tree analysis shows that the women in such lineages have a greater number of children than average - sufficient to counter any loss through non-reproducing males.
Do you understand what this means for the generational continuance of the trait?
If you can't wrap your head around it, consider the fact that heterozygosity for sickle cell anæmia confers a survival advantage against malaria, even though the homozygotes are adversely affected. It's not the same structural mechanism, but sufficiently similar that it should tweak some comprehension in your mind...
In terms of evolutionary outcomes, female homosexuality is a completely different kettle of fish to male homosexuality. There's a good argument indicating that it can consolidate status and alliances in the adult female members of tribal groups, and thus improve the survival of offspring of practicing mothers. And given the behaviour of heterosexual males (and indeed, the reproductive pragmatism of homosexual females), female homosexuality is no barrier to the passing on of genetic heritage.
And then there's the fact that if there are cultural or genetic factors that result in a net reproductive disadvantage to homosexuality, the genetic heritage of the individuals exhibiting the trait will over time decrease. But it wouldn't happen instantaneously - evolution is a continuous process, and not something that happened in the past... If it were, there's be no genetic diseases around today (and before you make the leap, I am not equating homosexuality with 'disease' - unless it is your own dis-ease with the idea).
The same analytical approaches apply to each of your other 'examples' against Darwinism. Each is eminently explainable, and each need not present a disadvantage to overall genetic continuance: quite the opposite in fact.
Duff, you're completely out of your depth here. Leave the science of genetics and of evolution to the smart people, and just go sit in your rocker and drool on your blankie. At least you might be able to do that well.
I think the recent discussion has impressively illuminated the way Duff reaches his "conclusions" - acquire a flawed understanding of a theory, assert that reality is in conflict with it using false "facts", and when those are pointed out shift the goalposts to arguing they (a) "need explanation" and/or (b) "can't be explained" by the theory - and then ignore all evidence that it is his understanding is incorrect and that explanations are already well-known in the discipline, all the while condescendingly implying that others who are schooling him are deeply misinformed and not particularly bright.
I've just got this vague feeling I've seen something much like that before, but I can't quite recall who and where... ;-)
Betula, you mean sea level rise isn't equal everywhere? Who knew? Because that is exactly what Duff is arguing.
C'mon Duff. Where are those "highest scientific principles" you were boasting about? Admit you are wrong. It must be humiliating to not only believe the proections of a conspiritorial dowser over the actual observations, but also to never have heard of BEST. Some "sceptic" you are.
As an aside to further fruitless debate within the flock-papered corridors and aging piles of the Twilight Home for the Terminally Bewildered, those not already aware of it may enjoy Tom Harris' (of HI & the ICSC, no less) 'interesting' defence of his university climate curriculum over at SkS.
(Of course, the unkind might even note some passing resemblances to the dotard's strategy... ;-) )
Wow, this place really is the Pripyat of the climate blogosphere -- decayed, forgotten, and abandoned by all but a few dodderers with no place else to go.
*Wow, this place really is the Pripyat of the climate blogosphere -- decayed, forgotten, and abandoned by all but a few dodderers with no place else to go*
As if a denier like you, Rick, would know. And when it comes to real science, the denialblogosphere doesn't do any. You see, very few if any of them are actually scientists at all. They see their role as attacking the science and the climate scientists (meaning most of both) they don't like. In other words they are morally and scientifically bankrupt. Glad to know that's the company you keep, Rick.
I see, Lionel, so you're not too keen to continue the conversation. Nor, it seems, do you understand a simple point - homosexuality should not exist in any species not just Man, because it transgresses the basic tenets of Charles Darwin. And I can understand your reluctance to try and explain the other facets of life which upset your Darwinian applecart. Well, let's try a bit of Dawkins on you.
Continuing a 'conversation' with a self evident avoider of anything that may prick his bubble or threaten to straighten out his distorted conceptual networks is becoming increasingly pointless, and besides the point against the main point of this particular blog. You really should go over to 'PZ's' place and raise your smokescreens there.
Your statement re-quoted above is based upon a fallacious appreciation of the strands of evolution expanded by Darwin, let alone those by the many renowned evolutionary biologists since.
I have mentioned 'The Extended Phenotype' previously and I particularly draw your attention to Chapter Three 'Constraints on Perfection' and specifically pages 36 - 38 beginning at
'Lay critics frequently bring up some apparently maladaptive feature of modern human behaviour...'
although the whole Chapter may be worth your while reading. Fortunately for you there is a Glossary at the back of the book.
Also Jerry Coyne in his excellent, and for you a must read, 'Why Evolution is True' has something to say about this topic too in the Chapter 'Evolution Redux' where he writes, page 248:
'There is an increasing (and disturbing) tendency of psychologists, biologists, and philosophers to Darwinise every aspect of human behaviour, turning its study into a scientific parlour game.'
Now, you having read the Chapter from Dawkins cited above will should appreciate from whence Coyne is coming.
Now on the subject of eyes you really need to look out 'Climbing Mount Improbable, Chapter 5 The Forty-Fold Path to Enlightenment' and check out Richard Feynman's 'Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, Chapters 35 - Color Vision and 36 - Mechanisms of Seeing'.
Off on me hols - yes, and thank you for your good wishes! - so that means I will have to leave you for a few days. At the rate your brave band of heroes is dwindling I just hope there's someone LEFT here to natter with when I return.
Farewell Duffer, I'm sure your remarkable 'wisdom' will be sorely missed by some.
Unfortunately, I personally don't know anyone that stupid, but I suppose theoretically there's always Jonarse and his virtual crew who positively adore cranks, fakes and quacks as much as you do.
For those interested in the further career of one Alex Harvey.
Here he is addressing one Gavin Schmidt -
I would like to make a radical suggestion â and while this could sound facetious Iâd like to assure you that itâs not: why donât you set aside some quality time to actually talk to him [Steve McIntyre!]? Sit down over a virtual beer and work out what he wants and why.
(It's well worth reading the original post above it, too.)
Yep; let's spread that love; you may wish to observe Alex spreading the love some more back here at Deltoid last week.
So the Privacy Commissioner, who has read the emails, say they don't contain death threats. Yet the Australian public has been told that these scientists did receive death threats. Presumably, most simply believed these stories - like I did. Now, it appears that the scientists lied.
If anyone should "keep the faith" Duff, it's you. The rest of us will rely on the scientific method. And when you return from you "holiday", we'll link right back here and pick up where you fell off.
Can't we all just get along? Peter Hadfield gives Tony Watts an entertaining serve regarding Watts' looking-glass-world claim that he 'will not engage in a face-to-face debate in a neutral venue' with Monckton...
Good One Bill!
Even though I have never denied the greenhouse effect. You just believe I have because your vision is understandably clouded by your ideology. It's okay, really.
Hey, do you remember this famous slogan from Coke?
It seems to be a variation of the old 'final nail in the coffin' meme that deniers regularly comfort themselves with.
Back in the real world, the Heartland hub is imploding as its financiers fall away one by one, McIntyre exposes himself as a poisonous, paranoid crank (again) barely two weeks after announcing his 'retirement', BEST blew Watts' central UHI meme out of the water, and the Bish flounders around in a sea of futile FOIA's hoping to find Mann and Jones' concocting a grand conspiracy to fit his 'theory'.
'Look over there - squirrels' is the only denier response to this series of catastrophes, being the best they've got as the global climate warms as predicted by AGW theory.
In other words, more denier projection of what's actually happening to their own jihad.
Very true pantiesizeZ. Heartland being of course supremely dishonest and targetting children, whereas the CRU leak merely showed they think less than highly of cranks and quacks like McIntyre et al.
Has John Coochey's comment regarding alleged 'death threats' against Australian climate scientists been deleted? It was here yesterday.
John Coochey says:
I feel I can throw some light on this matter as I am undoubtedly the person who is alleged to have shown my gun licence to people at the dinner. That is not accurate. At the mediocre dinner on the first day I was approached by Dr Maxine Cooper, then the Commissioner for the environment, who recognized me as someone involved in the kangaroo culling program in the ACT which occurs each winter. After politely asking if she could sit next to me she asked me how I had gone in the recent licence test which is challenging. I told her I had topped it with a perfect score and showed her my current culling licence, not gun licence, to prove it. The conversation around the table then drifted around the benefits of eating game meat v the poor fare on offer. I might add that earlier in the day I had challenged two speakers to comment on a letter in the Canberra Times that claimed that temperatures had not increased in the Canberra area for decades. They were unable to do so, having not apparently checked the record despite the the âDeliberationâ (conference) supposed to be about rising temperatures in the Canberra region. As all daytime conversations were recorded (we all signed waivers to allow this) this can easily be checked.
337
Has John Coochey's comment regarding alleged 'death threats' against Australian climate scientists been deleted? It was here yesterday.
No, it hasn't been deleted and it still is 'here', you inept specimen of denier trash. You just need to look in the relevant thread - something surely not beyond your allegedly renowned computer 'skills'. [Or maybe it is.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/more_on_the_threats_on_and_abu…)
Let me guess; our Friend of the Ether wants to join the charming ranks of those who, using the ever-popular technique of cherry-picking, wish to deny the validity of the fears of those on the receiving end of alleged abuse and threats.
Very classy - you'd think after the HI billboard debacle some lessons might have been learned, but apparently not.
But by all means keep going with this angle, and we'll have a bit of a further public discussion about the lengths your camp are prepared to go to, shall we?
First, please read this. I've excerpted the most relevant sections below to indicate that, as usual, recent cherry-picking ain't likely to save you.
In the case of the 30 or so climate scientists mentioned previously, many received hate emails that were well beyond the pale. And yes, there were specific threats of violence, sexual assault and worse. In the most stomach-churning case, a woman's children - a toddler and a pre-schooler - were named and threatened. Why wouldn't she be rattled? She received those emails because she agreed to be photographed by a local newspaper to promote a community tree-planting event, and was briefly quoted as urging people to come along and plant trees to mitigate climate change.
He is reported as ruling that 10 of the 11 emails sought under FoI ''do not contain threats to kill'' and the other ''could be regarded as intimidating''. The emails in question pertain to one scientist, ANU Climate Change Institute director Professor Will Steffen. He was among the group of 30 contacted by The Canberra Times, and revealed the worst threat he received - and we will not divulge it - was made verbally to one of his staff. It was the chilling nature of that threat - and the casual way in which it was made - that prompted the ANU to question its security arrangements.
Secondly: you're now championing this guy, right?
And, seriously 'it was here yesterday', but somehow you can't find it today? Heard of 'Ctrl+H'? So how might you know it was here, then? Gee, why do I just know this has become a Denier imbecility du jour?
I'd be a little (but only a little) surprised if Rog Talltales is actually so stupid that he can copy Coochey's name and post, but then 'can't find' it on Deltoid a 'day later'.
Seriously, that's an exercise that someone who's only been blogging for a day in their whole life could still manage to do. Nah, I think Dodgy Roger's trying to reignite the squib, and easier to do so where there's not already evidence that it is such.
It's interesting to see the recent influx of denialists to Deltoid though. Even with Tim Lambert occupied in his off-line life, the blog has great pulling power...
Reviewing the current list of Heartland Experts, I notice a few more from Oz, I think:
David Archibald
William Kininmonth
Ian Plimer
Of course, not on that list, but:
Jo Nova & David Evans were both on early Experts List, see Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax, pp.51-52. Both spoke at ICCC-2 and -5, so they surely know the people with whom they are associated. Also, it seems likely money went to them for Skeptics Handbook (pp.63-64), well employed in Fakeducation.
SO, instead of playing with D-K afflictees, maybe polite emails to people asking them if they are still with Heartland, given BillboardGate. Be nice ...
Interesting brief clip here via South Oz's '7.30 Report' on climate change affecting trees up where I live in the Adelaide hills. [Take a look](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-11/sick-trees/4007080) especially from the 2 and a half minute mark.
I've seen a lot of sick trees myself - phtyopera killimg many in the Belair National Park but also eslewhere and many seen locally and even down in Mitcham on the plain to be shooting from their base which, I understand (please correct me if 'm wrong) is a sign of stress.
The thought also occurs to me that snakebites may occur more frequently with a hotter drier conditions meaning more days when they are active. Has anyone looked in the records and seen such a rising trend? (Complicatedof coure iknow by growing population and density in snake-rich areas, can tahtbe compensated for? Surely?)
The otehrday isaw what I'm pretty sure was a red-bellied balck snake in the Waitiparinga reserve - swimmingand hiding in rocks when I was walking a dog there. I've only ever seen three snakes in many yeras of walking there. One was last year or earlier this year, the other many years ago.
Wood's stuff just really like "See, I've created this really high-falutin' meta-narrative theory of why I'm right about the things I don't like and they're wrong, so, see, I really must be right. And now I've lumped two of these things I don't like together and am waving my hands in the direction of a link between them."
Frankly my brain just slides off this stuff - it's like bad-pop music; 20 seconds later you realise you're no longer listening, you're now wondering if you bought enough eggs to make that omelette...
Actually, no, I must take that bit back: after a while the numbness began to wear off and I actually started to get offended:
Are we being âfairâ to the generations to come by taking steps that will are likely to weaken the bio-social interdependencies of mothers and fathers to each other and to their children?
'Are likely to' is doing an extraordinary amount of work in this sentence, entirely unsupported by... well, let's consider this bit:
I have no statistics on this, but I doubt that one student in a hundred, and perhaps far fewer than that, has ever read a serious secular argument against same-sex marriage, and most would be at a dead loss even to imagine what such an argument would say.
'I have no statistics on this, but I doubt that...' This guy's the president of the National Association of Scholars, right?
As to 'such an argument' being unimaginable: One; I wonder why? Hence, Two; what 'serious secular argument' against gay marriage? (Other than the traditional 'it gives a lot of Rightists the heebie-jeebies and they're somehow more real than gay people'?)
( Well, this was all under the heading 'Cultivating Ignorance'! ;-) )
As to the Climate that's somehow being held hostage in this extraordinary argument, too - yes, imagine all those students who may well have graduated believing that in science it's the side with the evidence that wins the debate!
338 "No, it hasn't been deleted and it still is 'here', you inept specimen of denier trash. You just need to look in the relevant thread - something surely not beyond your allegedly renowned computer 'skills'. Or maybe it is."
So Chek, you badmouthing piece of alarmist scum, it *has* been deleted from 'here' (this current thread), and anachronistically tucked out of sight in a year old thread no-one visits any more. Seems a reasonable M.O. for a blog which has thrived on the 'death threats' hype and is in denial of the truth (about so many things).
My "allegedly renowned computer skills" are good enough to win European blog of the year (I see Jo Nova got the Australian title) and Tim Lambert has posted four articles in five months. Have a look at the latest UHI at airports study on my site if you want to see some computer skills (from co-blogger Tim C) in action. The climate alarmist meme is dying and climate realism is ascendant.
In SA Phytophthora cinnamomi affects 2 species of Eucalypt, both of which are stringybarks - Eucalyptus obliqua and baxteri.
As far as I know only obliqua is recorded for Belair NP, but there are also half-a-dozen unaffected species. Having seen the massive Pc scalds in WA where it affects dominant tree species over vast areas we really are relatively fortunate.
Tell-tale signs in healthy scrub in the Adelaide Hills include clusters of die-back in Yaccas, Hakeas, the small Myrtle Wattle, and the Silver Banksia, particularly in a spreading area as it 'flows' with local soil water movement down hill. Given that it effectively destroys the plants roots - and hence its ability to take up water - Pc stress and drought stress can look very similar, but in most of 'The Park' - and certainly in Grey Box country like Watiparinga - drought and lerp stress is probably more likely to be what you're seeing.
(I was on the state Phytophthora Technical Committee. I can't find the most recent version of this guide, but this older version still gives a good background and lists the susceptible species.)
I seriously doubt the water table in the hills has really recovered from the early-century drought. I also suspect it never will. Combine that with lerps, and demolished understorey habitat meaning fewer birds around to pick them off...
Perhaps we should start a market for the lerps? Their starchy casings - you can see them in the video - are composed of a sugary material, and they're actually a 'bush food'!
*Bonk!* Dear me, Rog, you're really not doing well, are you? The post is where it always was, my boy, on one of the original threads discussing the issue. I remember being surprised by a comment appearing on an older thread.
So, tell us; is this a typical example of how you build a factual argument? ;-)
Gee, Jo Nova and Rog win the Bestest Blogs in the Universe - just like Watts! That must have been an impartial contest with no gaming the system, fer sure! It's just like the climate, ain't it; it's the polling and alleged 'meme ascendency', not the, um, science, that counts...
My IE history shows Coochey's claim right where it always was - where you probably saw it was on the recent posts list which it's since dropped off as newer posts were made.
I'll ask Tim to secretly move this post later and file it under: another idiot denier crank who prefers his own paranoia as a substitute for actual research. But he won't.
340 "It was the chilling nature of that threat - and the casual way in which it was made - that prompted the ANU to question its security arrangements."
I think this is the 'death threat' which has been debunked by John Coochey's comment I reinstated above isn't it? And isn't it the case that the debunked 'sniper' comment never was reported to the police?
Personally, I condemn threats or depictions of violence from any corner of the argument over carbon taxes, climate science, unbalanced curricula, or environmental issues, actual or fantasised.
For example, that 10/10 video of the teacher murdering schoolchildren who politely questioned man made global warming dogma was appalling. Is that a message you would approve of?
Equally, The dirty tricks and threats endured by ex TV presenter Johnny Ball are real, criminal and culpable offences.
"The news report was based on information - including copies of a number of abusive emails - provided by more than 30 scientists in all states and territories."
Why isn't that article linked? And where are the copies of the emails? having seen the way John Coochey's innocent response to Maxine Cooper was twisted, lied about and blown up into a 'death threat', I'm a sceptic who wants to see the evidence before making a judgement.
OK, I stand corrected on the original location of John Coochey's comment. No harm in repeating it on this current thread though. GWS, I give as good as I get. ;)
349"it's the polling and alleged 'meme ascendency', not the, um, science, that counts..."
Seems to have been the M.O. of the alarmist camp for the last 30 years I agree.
"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth -
President of the UN Foundation
This is the guy who switched off the aircon before Hansen's June 1988 testimony to the house, to make sure everyone was sweating.
Personally, I also have an environmental agenda, but I don't agree with Tim Wirth that pushing a fatally flawed scientific hypothesis is a good way to promote it.
Thanks for that, bill. I'm newly moved to the southern suburbs and I've been a bit surprised by the numbers of dead and dying small trees and shrubs around the district. Didn't like it back in the eastern suburbs when my fruit trees and a lot of large street and park trees died during the drought and water restrictions, but that was all quite understandable. This I've found a bit mysterious since everything's so green this summer and autumn.
As for sprouting from the base being a sign of stress. I've always thought so. It tends to follow on from bark peeling and splitting and separating from obviously drought affected trees. At least in large trees I've observed over a few decades.
And what is it with watsonias and hollyhocks flowering now? Not having been around here before I don't know if it's a common regional aberration if there is such a thing, or if the plant life round here struggles so much it'll flower any chance it gets. (The soil is dire.)
Yep, the award-winning Rog knows the Coochey version of events is correct - you were there, right, Rog? ;-) - and hasn't noticed the whole 30 or so scientists telling the CT about their experiences thing.
(You also knew that comment had been deleted, Rog, and then you knew it had been deliberately shifted, too.)
You entire argument is, after all, one long conspiracy theory, with scientists as evil manipulators, the logical consequences of which we are now seeing; the utterly repellant tactic of people like yourself cynically striving to prove that scientists are 'lying' about alleged threats made to them, combined with snidely deriding their reactions to any such perceived threats.
As I said, I would have thought that Heartland's spectacular own-goal might have given pause-for-thought on ratbaggery as a tactic, but apparently not... don't say you weren't warned!
Personally, I condemn threats or depictions of violence from any corner of the argument over carbon taxes, climate science, unbalanced curricula, or environmental issues, actual or fantasised.
Not here - if you are serious, condemn it on your own website where you are currently belittling previous threats.
When you have, come back and give us the link.
Let us see if you mean what you say or you are just another blowhard.
358" I would have thought that Heartland's spectacular own-goal might have given pause-for-thought on ratbaggery as a tactic, but apparently not."
Still nothing to say about the 10/10 video showing schoolkids with doubts about anthropogenic global warming theory being murdered by their teacher as classmates get splattered with their blood Bill?
Makes Heartland's attempt at associating whacky warmies with, well, whackier warmies look pretty tame doesn't it? ;)
353"Tell you what tallcrank - get back to us when you've 'sceptically' investigated John Coochey's claim. Because you haven't so far, have you?"
Crock, We'll wait and see if any of the scientists at the table step forward to contradict him. As it stands his testimony has as much credibility as Kerry Emmanuel's.
Looks like your skillset at interpreting what you see is as poor as your grasp of climate science, or what award you won, smallcrank.
Still nothing to say about the 10/10 video showing schoolkids with doubts about anthropogenic global warming theory being murdered by their teacher as classmates get splattered with their blood
Firstly - the fantasy Pythonesque 'victims' in the 10/10 film weren't murdered by anybody. The puerile 'joke' - such as it is - is that while 'no pressure' was put upon them by their peers, the explodees exploded under their own internal pressure at doing nothing.
That you internally rant your poor cultural understanding of a bit of acting for a film into 'murder' in the tiny echo-chamber of your mind and then have the nerve to claim equivalence with your actual fellow right wing nutters who issue real-life threats demonstrates an aspect of the victim-bully fantasy that permeates your rancid, paranoid view of climate science you hold in common with McIntyre, Watts and Montford.
Stick to playing at science you don't have the background or training to understand such as your latest Heathrow UHI promotion of quackery. Even though you might think it looks t'riffic because it has all graphs'n'numbers'n'shit, I predict here and now that even Sonia's E&E will run a mile from it even in a slow year. It really is that dire, ill-informed and ill-considered.
Crock, We'll wait and see if any of the scientists at the table step forward to contradict him. As it stands his testimony has as much credibility as Kerry Emmanuel's(sic).
No, it doesn't. Emanuel is a respected MIT professor elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. While it suits your anti-science crank agenda to claim equivalence with some hitherto unknown claiming to be the person present at an event - and conveniently if only apparently defusing the situation at that event - the credibility remains with Emanuel and the others, at least in the sane world.
>Still nothing to say about the 10/10 video showing schoolkids with doubts about anthropogenic global warming theory being murdered by their teacher as classmates get splattered with their blood Bill?
I've said it elsewhere recently but I'll repeat it here.
Whipping boys such as 10/10 and Al Gore are not the basis for the physics of human-caused global warming. They're one end of a public campaign to bring the science to public attention.
On the other hand, most everything of the denialist argument comes from propagandists and lobby machines. There's almost nothing in the peer-reviewed literature that diagrees with the consensus, and what little there is, is almost universally completely rebutted. What remains requires an electron microscope in order to visualise.
The consensus case is the peer-reviewed literature. The Denialati's case is guff coming from Heartland, WWWT, and other FUD mills. That's the true comparison, and that's why climate change denialism is nothing more than a pernicious smear on human intellectual endeavour.
367 Crock, you obviously have a badly warped and twisted mind full of hate, but even you should be able to sense the public's revulsion of the sick-minded propaganda used by your friends at 10/10. Describing this despicable video as "Pythonesque" ought to have your friends here squirming with embarrassment and hurrying to disassociate themslves from your extremist views. That they don't speak up and shun it says everything about the groupthink and reality-denial that infests this site.
367 Crock: " the fantasy Pythonesque 'victims' in the 10/10 film weren't murdered by anybody. The puerile 'joke' - such as it is - is that while 'no pressure' was put upon them by their peers, the explodees exploded under their own internal pressure at doing nothing."
Oh I see, in your sick fantasy it's the fault of those schoolkids who doubt the climate alarmism you help promote that they get splattered all over their classmates.
The video shows a few different scenarios, including young children in a classroom, and whenever anyone says they are not going to do anything about climate change, they are blown up *at the touch of a button*. Everyone not blown up gets covered in blood and guts.
I know I know. It was nice while it lasted though.
376 Michael, the denial of fantasy murder thing Crank has going on is quite revealing, but if you want to start a conversation about climate science, that's cool with me.
How about you try to answer this question for me:
Since the negative phase of natural variation has nixed the alleged co2 caused warming for a decade or so, how much did its positive phase contribute to the warming we saw in the last two decades of the last millenium?
I dunno smallcrank, was it ultimately Sauron's, Voldemort's, Al Gore's, Phil Jones or Mike Mann's? Only you can deconstruct the live action cartoon worming its way through your steamed brain.
I maintain the edit I saw had no buttons but did have spontaneous carnage, but it was two years ago so who cares?
I also maintain that it doesn't matter which to those with a healthy grip on the difference between reality and fantasy. It's likely the fake sceptics whose ability to tell the difference are most threatened, due to their wholesale adoption of fake science that makes their grip on the real world so tenuous.
However it's all by the bye now as it was withdrawn.
Me? I'd have put it out as a short with Sean of the Dead and enjoyed you mugs sucking up your faux offence even more.
Even now you're fixated on essentially a cartoon, and seem completely unable to acknowledge the real life, right wing gun nuts actually threatening real people, as if your primped up and preening self-manufactured, self-regarding 'offence' outweighs all other considerations.
That's merely one of many reasons why you're a contemptible joke, smallcrank.
Well it is fun to have another AGW denier showing how they missed out in their educational travails. RTB shows that he missed out on his English grammar classes by making many simple errors that would embarrass a grade 6 child. Why are AGW deniers so lacking in this area?
He then shows that he has difficulty in finding posts if they are on a different thread than on the one he is reading. He then blames all and sundry for "hiding" anything he cannot find. Such misplaced outrage but it is what we have come to expect from uneducated AGW deniers.
Then he shows a complete lack of any understanding or knowledge of climate science, which is easily understood since they pride themselves in never reading the scientific literature but prefer to waste their time on denier websites. He makes this (in his small mind) profound statement:
Since the negative phase of natural variation has nixed the alleged co2 caused warming for a decade or so, how much did its positive phase contribute to the warming we saw in the last two decades of the last millenium?
381: The Fluster/Ramsdork paper implies a sensitivity giving around 4C/doubling for co2. In their dreams.
Both this paper and the SKS post from Eggsandgammon ignore the cumulative nature of solar input on ocean heat content and the consequent ENSO effects. They completely fail to account for natural climate warming early in the C20th. They are junk science. Exactly the sort of pulp fiction you ignorant warmist idiots fall for. Get real.
The Fluster/Ramsdork paper implies a sensitivity giving around 4C/doubling for co2. In their dreams.
The above constitutes a comprehensive and complete rebuttal, according to smallcrank's pseudo-science.
Much like a Kalahari bushman might shake his fist at the sonic boom of a Space Shuttle scattering his goats, and about as effective. But doing it makes him feel better.
387: Global average temperature hasn't changed much on average over the last decade, according to the more reliable data providers (i.e. not hopelessly biased activists like Jim Hansen).
So if natural variation has been able to nix the alleged co2 global warming signal in its negative phase (weaker Sun, cooler PDO phase) Then that combined natural variation must be at least as strong as the co2 forcing. Therefore in it's positive phase it must also be equally as strong. Therefore it was responsible for at least half the warming. There are complicating factors, but the basic argument is realistic.
I can believe that some warmist re-editing of history took place.
I don't have to believe anything when you're fantasising that 11 FOI'd emails somehow trump 30+ witness accounts in your forlorn quest to minimise real life by being fixated on a short comedy movie.
But when that's all you've got, what else is an anti-science crank like you to do? Facing the reality would seem to be too distressing for you, hence your displacement activity.
> Global average temperature hasn't changed much on average over the last decade
Oooh, a decade! What an incredibly long time over which to detect a trend!
> So if natural variation has been able to nix the alleged co2 global warming signal in its negative phase (weaker Sun, cooler PDO phase) Then that combined natural variation must be at least as strong as the co2 forcing. Therefore in it's positive phase it must also be equally as strong. Therefore it was responsible for at least half the warming. There are complicating factors, but the basic argument is realistic.
You realise this entire "argument" falls apart if the period of oscillation of the sun "cycle" is different to that of the PDO "cycle"? Furthermore I note that you are using a **model** (a sinusoid) to determine the contribution of "natural variation" in the 80s/90s. How awful, we know that models are inherently evil!
@387 tallbloke, you so funny, nice cherry picking!
To deliberately ignore the inconvenient truth of the warmest decade since the age of reliable recorded weather data, from 1880(something that even the leading skeptic and former denialati Richard Muller at "B.E.S.T." does not dispute). Interestingly, the politically neutral science of "Phenology" also contradicts your rash totally fact free unsupported statement as well. I laughed so hard, I spilled my coffee on the keyboard( a good thing it was waterproof!), for one should not leave pure fact free crap unchallenged! A quick search of the Internets will dredge up all the peer reviewed climate science information I need, in order to debunk your entire pure fact free denialati canards. For example "Skeptical Science" link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
However I digress, back to the point of this post, the fall out from the insane Heartland Billboard continues unabated.
392:Roger, that wasn't logic, that was handwaving.
Unless you can refute the logic properly, the handwaving is all yours Michael.
391: You realise this entire "argument" falls apart if the period of oscillation of the sun "cycle" is different to that of the PDO "cycle"?
You haven't thought this through, have you? It doesn't matter how you slice it, natural variation is nixing the alleged co2 warming, and has been for a decade. Without any help from stratospheric volcanoes too. The warmist calculations are in disarray.
Here's something else to think about. Hansen told us many moons ago in 1988 that if we were to reduce our output of co2, then the level in 2010 would be 390ppm.
Well, we didn't heed him and co2 output from human sources has increased 20% or so since. Yet here we are in 2012 and the level is under 390ppm. How did he get this so badly wrong?
What logic Rog?? - your completely evidence free assertion that if the component of natural variation is -5 at some point, then later at some time 'positive phase' it must be +5.
396 Come on Michael, you can do better than that. Take a temperature curve of any arbitrary length and stick the linear trend through it. See how the data wimbles above and below the line? Those are positive and negative phases of natural variation QED.
Co2 was rock steady at 270ppm and has only increased since. So that can't account for negative temperature trends. QED.
For negative trends to occur, natural variation must be stronger than co2 warming. QED
Natural variation varies - by definition
Therefore its positive phases must add to any co2 warming. QED
Well well, RTB got it so badly wrong. Can't say I'm surprised.
RTB gets it so wrong:
Here's something else to think about. Hansen told us many moons ago in 1988 that if we were to reduce our output of co2, then the level in 2010 would be 390ppm.
Well, we didn't heed him and co2 output from human sources has increased 20% or so since. Yet here we are in 2012 and the level is under 390ppm. How did he get this so badly wrong?
Do you ever read the papers you quote? If you did read them are you capable of understanding the words in them or do you just look at pictures? Too bad Hansen didn't post a pic of his CO2 projections, then you might have been close. Why do you just cut and paste nonsense without checking and verifying it. Oooh wait a minute, you are a AGW denier not a "skeptic" my mistake.
In scenario C the CO2 growth rate is the same as in scenarios A and B through 1985; between 1985 and 2000 the annual CO2 increment is fixed at 1.5 ppmv per year; after 2000 CO2 ceases to increase, its abundance remaining fixed at 368 ppmv.
When one actually goes and checks the scientific literature it is easy to tell AGW deniers from "true skeptics". The deniers are nothing but "fake skeptics". We now know what RTB is.
Since the negative phase of natural variation has nixed the alleged co2 caused warming for a decade or so, how much did its positive phase contribute to the warming we saw in the last
You want an earlier decade with rapid warming? No problem.
You are suffering from determinism - a negative effect doesn't have a corresponding positive effect of equal amplitude at a different time, 'just because' (which is what your 'logic' boils down to). The wiggles on the temp series are random - ie noise.
Do you really think that a volcanic eruption today (with it's cooling effect) necessitates an equal and opposite natural warming effect somewhere down the line?? Nuts.
>So if natural variation has been able to nix the alleged co2 global warming signal in its negative phase (weaker Sun, cooler PDO phase) Then that combined natural variation must be at least as strong as the co2 forcing. Therefore in it's positive phase it must also be equally as strong. Therefore it was responsible for at least half the warming.
This statement deserves to be bronzed.
If Dodgy Roger doesn't understand how noise intereacts with signal he shouldn't even be allowed to sit at a keyboard. Seriously mate, take this to Tamino and watch him squeeze a few lessons-worth of statistics basics from this one paragraph...
Although even after such an education I doubt that Roger Tallbloke would appreciate or even understand the silliness of his statement.
>"Hah! Can't fool me. I use a MODEL. It tells me everything I... want.... to. aCHOO!"
Except the laughably amateur "conjecture" piece you published on your blog relies on computer models.
Watching Brent play "science" is like watching a child with test tubes of coloured water.
Rog,
>367 Crock, you obviously have a badly warped and twisted mind full of hate, but even you should be able to sense the public's revulsion of the sick-minded propaganda used by your friends at 10/10. Describing this despicable video as "Pythonesque" ought to have your friends here squirming with embarrassment and hurrying to disassociate themslves from your extremist views. That they don't speak up and shun it says everything about the groupthink and reality-denial that infests this site.
I think that says everything about your sense of confected outrage and lack of humour. That you are still repeating this (and the demonstratably false Johnny Ball accusations) years later shows how hollow your position is.
Mostly I just feel sorry for you lot. Rog, Duff, Brent, Pentaxz. You were all so sure that the "scam" was moments away from "collapsing" around the time of the criminal CRU email theft. That you all grow increasingly shrill as the scientific evidence mounts is more proof of the vacuity of your arguments.
What "sceptics" you all are. Duff, who believes that a ninety year old ariel photograph is a better indicator of sea level rise than the actual data. Brent, who has been reduced to shrieking about conspiracy theories because, amazingly, his volley of contradictory, long discarded arguments has failed to move us, and dear, sweet Tallbloke, who can't even find a comment from two days ago in another thread and thinks a satirical comedic video is serious.
'Fluster & Ramsdork'?! God, Rog, you are a gift to our side of the argument!
On the basis of your performance above I'm afrad that I can only conclude that you are a fanatic. Fanatics are scary, yes, but not very interesting.
By all means, carry on acting the extremist ratbag, as it could hardly be better timed for our purposes, for the reasons I've even helpfully outlined for you above.
(You know, I'm actually giving you some sound tactical advice here - ever won a political campaign, Rog? I have. Several, in fact - but if, as I suspect, you are, indeed, a fanatic, you simply won't be able to take it. More fool you.)
Pentaxz, I am delighted to see you back, even in spite of your claims that "there is no point in debating [us]" and your faith in Christian apocalypticist Dr Coffman over actual evidence.
398: "The wiggles on the temp series are random - ie noise"
The Wiggles on the GISPII ice cores are at a frequency of around 60+/-15 years. Cyclic climatic variations have been identified in instrumental and proxy records at around ~80years (Gleissberg), ~180 years, 206 years (de Vries), ~970 years, 2240 years (Halstatt) to name a few. I know you warmies are in denial of these cycles, but in the real world outside the carbon catastophe knitting circle, everyone else knows they exist. And in order for them to have existed prior to the increase in co2, there must be cumulative effects of natural variation. Therefore the Sun being more active than the long term average for ~70 years from 1930-2003 must have made a significant contribution to the rise in temperature over the C20th.
That's one of the many reasons why so few people take any notice of your failed co2 driven climate hypothesis any more. However, the political show rolls on, because as Canada's ex environment minister Christine Stewart said:
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
I'm all for justice and equality, but trying to bring about radical political change on the back of a phony theory is an enterprise doomed to failure. Give it up.
402: "By all means, carry on acting the extremist ratbag"
As I said, "When in Rome..." Anyway, I'm not the one making propaganda snuff movies of brainwashed teachers murdering their students who dare to question the extremist dogma you and your friends promote.
"I'm actually giving you some sound tactical advice here"
>Cyclic climatic variations have been identified in instrumental and proxy records at around ~80years (Gleissberg), ~180 years, 206 years (de Vries), ~970 years, 2240 years (Halstatt) to name a few. I know you warmies are in denial of these cycles, but in the real world outside the carbon catastophe knitting circle, everyone else knows they exist.
You're really strecthing here. Let's not get too hyperbolic, buddy.
396: Do you ever read the papers you quote? If you did read them are you capable of understanding the words in them or do you just look at pictures?
In scenario C the CO2 growth rate is blah blah.
The deniers are nothing but "fake skeptics"
I was referring to scenario 'B' you arrogant badmouthing alarmist piece of crap.
"In scarynario 'B' the growth of the annual increment of co2 is reduced from 1.5%yr today to 1%yr in 1990, 0.5% in 2000 and 0% in 2010"
404:"I wonder how stupid one must be to miss the red button. Tell us, chek."
I fear you are wasting your time PentaxZ. Alarmist buffoons such as 'Chek' don't Chek their facts before making total tw@ts of themselves in public. Then they make up stories to try to backpedal out of their mis-statements without admitting they are wrong. It's symptomatic of the general warmist mentality; keep bolting ad hoc unsupported false reasoning on to prop up the creaking edifice of their failed theory.
Travesty Trenberth tells us the missing heat has started hiding in the deep ocean since the near surface atmosphere all but stopped warming a decade ago. No explanation of how this can be when the rate of sea level rise has slowed to almost nothing above the centennial rate and gone negative over the last few years though. Still, alarmist tosspots like 'Chek' avert their brains from such illogicalities, just like they do from the big red murder button in the snuff movie their propagandists made.
While you're here, Rog, can you please do something useful identify a credible source for that quote - which occurs in several different variations, according to the political requirement of the blogger, I suspect - but apparently only in looking-glass-world. All references I can find certainly circle straight back to looking-glass-world
'Calgary Herald 1998' ain't overly useful. Their archives don't go back that far.
⢠Context: Terence Concoran writing an editorial in the December 26th 1998 edition of the Canadian Financial Post attributed similar comments to Christine Stewart the former Canadian Minister of the Environment. Stewart had been speaking with members of staff at the Calgary Herald on December 14th 1998 and Corcoran subsequently wrote an article about the discussions.
During the discussion the former Minister at one point said âI am very worried about global warming,â. Later in the interview, although we have no idea what the context was, she stated âNo matter if the science is all phony there are collateral environmental benefits.â And in a third part of the interview when discussing climate change she is quoted as saying â[Climate change provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.
>Rog, I know I'm wasting my time. But it's a bit fun to watch the foilhats squiggle like worms on a hook when they are presented facts on which they can't respond
A bit rich coming from someone who has refused multiple times to engage in a debate with me, and who agreed to back down if his six copied-and-pasted questions from an extremist right-wing fringe blog where answered (which they were) before calling me a volley of uninspired names after you were unable to answer the rebuttal.
Tallbloke,
>I was referring to scenario 'B' you arrogant badmouthing alarmist piece of crap.
Calm down, son. You're not doing your ideological cause much good by abusing people.
414: PentaxZ: "There are so few alarmistic blogs left these days where you can get so much laughs as the pseudoscientific Deltoid. ;-)
The numbers are dwindling I agree. Realclimate doesn't even get its viewing figures graphed by Alexa anymore unless you stretch the time frame. Tim Lambert hasn't written more than 4 articles in 5 months here.
SKS keeps putting up more fallacy fodder, but then that site has a paid propagandist behind it.
420:Michael, I mistook you for someone who could debate reasonably. If I'd realised you were a pedant, I'd have put tilde symbols in front of all the numbers instead of half of them. Now you have reduced the conversation to this sort of childishness, I'll leave you with it.
*There are so few alarmistic blogs left these days where you can get so much laughs as the pseudoscientific Deltoid*
*The numbers are dwindling I agree*
I have been reading this to-and froing with bigmouth-no substance RTB and a few morons like PentaxZ, Brent etc. and frankly its pathetic.
So RTB, when can we expect to see your stunning science written up into a major scientific journal? The numbers of denial papers in the peer-reviewed literature is not increasing; hell, it's still close to a big fat zippo. Instead, your brand of stupid, myopic science is that carried out by non-scientific simpletons like yourself, Watts, McIntyre and Mountford on blogs. That's it. Most scientists - you know what they are RTB? - (hint: the people working in universities and research institutes and who actually, lo and behold, do research!)- wouldn't touch your brand of ignorance with a ten foot long barge pole. That's why you denialti are an incestuous lot: you venture into each other's blogs and slap each other on the back and tell each other how great you all are and how great your brand of anti-science is. But when push comes to shove your bilge rarely gets published - and when it does it ends up in E & E or in LaRouche's rag.
Its amazing what big mouths the denilati have on blogs but when it comes down to the nitty gritty you D-K acolytes shun the major conferences (Heartland not included) where climate scientists assemble and discuss these issues.I have asked the other world expert-with no publications Jonarse to submit his Earth-shattering rebuttal of Hansen to a major journal and, like you, he backs down every time with the disclaimer that he doesn't need to write up a rebtuall because real scientists know he's right! You lot are a sordid bunch who try desperately to camouflage your right wing political agendas in scientific clothing. It doesn't wash, RTB: your agendas stink so badly that they can't help but be smelled by most reading them. So cut the crap and admit that you hate climate science (science in general) and abuse it to promote political and economic agendas. At least then you'd be being honest.
> If I'd realised you were a pedant, I'd have put tilde symbols in front of all the numbers instead of half of them
Talk about missing the point! Even if this mysterious 2239 (epi)cycle were to exist, it has such a long period that it cannot possibly influence the climate on the decadal scale.
Your contentions are pure numerology and contain zero actual physics.
Oh dear Tallcrank really seems to be getting quite flustered, up at the crack of dawn UK time to get banging away on that keyboard.
Firstly Rog, a 'snuff movie' is generally accepted to involve real death occurring on film for entertainment, as opposed to pretend deaths usually depicted for dramatic narrative purposes. Real death didn't happen in the 10/10 film, nor in the Python's Peckinpah spoof 'Salad Days' which were respectively, a promo film and an entertainment aimed at adults who can differentiate between fantasy and reality, so neither can be termed 'snuff films'. I accept that may be a fine line too far for some cranks.
Secondly as a search shows, the only people still interested in the 10/10 film are denier sites, hugging it to their bosoms as a virtual icon of martyrdom. But rest easy in your beds as deniers are really much too stupid to be worth crossing the moral line of murder for. The arguments of deniers are so weak all the slaughter occurs in the intellectual realm.
Thirdly, have I misremembered a short film last seen 18 months ago? It's entirely possible. Was there more than one edit released? That's possible too, but as it was withdrawn in response to a wave of ersatz puritanical bleating by the victim-bully contingent, who cares? (Apart of course from you Rog and your fellow cranks who cling to it as a displacement equivalent for actual, reel-life thuggery).
Fourthly, and more importantly do I think it had any connection with reality and real-life threats? Of course not. That's the territory of loons and cranks, which is your home ground.
The thing is Rog, there are serious scientists who disagree with the consensus: Lindzen and Pielke Snr for example. But they wouldn't touch your cranky notions with a bargepole. There are also harmless cranks like Corbyn whose record is only slightly worse than chance.
But you tallcrank were a central player in CRU leak 2 redux.
Now as things went, nobody gave a flying one about that - all the meat that could be lied about and misrepresented had already been done in CRU 1 - but you were ready, willing and able to resurrect the whole meaningless circus again, without even the wit to evaluate and recognise there was nothing there in Part 2. And that's why you're ignorant denier trash. IMHO, of course
> a negative effect doesn't have a corresponding positive effect of equal amplitude at a different time, 'just because' (which is what your 'logic' boils down to).
Oddly I have just realised.
One continuous whine from deniers is "So what temperature SHOULD the earth be at?!?!?".
Yet their continued "it's just a natural cycle" INSISTS that there is a "natural temperature" that the earth system just deviates from side to side on.
"Since the peer review process in the climate science is so full of bias and cheating, nobody outside the co2-bubble according to the cranks and fakes who no longer take the process seriously.
Corrected that for you patiesizeZ. And the rational response is 'who cares'?
It's not as if your worthless, manufactured opinions on areas outside your expertise are of any value to anyone whatsoever.
No need to correct me, deep down, in the dark corners of your mind you know it's the truth.
And there you have it right there. Your preference for indulging insane fantasies rather than dealing with the real world leads you to exactly where you are, marginalised in your own echo chamber.
Alright, Rog, I'll put it to you straight out: would you accept that yet another pet quote that you all ping back and forward to each other so often you've come to believe it as gospel is likely to be, at best, just another piece of decontextualised selective quotation?
(It's all a bit like all your favourite phrases from the CRU hack, isn't it? Which was a long time ago, and- do please site down before you read what I'm about to say- Duffer, GooSeWuh, KarenTPMcThingy, Pentax, you too- I'm afraid it's not coming back. There there; chin up, people! I know you all tried to revive it and everything, but so many media people got burned the first time they're just not listening anymore, are they?) ;-)
And, even if it were true; who is Christine Stewart anyway? I never heard of her until, um, today. Who are 10/10, for that matter? Do they run Jim Hansen, NASA and the National Academies of Science as agents, of vice-versa? What an extraordinarily paranoiac individual you'd have to be to credit any of this nonsense.
AGW Denial: the 9-11 Truth movement makes the big time! Have you read any of that stuff over at your fellow Bestest-Ever Blog award winner Jo Nova's place? Seriously; valorous Austrians fighting sinister conspiracies - including the sinister conspiracy that calls your conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory - and adulterated gold bars? Sapping our vital bodily fluids? You couldn't make it up!
Heartland, on the other hand, is not obscure, it is central. Heartland is the organizer of your major 'Skeptic' (*cough*) gabfest. Heartland chose to run these billboards as a frickin' centrepiece for this very same conference. Heartland is a channeler of funds to many of your most beloved people and projects, Precious.
In other words: Heartland is you, Sunshine!
And let's see what the reports say Heartland's billboards have managed to achieve (ask the LA Times!) thus far, shall we?;
Withdrawal of support:
Diageo (e.g. Johnny Walker, et al);
Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers;
State Farm Insurance;
XL Group;
Allied World Assurance;
RennaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.;
United Services Automobile Association.
That's on top of AT&T and GM a couple of months back after the Gleick papers release furor (and, yes, we know about the Strategy doc.)
(They also managed to alienate the environmental organizations they were working with -I kid you not, folks!- along with the insurance companies listed above in getting developers out of low-lying, high-inundation-risk areas. That pleasantly surprising project may yet simply shift outside the organization.)
Withdrawals from the conference:
Laframboise -
Suddenly, we were all publicly linked to an organization that thinks itâs OK to equate people concerned about climate change with psychopaths.
Now, Ms. Raspberry, with her 'interesting' theories about the IPCC that so excite people who've never bothered to read-up on how it all works, was to be a star of the show, just like the billboards. Read all about it if you don't believe me. (Oh, but you do believe me!)
McKitrick -
You cannot simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers.
Oh, yeah, even Sensenbrenner threatened to withdraw. And Microsoft issued a formal statement denouncing both HI's stance on climate and the billboards.
And could you please name a more comprehensive own-goal, if you're aware of one? You know, with similar, identifiable outcomes in the real world, not the endless reams of imagined outcomes confabulated in the overwrought hothouse of online Denial. Denunciation by Watts or the Conservapedia doesn't count, I'm afraid...
*As you should know, in the case of the climate science, the debate and the truth about it has moved from the peer reviewed literature to the blogosphere. And that for a good reason*
Yes, the good reason is that the cranks and nutjobs and right wingnuts for the most part don't do science. They do, on the other hand, promote political agendas, and the internet is a great place for that. This is why flat Earth theories, alchemy and the like are still taken seriously by some clowns on the internet. Moreover, since it isn't peer-reviewed, and since any Tom, Dick or Harry can profess to be a world class expert in any field even if their qualifications are in cleaning public lavatories (with a hat's off to Monty Python for that), then the internet has become a great source of profound stupidity. The climate change deniers have cornered that market. You are a member of a special club, PentaxZ. One that is scientifically and morally bankrupt but who don't give a damn.
So let's get to the heart of the matter PentaxZ.
And let's clear all of the rhetoric out of the way and get to the truth:
You are a raving lunatic who has about as much understanding of science as a soil-dwelling bacteria. And on the contrary, I give the bacteria more common sense.
Hardly. Deltoid is one of the blogs that actually connects to the scientific world and process although perhaps not quite as directly as say, Real Climate for example, which maintains a community of world-class scientists.
That you are totally unable to distinguish it from your preferred crank's and quack's sites actually says more about you and your collective need to regularly declare your periodic victories, based solely on your vaporous imaginings, chronic insecurities, slanders and wishful thinking. But never, ever any substance.
Well, we didn't heed him and co2 output from human sources has increased 20% or so since. Yet here we are in 2012 and the level is under 390ppm. How did he get this so badly wrong?
In reply Ian Forrester pointed out that we know what RTB is, indeed we do, a prat who gets some of his 'science' from Michael Crichton and Pat Michaels.
Seriously RTB you are full of it, however there is help here.
Wow @ 429;
"One continuous whine from deniers is "So what temperature SHOULD the earth be at?!?!?".
Yet their continued "it's just a natural cycle" INSISTS that there is a "natural temperature" that the earth system just deviates from side to side on"
This is indeed, the unifying theory of Denialism.
This view is stuck 100 years or more in the past, when it was believed there was a 'natural order' that was beyond man's influence. It's a semi-religious theme coming from the idea of a creator who made everything as it should be.
This is the intellectual underpinnings of Roy Spencers 'Iris' - it was his attempt to explicate a mechanism for the unchanging natural order as set by the creator.
> the near surface atmosphere all but stopped warming a decade ago
Is either a liar or an incompetent. Which is it, Rog?
(And wait - it's a decade ago now? Not since 2000? Not since 1998? Not "this century"? Not "the last 15 years"? So hard to keep up when you keep shifting that window round like that. Its almost like, if you left it in one place long enough, people might be able to see through it.)
> It's a semi-religious theme coming from the idea of a creator who made everything as it should be.
However, the point I had only recently connected was that they whine about how "alarmists" have it wrong because there's no "right" temperature for the earth, yet here they are pretending there is an INHERENTLY right temperature of the earth.
I'd already made the religious connection (for the irreligious, they merely prate Randian mythology that insists that if rich people want to do it, it MUST be right, it can be no other way).
It was so lovely to have RTB turn up here and demonstrate the astounding depths of his igknowledge and illogic combined with the self-assured certainty with which he proclaims it - and the complete lack of awareness of the effect on his putative credibility.
Go tell it to scientists Gleissberg, de Vries, Suess and Halstatt.
You natural variation deniers make me laugh. There is plenty of empirical evidence for these cycles, writ large in paleo records, on the shores of northern Canada and Siberia, in seabed ice-rafted moraine deposits, in speleothems worldwide. There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers documenting them. yet you carbon dioxide asphyxiated wankers can't see further than back 50 years to the start of the Mauna Loa series. And you think we're the ones ignorant of climate science. Heh. Clueless tossers. :-)
Anyway, back to the fun:
........
If youâre licensed for huntinâ down âroos
Beware the bold benders of truths
Theyâll say youâre a sniper
And then get all âhyperâ
To make sure their lies heard on the news
*And you think we're the ones ignorant of climate science. Heh. Clueless tossers*
We don't think it RTB. We know it. You have the gall to insinuate that you are some kind of 'expert' when you've never published a bloody paper in your miserable life. Big talk, little man.
What makes you look even more ridiculous than you already are is that 20+ years ago your lot were calling AGW a 'doomsday myth'; it wasn't happening. Then, as more data came in, and the myth suddenly became reality, it was then either (1) due to natural forcing (i.e. solar) or (2) fell within the range of natural variation. Essentially you deniers shift the goalposts as it suits your political narrative.
What an ugly bunch of science-abusers you are. Why you wade in here with your profound ignorance is anyone's guess.
"as more data came in, and the [doomsday] myth suddenly became reality..."
lol. Junk_Science_Jeff steps into the fray.
"it was then either (1) due to natural forcing (i.e. solar) or (2) fell within the range of natural variation."
Well Jeff, as the paleo reconstructions show, nature has been capable of causing big and sudden swings in temperature over large sections of the plaanet since... forever. I doubt nature suddenly lost this capability when man set fire to coal.
Now I've no idea what planet you, Jeff, are personally in orbit around. Those like me, who are highly sceptical of the (now many times falsified) co2 CAGW chicken-little junk science you peddle, are grounded in the reality of looking at empirical data regarding Earth. Rather than getting all hyper over utterly inadequate and incomplete computer generated doomsday scarynarios.
Since the negative phase of natural variation has nixed the alleged co2 caused warming for a decade or so,
Are you saying that we should prepare for a large increase in temperature once the 'negative phase of natural variation' (whatever that is) passes? This seems to be at variance with your general opinion.
When I see people claiming to detect lengthy cycles, I wonder how robust their statistics are. I've seen too many examples of people making, say, 100 comparisons then discussing at length the 5 that were 'significant' at 5% and suspect something similar is going on.
If it talks like a quack, only draws support from Z-head and Brent like a quack and ducks (questions) like a quack ... it's most likely a quack.
The only thing you're lacking Tallquack is a coherent theory tying all those hundreds/thousands/millions of your 'cycles' together to match observations. Well, that and coherence.
Kinda like AGW theory has already managed to do, but better.
I don't think you have it in you.
"Are you saying that we should prepare for a large increase in temperature once the 'negative phase of natural variation' (whatever that is) passes? This seems to be at variance with your general opinion."
Richard, I think we're in for several cooler decades, followed by a brief warming around 2045-2065, and then generally downhill again after that. If you're interested in why my research leads me to that conclusion, visit my website. Trying to discuss it here will only set off the howler monkeys and baboons.
"The only thing you're lacking Tallquack is a coherent theory tying all those hundreds/thousands/millions of your 'cycles' together to match observations."
Well no-Chek, my global energy model replicates 150 years of temperature evolution better than co2 driven climate models and does it without ad hoc-key stickery joggery pokery involving extra aerosols on demand as required to save the model.
It's also gives approximate future temperature evolution directly calculated from the underlying equations. It doesn't predict ENSO events but correctly captures the underlying multidecadal trends due to the domination of La Nina and El Nino over the relevant time periods.
2) Many people are as lucky as RTB to be located near a major university where they can easily attend seminars, talk to researchers, etc. Presumably RTB can mention some names of researchers there that know him.
3) Even better, maybe he could give a seminar on his work, with plenty of time for questions by experts, ideally video'd and made available, as the EPA did with this talk of N. Scafetta, which may be quite relevant. (Just flip through slides, which include mention of Rhodes Fairbridge.)
It is plausible that SEE might not want to sponsor RTB to speak, but it might be a valuable educational experience, as blogs and in-person experiences can be ... different.
"my global energy model replicates 150 years of temperature evolution"
By form fitting.
Give me six free parameters and I can construct an elephant.
Remember too: if you've written your model to replicate the past 150 years data, it isn't proven by replication of the past 150 years worth of data.
It only gets proven by data AFTER that 150 years.
PS: where is your paper? If it were anything REMOTELY true (after all, G&T's paper got published), there are a score of journals who would love to print it.
John, You have hit the crux of the matter on the proverbial head. Climate change deniers are like schoolyard bullies - they huff and puff and pound their chests, but when push comes to shove they like to hide on their weblogs. RTB does not hesitate to attack James Hansen and other climate scientists, but if were asked to debate them face to face, he'd chicken out in a second. Not that I think busy scientists should waste their time debating primary school beginners like RTB, but its these beginners who try and give the impression that they are world class experts whilst having no pedigree in the field. John gave you a good challenge RTB: sign up for an international scientific conference on AGW and invite Jonas N along and you both can get up there and make complete idiots of yourselves. Or maybe not.
Besides, RTB: you wouldn't know junk science from the real thing if it hit you in the face. How many international conferences on climate have you attended? Or workshops? How many publications do you have in any peer-reviewed journal? Heck, as John said you've got researchers all around you. How many of them do you speak to? How many actually agree with you on the slim chance that they do? When you've actually gotten off your butt and done some science, other than the blog variety, you can criticize me...
PentaxZ: Yes, you nitwit. Many of the deniers are admitting it is warming, but claim its 'natural' or within the normal range of variance. Which is utterly ridiculous, given the spatial scales involved. Large scale systems are highly deterministic Back in the early 90s the deniers said it wasn't warming at all. Another one of their canards is that it hasn't warmed in 10 years - or is it 13 - or 15? Take your pick. Anything to deny, deny, deny.
*Richard, I think we're in for several cooler decades, followed by a brief warming around 2045-2065, and then generally downhill again after that. If you're interested in why my research leads me to that conclusion, visit my website*
What a hoot! MY Research! MY! What research is that? On a blog for heaven's sake? Where are the papers? The conference invites? The beef? Dunning-Kruger would have a field day with you, RTB.
This is *one of* the several approaches to attempting to get a handle on solar variability we have developed. They are all giving similar predictions of an imminent steep drop in solar activity levels. All the studies in mainstream climate science say the effect of solar variability on climatic variation is small. This is because they consider TSI variability in terms of W/m^2 only, and take no account of large variability within the emitted spectrum.
There is increasing evidence in the literature of large amplifying effects due to UV variation affecting upper atmosphere chemistry which in turn affects the disposition of the jet streams around the polar vortices. Our climate scientists and our spurious leaders ignore this stuff at our peril.
The ocean heat content built up by 75 years of above average solar activity levels has been buffering the surface temp against the drop in solar activity since 2003. The current low cycle 24 is using up the reserves fast. It is likely to get a lot colder from late 2013. Farmers take note.
The ocean heat content built up by 75 years of above average solar activity levels has been buffering the surface temp against the drop in solar activity since 2003.
Brenty blathered: "How many trees did mighty Mann have data from for his hockey stick reconstruction?" Anticipated Jeff Harvey answer: "Why must you denialists be so obsessed with quantifying things? Can't you feel that Gaia is angry?"
Or more likely, how many deniers have successfully refuted Mann?
Despite the impressions you may have been drip-fed, that would be a big fat zero, wouldn't it, Brenda?
"How, pray tell, do the oceans keep expanding while their heat content decreases?"
First you need to work out the relative contributions of steric changes and runoff vs evaporation. Then you need to know a bit more about how the satellite altimetry is calibrated. Thirdly it is adviseable to compare several datasets, including Envisat, Topex and Jason. Finally consideration should be given to varying interpretations of the ARGO data, and the dodgy splice to the XBT data. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-…
Come now pantiesizeZ, denier trash aren't impressed by Mike Mann's repuitation as one of the world's leading experts.
In fact brainless, dumbed-down cretins like you despise him for it. So, as you're somehow oh-so certain his research can't be right, I'll ask again - where are all the valid denier refutations?
Or are you too snivelling a coward to admit there aren't any?
*"Why must you denialists be so obsessed with quantifying things?*
Because you don't. If you did, you'd publish the odd paper in a good scientific journal. As it is, the denial literature is as thin as the creation 'science' literature.
I see Jonas is making an idiot of himself agin in his asylum. Tell you what RTB: why don't you and he write a paper together and submit it to Science or Nature? Since you both are self-professed geniuses, I am sure it would be a breeze to get it it.
As for RTB writing this: *Richard, I think we're in for several cooler decades, followed by a brief warming around 2045-2065, and then generally downhill again after that*...
it sounds suspiciously like Lomborg when he estimated extinction rate to be .075% of biodiversity over the next 50 years in his appalling book (TSE). The media love 'handles', even if they are patently absurd, like Lomborg's (and RTBs) estimates. I could dissect the myriad flaws in Lomborg's calculations here but I won't. I have better things to do. But since population ecology is my field of research (and not Lomborg's), I can see why laypeople would be taken in by his estimates. Just as they might be by RTBs. Until he submits it to a scientific journal, its worthless. He may call it 'research', but it means diddly squat until it is reviewed critically by experts in the field. Science by blog ain't science if its not thrown to the wolves. This is where the deniers are rank cowards. Big talk but little substance when challenged to put their ideas to the real test.
"Until he submits it to a scientific journal, its worthless."
75000 people view my site every month Jeff. Why would I want to pay a journal to hide my work behind a paywall?
"patently absurd, like Lomborg's (and RTBs) estimates"
That estimate stems from an R2 value of 0.99 in reproducing Leans TSI reconstruction from climate cyclic periodicities. I'm sure you're a great population ecologist Jeff. I think you understand jack all about solar system dynamics though. Unfortunately, the mainstream journals reviewers don't either, so we'll continue innovating in the open where peer review and co-operative development from intelligent laymen is continuous and ongoing.
The proof of the pudding will be in the accuracy of the predictions, not the approval of groupthinking consensoids. Looking good so far.
But of course Jeff only asks a rhetorical question, he knows that the vanity bloggers have no interest in science and would no sooner publish a scientific paper than they would fly to the moon.
It must suck to have eyesight that bad Michael. Wipe your windows.
Has Hansen published any validation stats on his 30 year old nonsense recently? If he has, I'll bet they're against the GISS dataset he controls. A clear conflict of interest.
Lots of the trolls that infest threads here are objectionable, stupid, pointless and tedious, but it is a while since I've encountered someone that is actually fractally wrong. It really is astonishing to behold.
75000 people view my site every month Jeff. Why would I want to pay a journal to hide my work behind a paywall?
I agree, Dave H - this guy is hilarious! Rog, you are a third-rate mind with a fourth-rate audience.
And deep down you know it too, little man. And that's why you ain't ever going to attempt to publish - it'll only make it ever more clear that you're no peer of the reviewers!
Maybe, if the results continue to be validated for 10-15 years.
Why wait? There's apparently at least 2240 years of data to hindcast against. Your model doesn't know whether it's predicting the next 10-15 year period or a 10-15 year period that occurred 800 years ago. It should do equally well with either.
I think you understand jack all about solar system dynamics though. Unfortunately, the mainstream journals reviewers don't either,
Yes Rog, it's those experts in solar system dynamics (you know, the peers who conduct the journal reviews) who know nothing about solar system dynamics- not you. The old expression "If everyone around you seems crazy, maybe it's you" certainly comes to mind.
As I asked above, Rog, could you please point out a bigger own-goal than this one? Hint: saying 'Gleick ' will only be hilarious...
And then explain to us why you think more ratbaggery - e.g. casting scorn on scientists' reactions to alleged threats, an unsurprising consequence of the hysterical and toxic atmosphere you have all created - is the ideal strategy for your side to pursue at this point?
With enemies like you lot, Rog, who needs friends? ;-)
Rog smallmind really doesn't have a clue or he is being deliberately ignorant.
He mutters:
I was referring to scenario 'B' you arrogant badmouthing alarmist piece of crap.
Now, apart from the childish obscenities emanating from his foul mouth (what is the betting he has halitosis) he shows his lack of scientific acumen by not telling us either which paper he was referring us to, or which of the three scenarios he chose for his mistaken analysis.
Rog smallmind, that is not how real scientists discuss science. You may act like that on your silly blog or on other even sillier blogs such as climatefraudit, wattsuphisbutt or Bishop Shill but not on real science blogs (you did see that his blog is referred to as a Science Blog, didn't you) that means when responding it behooves you to act like a scientist and be accurate with your discussion and provide valid cites and links so we can actually see what you are referring to. It makes it a lot easier that way for us to find all your errors and misinterpretations. Oooh wait a minute, that is your MO, you don't want us to check up on your references. Silly me, I should have realized what your game is before now.
Ah, so Roger is a compulsive cyclist, believing that cycles that may have operated in the past trump all else. Roger: being able to predict solar irradiance to within a gnat's whisker, even if you can do it, does little to predict global temperatures if you insist on ignoring changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols. And, no matter how proud you may be of your blog, it counts as nothing in the world of scientific publishing.
re: #472
1) BigCityLib has politely emailed a lot of the Heartland Experts to see if that status is one they a) know they had and b) wish to maintain. The answers vary. See Washington Post Picks Up Chris Landsea Story and earlier stories.
2) ANOTHER OWN GOAL FOR HEARTLAND
See Illinois Coal Association, Heartland's new Gold Sponsor for ICCC-7.
Great move on the parts of ICA and Bast.
If he has, I'll bet they're against the GISS dataset he controls. A clear conflict of interest.
This is a common rhetorical (and thought) pattern in certain circles (many of which contain RT)* ... they opine some assertion, "bet" that it's true, and henceforth treat it as established fact.
* I'm not at all surprised to learn that RT is a General Relativity denier. His foolishness on that score is rebutted (with citations) here.
*75000 people view my site every month Jeff. Why would I want to pay a journal to hide my work behind a paywall*
I am sure the web sites of the KKK or NRA or other wacky right wing groups get thousands of hits, too, RTB. The same with 'creation science' sites. I am sure they same kinds of people who log into those kinds of blogs love the climate change denier sites. Does that make them legitimate? Of course not.
Lotharsson's link to Ray Ladbury's comment on Real Climate is important. As a fellow scientist, my research ain't worth a dime if it is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Blog sites are exactly as Ladbury described: venues for bullshit artists masquerading as scientists. And the pay-wall argument is flawed for two reasons: first, a lot of journals are open access now, and second, if you do manage to get your material published in a scientific journal, it gives the piece credibility it will never find on a blog. And this is especially true for the denier literature: there is so little of it that you can guarantee that Watts Morano, Milloy et al. will run to the hills screaming about it if it is published in a reputable journal.
re: 477 user-illusion.myid.net
Well, it all goes toghether. You might be amused by the section on Tom Bethell in Weird Anti-Science..., pp.16-19.
See especially "Professor of Physics Barr133 reviews Bethellâs article on relativity." in which nontechnical Tom Bethell argues about relativity with 2 senior physicists. You can skip straight to that discussion.
In the comments, among the back-and-forth, we find:
'âTom Bethell November 8th, 2009 | 12:50 am
MR BARR DOESNâT KNOW THE FIRST THING . . .
"He shows no understanding of relativity at all. I mean really none. Maybe he took a course on it once but maybe he already forgot it. On the basis of his post, I doubt if he could be teaching the subject. ⦠I donât think he knows the FIRST THING about science. And that includes physics."'
Actually, Professor Barr teaches graduate-level relativity theory. The long back and forth between Barr and Bethell, with comments by others, is quite amusing ... and maybe be familiar.
469"Why wait? There's apparently at least 2240 years of data to hindcast against. Your model doesn't know whether it's predicting the next 10-15 year period or a 10-15 year period that occurred 800 years ago. It should do equally well with either."
We only have 350 years of direct solar observation to calibrate against. This is the model against Lean's 400 year TSI reconstuction: http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/tsi-lean2k.jpg
Here's the model against the Steinhilber Beer and Froelich TSI reconstruction from 7350BC : http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/sbf-tsi-c.png
The difference plot is calibrated to the left scale, not the right as stated in the legend.
Link to full article given in comment 450
The two biggest amplitude cycles are the well known de Vries cycle at 207 years and the cycle of solar system internal angular momentum redistribution at 979 years which sees the return of the gas giant planets to approximately the same locations. There are several possibilities for explanation of the underlying mechanism. We don't know which it is yet, and that's a principle reason for holding back on publication for now.
You know, it would be interesting to establish a CMI - that's a Crank Magnetic Index - in order to assign a helpful value to the various Deniati.
You probably get the idea - starting off with a base of zero for believing CO2 in the atmosphere won't bring about significant global warming, one can then add points for any of the following beliefs, starting with the related conspiracy/crank theories (1 point each) -
CO2 is not a Greenhouse gas
The scientists are all in it for the grant money
They are all Social!sts
They're led Al Gore / George Soros / the WWF, etc.
The Heartland Billboards were an entirely reasonable, and not at all counterproductive, experiment in public communication
Peer-to-peer review
And then moving on to the genuinely Magnetic material (2 points each for these), including beliefs in -
An iron sun
The ether
Relativity is wrong!
Obama's birth certificate is a fake
The mainstream media is heavily pro-liberal (small 'l') (and a bonus point for ever referring to 'the lamestream media')
(And another for ever referring to 'the sheeple', for that matter)
Fox News is the most trustworthy media outlet in the US
Conservapedia!
Cutting taxes will actually increase Govt. revenues (or any other Tea Party style zombie economic argument)
The GFC actually proves we need less regulation
9-11 Truth!
Any combination of Disguised Commun!sts and/or Bilderbergers and/or Trilats and/or WWF and/or the UK Royal Family secretly influencing global policy
Homeopathy
HIV/Aids Denial
Rachel Carson is a mass-murderer! / DDT is good for us!
Ditto for asbestos
Smoking is not as harmful as establishment medical alarmists would have us believe
All hail our shape-shifting alien reptilian overlords!
I'm sure you can think of more of your own examples, but I'd guess that most Deniers would not score lower than 7 on the above.
The long back and forth between Barr and Bethell, with comments by others, is quite amusing ... and maybe be familiar.
Arguments between right wingers are indeed amusing. Lest you think that, because he's a physicist and, unlike Bethell and the other cranks in that thread, he understands relativity ... he must be rational, consider this and this.
Thanks John for the link to the Barr-Bethell interaction. This exemplifies the problems when interested but untrained (i.e. self-trained) amateurs enter into debates in complex fields. It is well illustrated IMO here with RTB, Jonas and others. They have waded into the field of climate science, learned something about it, then run off with ideas in which they challenge the views of many senior scientists with years of expertise in the field. They routinely ridicule the positions of scientists with whom they disagree, but they refrain from throwing their ideas into the scientific arena where they would be subject to intense scrutiny. To defend this they casually dismiss the peer-reviewed literature and perr-review itself, as if this validates their arguments.
Whatever they may say, this illustrates the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon to a tee. I recall once being dragged into a debate with someone on a contrarian blog over estimates of extinction rates and the value of biodiversity. It was clear that the person did not have a clue what they were talking about (much like Lomborg in his superficial chapter on the subject) but because their views resonated with the target audience of the blog, I was heavily criticized and was repeatedly told that I knew less about the field of conservation ecology than this person, who in the end said that they had just finished high school. Their views were so simplistic and wrong that it was hard to know where exactly to begin debunking them. In the end, as RTB appears to admit, its more about web hits than scientific scrutiny.
It seems nowadays everyone thinks that they can become instant experts is various scientific fields. Climate science and ecology are certainly not exempt. When I defer to the views of those with pedigree in climate science with respect to AGW, I am ridiculed by Jonas and his attack dogs as well as by the other cranks who sadly have begun to populate Deltoid in ever increasing numbers.
>The two biggest amplitude cycles are the well known de Vries cycle at 207 years and the cycle of solar system internal angular momentum redistribution at 979 years which sees the return of the gas giant planets to approximately the same locations. There are several possibilities for explanation of the underlying mechanism. We don't know which it is yet, and that's a principle reason for holding back on publication for now.
This surely is self-parody.
The only other explanation would see RTB's family in quiet, desperate discussion as to who initiates medical intervention.
The ocean heat content built up by 75 years of above average solar activity levels has been buffering the surface temp against the drop in solar activity since 2003. The current low cycle 24 is using up the reserves fast. It is likely to get a lot colder from late 2013.
In a just world, we could look forward to all this crap coming to an end by 2014.
> The ocean heat content built up by 75 years of above average solar activity levels has been buffering the surface temp against the drop in solar activity since 2003. The current low cycle 24 is using up the reserves fast.
To be fair Lotherson, Rog did warn that we need to sterilise the calibrations, torpex the JASONS, ARGO the data and reform XTC to be able to tell properly. [Something like that anyway.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…) Probably be a good idea to regenerate the dilithium crystals while we're at it.
Basically whatever's required to remove the fingerprints of those greeny, Gaia loving, pre-industrial, back-to-the-stone-age proto-naturists at NASA.
The ocean heat content built up by 75 years of above average solar activity levels has been buffering the surface temp against the drop in solar activity since 2003. The current low cycle 24 is using up the reserves fast. It is likely to get a lot colder from late 2013.
Ah! But when Jupiter moves into Taurus and Saturn slips into Virgo what happens then?
Harald. #1 Tim doesn't participate (or even allow me to comment) because he is plain ole scared I think.
Global warming is officially ended ! First of May is international 'Global Warming' Has Ended Day !
[Have I 'won the internet' yet ? ;-)]
Tim,
Care to tell us all again about all those phony death threats against all those snake oil salesmen?
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/05/anu-death-threat-claims…
For the uninitiated, just search this silly little propaganda blog for:
death threats
Oh, never mind...
Timmy will never post this comment anyway.
"Time for you to go back to school Mack" Wrong, Time for you to get out of school Jeff and stop believing in everything fed to you the classroom. Have you that mental capacity? I think not.
@ 271 StevoR ..."basic physics"...It's not basic physics. See Nasif Nahle over on Jennifer Marohasy . (moderator getting fedup with my above link I would think)
I see nothing new here. All a bit tiresome now. SSDD Tim. When are you going to concede defeat and apologize to all and sundry ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRlaZ5zBDjA
"to divert attention from the issue of real threats issued against real people by whipped-up, right-wing, gun-toting crackpots"
Hey chek, look! Some little shiny things...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-fo…
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/04/the-derangement-of-the-climate-alarm…
Now, where's the outrageously outrageous outrage...
Bring on the clown ! Tim Flannery ! :-)
You spelled that wrong, bentax - I'm sure you meant 'realgits'
Yep, you're the winners in your own minds; which represents the sum-total of locations where you're perceived as such...
There haven't been too many threads lately, only the monthly open threads (which I believe are posted automatically), and Tim Lambert doesn't participate in them.
What's up?
I think tim's students' battlebots have cornered him in his house and are blocking most communications out.
We're waiting for an update! What's up Tim?
Tim is busy negotiating with investors to build a biogas plant with the Jonas thread as feedstock.
http://www.gizmag.com/human-waste-to-gas-project-goes-live/16572/
I reckon he's seen the light and left you lot to swing in the wind!
Your credibility issues are terminal I'm afraid, Duffer.
Your Dark Lord doesn't seem to be doing so well, either...
*I reckon he's seen the light and left you lot to swing in the wind!*
Um, I can vouch for the fact that this is absolutely not true...
Try again Duffer......
Is anyone else having trouble loading Skeptical Science? I've been trying almost all day to view it and only once managed early this morning.
No problem here, composer (NW UK). [This site can be useful](http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com) - http: // downforeveryoneorjustme. com - to check for issues.
You can also try clearing your DNS cache - google 'flush DNS' and choose accordingly, as directions for PC and Mac are different.
Having said that, none of that worked when Scienceblogs went down for a few weeks a couple of years back. It turned out that SB had blocked a bunch of IP blocks which included some UK ISPs in order to IIRC prevent some DDOS attacks originating from Turkey.
In which case, connecting via a free offshore proxy server may be the answer.
HTH
C99.
Yes, I had issues too, but SkS reloads fine now.
More [windfarm woo](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/wind-farm-scam…) in the Australian from James Delingpole the "the interpreter of interpretations".
Professor Simon Chapman, School of Public Health, University of Sydney is maintaining a register titled "Is there anything not caused by wind farms?" [here](http://t.co/Q9niYOs9).
MikeH,
What, no rains of blood and pestilences involving boils?
Check this out ;-)
The Hot Topic blog is plagued with this BS, mostly generated by a single alumnus of the University of Bishop Hill.
The level of hysteria among 'skeptic' anti-wind proponents is genuinely remarkable, even by Denier standards, and more than a little chilling... In all seriousness, the hatred - and I use the word advisedly - is palpable.
I really think they are genuinely afraid: wind working out means a viable alternative future is possible, and their little world - usually devoted to a species Libertarian ultra-Capitalism that they somehow imagine is 'Conservative' - will then fall apart.
So they hate the wind with all the fury of cornered fanatics. Hence I'm little surprised the Oz is joining in.
[Christian Kerr in The Australian](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/climate-scientists-cla…) seems to be saying that sending intimidatory emails and making physical threats to climate scientists is okay as long as the perpetrators aren't overtly threatening to kill scientists.
Delingpole has plumbed new depths driven by his pathological hatred of science and his desire for publicity for his cruddy 'Watermelons' screed. I won't link to the article - you can find it yourself, but you'll need a strong stomach. The stuff about Phil Jones is way beyond what should be allowed by any newspaper.
I should add that Delingpole's hate-mongering is based in part on the article in The Australian that Sou links to in #13.
Tch Tch Tch
another hole in the Swiss cheese armor.
Tch Tch Tch
What's that Skip? Karen's fallen down an antipodean Delingpole hole and can't be Jonased getting out? Well I'll be Duffed!
Sou @ 13
The Australian and Higher Education - there is a conflict of interest straight away.
And no I am not going to pay to see what is beyond the pay-wall - contribute to Murdoch's legal defence fund - NEVER!
As for Delingtrole, if that MikeH's #11 is a quote from 'the interpreter' then it looks like plagiarism straight from the Witch Finder's Hand-book.
As for Delingtrole having to suck up to his environment editor by claiming him as a hero - poor love to have such petty horizons.
Are all the faithful here eagerly looking forward to the carbon tax? :)
Don't bite
Look, a squirrel!
So how does Delingtroll keep getting away with it?
Being a super-bitch or something?
[Foulkazzamackiesunspot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…) asks:
>Are all the faithful here eagerly looking forward to the carbon tax?
Well, I for one can't wait. I live a very frugal life, and I will be hundreds of dollars in front when it starts.
Bring it on I say. With bells. The sooner, the better.
Following on from the piece in the Australian I referred to earlier (#13), one could surmise that Christian Kerr is of the opinion that [death threats, like the graphic ones Andrew Macintosh reported getting,](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/death-threats-to-scien…) are okay as long as they arrive by snail mail, not email.
No, I think the more accurate delineation of the moral decision is:
Death threats are OK as long as they're hippie green eco-nazi-commies.
And they get to say who is in that group.
[LionelA](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…).
[Permit me](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Climate+scientists%27+claims+of+email+death+threat…)...
Ignore the sarcasm at the bottom of the link - it has nothing to do with my point. I'm simply drawing attention to what some know about holes in walls.
;-)
Do you know, and I realise you will be amazed at this, but sometimes I don't think those Aussie 'warmers' take me seriously! Well, I mean, I threatened to hit our distinguished host over the head with a wet sponge until he relented and opened his eyes to reality which, of course, was taken by some of you 'feebles' as a "death threat". But now someone has had the temerity to suggest that I didn't mean it and that in reality I'm a harmless old codger who has read too many Jack Reacher stories! Well, let me tell you, I can turn really nasty when I'm riled - so watch it!
Oh, and guess what, it's still not getting any warmer even as the CO2 pours out in ever increasing amounts. 'Something wrong with our bloody . . .', ooops, sorry, used that one before and none of you science swots understood it!
David Duff.
There are several plausible explanations - not mutually exclusive - for your disagreement with the professions of climatology and physics, but none of these reasons are flattering to you:
Oh, and warming's stopped, ya think? Well, before you go hammering too many nails into the lid of the coffin in which your festering reputation moulders, you might try circumventing the implications of the above list and ponder on [some fairly easily understood science](http://www.skepticalscience.com/john-nielsen-gammon-commentson-on-conti…).
Or you could simply continue to drool idiocy all over the blankie on your lap.
Bernard J @ 27
I think Duff is all of those as he has refused to answer any questions including those here. So who was the Admiral that you are misquoting?
On heat here are some clues:
May 1 News: Warming Oceans Are A Threat To The Critically Endangered Right Whale, Scientists Say
and
Nature: Antarctica Is Melting From Below, Which âMay Already Have Triggered A Period of Unstable Glacier Retreatâ
Now do you as an ex second-hand car salesman begin to understand why water is used as the base of a coolant system mix?
Further those rogue scientists, example spotlighted here, who still try to claim that there has been little or no warming over the last nn many years are being increasingly called out for no longer being engaged in science in any meaningful way but advocacy in the public domain. They continue to do this because idiots like you believe them or are ideologically, and illogically, inspired by their message.
Seems there was only one explicit death threat......therefore there were none?
@Bernard,
Thanks for the "Science" link. The most interesting thing about it was that SKS now seems to be reduced to getting it's "Science" from newspaper articles - in this case the Houston Chronicle.
What happened to the "peer reviewed studies" you're always crowing about, I thought everything else was just malicious gossip!
Bernard, in reply to yours, and in order:
1: No, everyone in the western world is 'educated'.
2: Depends what you mean by 'intelligent'.
3: Not yet but sometimes on 'warmer' blogs I begin to wonder!
4: No, and 'physical fact' has severe limitations as you should know being, er, 'educated'.
5: As above
6: I would admit anything to make a profit, dammit, I used to be a second-hand car dealer!
Anyway, Bernard, I think it's time you brushed up on *your* physics starting, perhaps, with 'uncertainty'!
Why don't you just go back to suckling on the teat of the State, Duffer?
@22
Well that leaves you and the money-handlers rubbing their hands in anticipation of the carbon tax Bernie. Anybody else?
Weasel @ 29
An article from John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas State Climatologist and a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University which expands on the peer reviewed science from [Foster & Rahmstorf (2011)](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022).
Shorter Weasel
I got nothing.
@MikeH
I think you've missed the point. Maybe this will help you, currently listed under "latest news" from the Houston Chronicle,
Massage parlors raided in prostitution sting.
Police ID baby in fridge.
Penis cut in killing.
The latest SKS referenced climate "paper" fits in quite well I suppose, but it's not exactly "Nature" is it?
;)
GSW.
If you think that the Skeptical Science piece has no validity because John N-G wrote in a newspaper, take your protestations directly to the thread itself.
I know that you won't though. You don't have the cahoonas.
Here's an interesting discussion of Duffer's favourite relative's - that's dear old Uncle Rupert, of course - current, um, situation.
> I think you've missed the point.
... says GSW, desperately hoping no-one will notice he's entirely avoiding discussing the point of Foster & Rahmstorf 2011.
But we saw what you did there.
No, it's getting warmer because of all those windmills.
where all the best and most scientifically innovative papers are published.
So we have one troll who thinks an article isn't valid because it was published in a newspaper and not peer reviewed (oh, the irony) while ignoring a similar article that *was* peer-reviewed, and another troll who thinks an ariel photograph of New Zealand is a better indicator for sea level rise than the actual measured data.
Edifying stuff.
>Thanks for the "Science" link. The most interesting thing about it was that SKS now seems to be reduced to getting it's "Science" from newspaper articles - in this case the Houston Chronicle.
>What happened to the "peer reviewed studies" you're always crowing about
In fact, there are so many papers confirming the AGW hypothesis that Skeptical Science have to collate them all into a single post every week or two to stop them cluttering up the page.
That's what happened to them.
GSW, if you did cursory research before posting you might not be humiliated so routinely.
We get your point, GSW, the point you make with every post: you're intellectually dishonest to the core.
Even GSW realizes that, in a thread containing rational comments about the science and the evidence, "that article was published in a newspaper that mentions prostitutes, penises, and babies, nyurk nyurk" would be out of place.
@Bernard, John, Ianamoron
It's purely an observation that is all. For all the carping from lot about "blog post" science and the "non peer reviewed literature", you're all too happy to employ these resources when it suits.
Don't have a go at me just because you realised your own hypocrisy.
I realise you're as equally thick and/or dishonest as Betula GSW, but an MSM article by an accredited climate scientist referencing peer reviewed papers can't be trashed by a moron like you claiming some phoney equivalence, however much you think you're being 'clever'.
I expect your fellow crank Jonarse may give you as pat on the head.
The [Heartland Institute](http://climateconference.heartland.org/our-billboards/) has gone completely insane. Putting up billboards of criminals to 'prove' climate science is a scam - lol.
Next target for Heartland is to use criminals to prove gravity doesn't exist, the earth is flat, aeroplane's can't fly and the moon is made of cheese.
A case of mass dementia by this club of ultra-conservative white male americans?
Brent @ #46. yes [we got the reference](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/april_2012_open_thread.php#comm…) Brent - two weeks ago. Apparently it's not quite so funny when it's redirected back at you cretins.
I would like to point out once again that "ianam" stands for "I am not a moron", so GSW spelling out ianamoron just further establishes him as an imbecile ... as if that weren't clear enough from his cretinous logic that supposedly shows us our hypocrisy based on Bernard J. pointing to the SkS article as an example of easily understood science.
And Brent, another moronic troll who has wandered out of his dungeon upon noticing the absence of the gatekeeper, is too stupid to grasp that the HI did exactly that: they put up billboards of lunatics who believe in Global Warming.
Unfortunately, neither the deniers displaying so clearly their immense moral and intellectual failings nor our pointing them out does a damn thing to solve the problems we face.
Incidentally, for anyone tired of the non-stop cabaret that is the recently mentioned Jonarse thread, [Dr. Inferno](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/) is back online, sticking it to them as only he can. Well, him and [the Baron](http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/) of course.
As for the characteristics that distinguish us from the Brents, GSWs, et. al., see The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
"everybody was worried about Global Cooling in the 1970s"
Deniers lie for sport.
"normal people go about their daily lives ignoring the eco-loons who find apocalypse in every raindrop, in every blade of grass"
It is indeed true that you are not a normal person, Mr Hargreaves. Even by denier standards you're psychopathic.
Brent:
Sure, if you say so.
That was Arhennius around the year 1900 BTW. I know you data-denialists are retarded but please try to keep up.
Great stuff Brent - hopefully that's you satisfied with the Wattard's level of stupidity and now you can go visit your idiocy elsewhere.
While you're there, get a big book which explains hard words, and see if you can understand the difference between the meanings of 'event' and 'trend'.
Corrected that for you Brent.
From your own link (as is usually the case when morons link to their 'proof'):
"This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles.
In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.
Somehow I doubt you're even capable of understanding the difference.
I hope Tim returns here soon and edits out the idiots who are polluting his site big time! Deltoid is being taken over by an army of complete and utter morons. Brent was once banned, ventures back, and then begins a massive offensive (in more ways than one). He cites Wikipedia to support his long-discredited global cooling myth of the 1970s, when in the very second line it says this:
*This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community*
One can add illiteracy to his other attributes.
ianam @50...
I call myself ianam because I need to convince myself that "I Am Not A Moron"
moron @45...
I call Betula "dishonest" because I need to convince myself that he is.
That's the true 'warmer' spirit, Jeff, ban them because they dare to contradict - well done, that man!
As for the cooling scare in the '70s I can vouch for it not least because I lived through it and sneered at it in precisely the same way I sneer at its successor! At the time, Newsweek provided a detailed report on the subject quoting spokesmen from the NOAA, professors from Columbia and Wisconsin Universities, and sundry "meteorologists" and "climatologists" but of course, according to the denizens of this site, they were not "real scientists". And quite right, too, any more than they are "real scientists" now! They're just lab assistants with a veneer of knowledge but a sharp eye for a bandwagon with incoming government grants.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf
No, I'd vote for confining them to their own well-earned 'Threads of Shame' (not banning) for continual and unrelenting stupidity. Not that I have a problem with banning - there are more than enough corporately funded outlets for encouraging stupidity such as Watts and Montford.
... and very few published papers and most definitely no consensus.
Not that you're the least bit interested in the science, but cooling due to aerosol pollution was an unknown factor at the time, and some jumped to the conclusion that at this stage in our interglacial period we should be heading into another ice age.
But we're not and almost every scientist working in the climate related sciences accepts that despite leaving no stone unturned we are heading into a warming at a rate that may well overwhelm our capacity and the capacity of the natural world to adapt to.
Still if you're an ignorant pensioner with no interest or comprehension, it's all the same thing, innit? Or you can adopt inane conspiracy theories like Brent, where you can imagine ... well, whatever you like! No evidence required.
At least it would free up some more bandwidth for intelligent, interested people to keep up with and discuss developments in climate science and research.
Yes I can vouch for the 1970's MSM global cooling stories as well, It did actually happen. I remember a BBC Horizon program about it with James Burke, and Starsky and Hutch lookalike Steven Schneider pushing the unscientific (paraphrasing)
"There tremendous uncertainty about this, but if it's half as bad as we think it could be, we're all f***ed"
He continued with this weak style of advocacy for some time (until his death), the only thing that changed was a 180degree turnaround in his reasons for thinking it.
Sou
They should be careful, someone might retaliate using posters featuring ACC denier Anders Breivik. I sincerely hopeful no-one would consider crawling into the gutter with Heartland in that way.
Lawson's 'educational' 'charity' the Global Warming Policy Foundation isn't averse to crawling into the gutter. A year ago they featured a picture of Osama Bin Laden on their website with the caption 'Global warming spokesperson passes away' until, that is, the Charity Commission told them they had to remove it because it was incompatable with their 'educational' status.
"and some jumped to the conclusion that at this stage in our interglacial period we should be heading into another ice age."
And "heading into" meant "in the next 10,000-40,000 years".
Of course, deniers hear "In the next five minutes!!!!" because they can then pretend that they're actually, in some tiny way, actually sane.
I won't be on the side of the data-denialists, never have been, never will be.
I suppose Heartland's next move is going to be a poster of the Pope? Goes well with Fidel.
[Pontifical Academy of Science report on glaciers](www.vatican.va/roman.../pontifical.../PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf)
Jeff Harvey...
I was just wondering why you never answered my question @498 in the April open thread regarding your Algonquin trip...
"Jeff, I don't doubt that plant zones are constantly shifting to some degree, but could you share some, if any, of the ecological consequences you experienced first hand?"
There's no point answering you, Betty.
In fact, there's not much point in the question even if it hadn't come from someone who has made it absolutely clear that there is nothing possible that would change their minds over AGW.
Betula,
If you are civil, I will. I just was washing my hands on the losers thread.
Brent now:
>When everybody was worried about Global Cooling in the 1970s
Brent then:
>Most of my spare time is being spent on a new(ish) scare story I am hoping to launch: Global Cooling.
and
>I hope we can all agree that the latest news on the AGW scare is all good. There's Solar Cycle 24 which just doesn't want to get started. This'll help cool things down.
and
>By the way, we STILL have frost in the mornings. It's nearly May, fer Chrissakes! Outrageous! If a new Little Ice Age has started, triggered by a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, maybe we should be planning a major CO2 Production Programme. Brrr!
Shorter Brent: "It's absolutely outrageous that these lying scientists said we were about to go into an ice age in the 70's ..... but we're definitely about to go into an ice age this time! I mean at some point! Very soon!"
>I agree with Sou. The Heartland Institute should instead put up billboards of lunatics who believe in Global Warming.
Really? I thought the AGW hypothesis was "logical" and "watertight". It's interesting watching you get more extreme as your confidence in your own genius dissipates.
Must have been that ranting about cold weather in 2010, a year that turned out to be the warmest on record.
GSW,
>It's purely an observation that is all.
Is "observation" the new "conjecture"? Code for "I don't have to commit to anything I say"?
"There's no point answering you, Betty"
Wow answers a question he/she wasn't asked by stating there's no point in answering it.
Comedy gold.
>Will you be proclaiming Global Cooling if we see, say, a -0.8C 'temperature anomaly'.
It hasn't stopped you proclaiming "cooling", even at a 0.75+ anomaly and even as it continues to warm (as you were forced to humiliatingly concede).
Brent, I am well aware you like to cloak your posts in "irony" and "conjecture" and sarcasm so you never have to be held to any of your angry rantings. This is what trolls do.
Unfortunately, your faith dictates you have to believe in a cooling climate since you shrieked that any more warming would falsify whichever hypothesis you were claiming to believe with all your heart that week.
When you regularly boast about "the promising correlation between sunspot cycles and temperature" and ramble about the "Maunder II" and Cycle 25, excuse me for coming to the conclusion that you expect imminent cooling.
When challenege us to admit we are wrong if there is no temperature rise by 2060, excuse me for coming to the conclusion that you expect imminent cooling.
Here's a question - you claimed you would accept you were wrong if the temperature anomaly went over 0.75+ again within five years. It did in 2010, the year you proposed that. Do you now concede the "AGW hypothesis" is correct, as per your promise?
Even better Brent, perhaps you can give your definitive answer on where all this excess heat is coming from? After all, the natural forcings as described by Foster & Rahmstorf tell us we should be cooling. We aren't. You admit this. Since you are confident I am a "lunatic", tell me - definitevly - what is going on.
Explain to me why the air surface temps are rising, sea levels are rising, agricultural zones are shifting, heat content is rising in the oceans, the stratosphere is cooling, arctic ice is melting and why more energy is entering the Earth than leaving it if it isn't the simple addtion of Co2 (a potent greenhouse gas) to the atmosphere?
Since you are so confident in your views that you can dismiss me as a "lunatic" this should be easy. You should comprensively disassemble the entire theory in this thread now, including the definitive answer for what is happening to the climate in lieu of AGW.
Jeff @75...
"If you are civil, I will"
Well Jeff, it depends on your definition of civility. Let's take a preliminary test before you answer any questions.
Which of the following do you consider to be civil?:
1.Jeff @436..."Betula, who must still be in his diapers"
2.Jeff @436..."So Betula, sitting in his crib, would say that there is no problem"
3.Jeff @436..."anti-environmental dupes like Betula"
4.Jeff @463..."Betula youtwerp"
5.Jeff @472..."From under what slimy rock did you emerge?"
6.Jeff @472..."Your marbles are clearly rattling around a pretty empty noggin".
7.Jeff @492..."this is certainly well over your head."
8.Jeff @536..."Its too bad that schmucks in the general population - like you"
9.Jeff @164..."and Betula are the intellectual equivalent of the 'living dead'"
10.Jeff @163..."Betula and sunspot are complete idiots"
If you chose any one of the above, then the answer to your question is yes, I can be civil.
Ah, well, if we were to pull the same from YOUR dribblings, Betty, we'd have to ask Tim to increase the limits on post size.
By the way, you've not said what point answering the question has, other than attracting attention to yourself.
Ah, so you believe in global cooling do you Brent?
Humour me, and tell us all what you predict will be the mean annual GISS January-December land-and-sea global temperature anomaly for the next WMO-defined El Niño year. I stuck my neck out [several months ago on Deltoid](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#co…) and at Tamino's: let's see how close to the mark (or not) you actually are.
I really am curious to see what your opinion is on the subject, given that you are convinced that temperature will head in the opposite direction to that which physics and empirical evidence indicates.
And all you other Dunningly-Krugered denialists shitting on the carpet here - I extend the same challenge to you.
Wow @74...
"There's no point answering you, Betty."
Wow again @74..."In fact, there's not much point in the question"
Wow @82...
"By the way, you've not said what point answering the question has"
Summary:
1. I ask jeff a question and I get an answer from Wow stating "there's no point in answering."
2. In the same breath, Wow adds that "there's not much point in the question."
3. Wow then follows up by wondering why I have "not said what point answering the question has"
4. Jeff hasn't answered my question because he's still trying to figure out if he's civil enough to answer it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU
Lots of distracting frothing at the mouth from brenty et al. Damage control for the massive Heartland own goal I reckon.
Seriously dumb dumb dumb move, particularly when the press release has some absolute whopping lies in it. Flat out, easily checked lies.
Hilarious asshats.
No Betula, I haven't answered your question because I think you may be too stupid to understand it.
Biome transition zones are characterized by often dramatic shifts in ecosystem properties, particularly in soil chemistry. Boreal forests are characterized by acid soils, whereas the Carolinian forests found only a few hundred kilometers south are characterized by alkaline soils. The biota - micro and macro invertebrates, soil fungi and bacteria are often strongly associated with certain types of soil chemistry and certain plant types. Mycorrhizal fungi are a good example. All species all exist within certain climatic envelopes characterized by an optimum and, away from this, increasingly sub-optimal conditions. If temperatures rise rapidly, as is currently happening in many temperate zones, then species adapted to certain other abiotic conditions will have to adapt. At strong transition zones, this will almost certainly be problematical. Deciduous forests will not magically move into acid soils when conditions become too warm in their own range. At the same time, habitat specialists in northern Carolinian forests (or southern boreal forests) will be squeezed between a rock and a hard place. Given that the deniers understanding of environmental science is virtually nil (just check out the comedy act known as Jonas-GSW-Olaus-Brent for that) its not hard to fathom we these illiterates think that its easy for an organism can just head north if the climate changes. They've done it before haven't they? Well.. yes... but not at the rate they are expected to adapt now, nor on landscapes that have been already simplified dramatically by humans through the creation of urban and agricultural areas. And for soil organisms the constraints are even greater, given that they will, disperse much more slowly than their above-ground counterparts. So what will have to happen is that ecosystems will have to reassemble themselves, via new trophic chains and the dissipation of old ones. This is easier said than done. Putting aside Polar Bears, there are numerous studies showing climate change-related effects on species interactions and phenology.
So what is the prognosis for the transition forests in Canada and the United States? Not good. Not good at all. Its just too bad that there aren't enough scientists around to study the consequences of warming on these zones. But I have spoken to enough colleagues who have predicted how life zones will have to change to track predicted changes in temperature regimes. Its easier said than done.
As far as first hand goes, I'd need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can't describe things first hand. There were very few winter birds present, that was noticeable: few crossbills, redpolls, siskins, gray jays and others indicating low seed production in the conifers. One thing I did notice was that the winter collemboles were active in January - when normally you would not expect to see them until late February or even March. I also saw insects active from several other orders as well as spiders. Normally unheard of in january and early February. Yes, it was a very mild winter. Record warmth was experienced over much of eastern and central North America. The climate is certainly changing there.
Mack @19 & @32
[Tax carbon. Subsidise the jobs of the young](http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/tax-carbon-subsidise-jobs-for-the-young/)
Time we did something for the young. We've screwed the world up.
Gosh Brendy, them is awful big cost figures you is trying to scare your cretinous pals and any stray ignorami with.
As you no doubt already know (chuckle), the nuke industry is very coy about its costs ... but, holy cow! The wind farm build cost is only slightly more than the cost of decommissioning the nuke stations currently coming to the end of their lives: ["In May 2008 a senior director at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority indicated that the figure of £73 billion might increase by several billion pounds"](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/7421879.stm), let alone the building of 10 new ones at [£4.8 billion each](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times) plus in turn their own similar decommissioning costs when their life is over. And the windfarm 'fuel' is 'free', with scrappage costs likely covering their own decommissioning when the time comes.
Lets not even so much as mention the bank bail out amount of money (raised instantaneously - no consultation required) of £1,162 billion - or £1.62 trillion.
Big programs require Big Money, Brenda.
Meanwhile I recommend you stick to haranguing your local parish council about bin collections or dogshit or whatever. That would be much more in keeping with the scale of your mental (in every sense of the word) horizons.
Latest contribution from Josh, [mapping the debate](http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/4/mapping-the-debate-josh-165.ht…).
I've just visited Brent's blog [AND I'VE SEEN THE LIGHT - NOT!](http://endisnighnot.blogspot.co.uk/)
Ooops... £1.62 trillion in #93 should be £1.162 trillion.
However, just like Brenda, I too transfer the blame for the error.
It's just that, y'know, working with these sorts of figures every day, one gets sorta blasé. Two or three trillion here, sixteen or sixty billion there - who's got the time to give a damn? It's gullibles like Brenty that's paying for it, whilst objecting to anything else but....
[GSW @ 94:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…)
I came across a book: [The Complete Idiot's Guide to Humour](http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Comedy-Writing/dp/159257231…?).
Would you pass it on to Josh, next time you slither over to Montford's?
God knows he needs help.
@ 70 jerkrideau, You don't have to worry about the Pope.He's got science alarmist Ramanathan (SOD's favourite)feeding your bullshit AGW into his shell-like.
@ 91 Geoff Beacon....perhaps,may,might,should,"could simultaneously stimulate employment".... Same sort of words used in your science Geoff. See my perspective here...
http://adoptanegotiator.org/2011/11/18/a-skeptics-approach-to-climate-a…
Brent, there is no debate I see here. We have warmists realist vs deniers, and it's a bit like watching smart kids tease dull kids in class. I have yet to see even one valid and/or game changing point raised by the dull kids.
"I've just scanned some of the biggest Deltoid threads in an attempt to gauge who is winning the Warmist/Sceptic battle of ideas."
What the ....??!!!??
Who cares? It wouldn't matter if every single post, notion, sentence and phrase displayed on here agreed with any particular participant in this imaginary "battle of ideas".
Physics is the silent particpant, referee, judge, jury and executioner. Physics will 'win' - if that's even a valid concept. Even if not a single word ever spoken, written or copy/pasted here referred to it.
Not one of us can 'win' this so-called battle.
Tim has a cockroach infestation - *blatella denialata* I believe. That's what happens when you leave your house unattended for a while. Apparently they like the dark and feed on garbage.
Adelady puts Brent's logical fallacy to the fore.
It matters not a whit that there are denialists here who cannot be converted, and who will instead remain recalcitrantly impervious to reason no matter how much they are shown it. One can lead a mule to water but one cannot make it drink, especially when it has already filled up at the Well of Stupid.
Still, it's interesting to see Brent's (very poor) level of intellectual rigour.
It's also interesting to see Brent pad out his list of 'good guys' with obvious socks. It says a lot about what he has in his pants.
On other matters, I'm not sure of the reason why [Brent wants to bring UAH into it](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…)... unless of course it has something to do with his notion that "[a]s some here may have noticed, the competing UAH-MSU dataset has diverged from GISS, and now shows 0.3C lower." Hmmm. Many have also noticed that the satellite data are prone to errors and other divergences from the empirical data collected at the surface...
But back to the point. All these datasets are anomaly based - if there is no warming trend it shouldn't matter which is used, as long as one is consistent. I chose GISS because it is defensibly more accurate than HadCRU or UAH: anyone who claims that there will be no further warming can do so without introducing other datasets.
And way to go Brent, dodging my original reference to the next complete El Niño year and going for a year that's already currently in progress. I'm not interested in whether you can read a chart that already shows a third of the data; I want to know what you think will happen in the near future, in the context of the underlying temperature trend.
Plenty of darkness and garbage around here MikeH, yum,yum :)
Ah ,nice to see Duffer & beBunkum spreading the trash denial of reality around.
In the mean time, "Heartland Institute" of very questionable tax exempt status, just took a shotgun to blow it's mononeuron all over the beltway in Chicago.
Joe Romm of 'Climate Progress', has the details here in this link :- http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/04/477921/heartland-institute-…
Anthony Watts, kicks own goal on this matter and is not impressed by the actions of Joe Bast's sole mononeuron. He believes, this action has sullied his activities and all "Climate Denialati". He uses the title "Heartlandâs Billboards and Joe Rommâs stunning hypocrisy", thus kicking his own goal.
As usual, in the current 262 spam bot comments. His readers musings, range from full on denial, cognitive dissonance, gish gallop and living on another planet. It is not the first time Anthony Watts, one track one thought a time mononeuron, has kicked his own goal and nor will it be the last either.
Eli Rabett, has exposed yet another reason, as to why "Heartland Institute" , should have it's 'tax exempt' status revoked by the IRS.
LINK:- http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/heartland-seppuku.html
Me, instead of sitting on the fence, now is the time to start assorted counter campaigns and pillory the various companies and corporate entities that support "Heartless Institute". For watt goes around, comes around.
The times, they are a changing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2hvnjaZXJc
@104
In your case it is BYO
brent infestation removed.
Tim,
Many thanks for this. Hope all is well with you.
Yes, hope all is well with you and yours Tim.
Grab the smelling salts, Adelady, you are in for a shock! You see, I agree with you! Dread words, I know. But when you write "Physics is the silent particpant, referee, judge, jury and executioner" you are absolutely right.
The problem, it seems to me, is that we are not dealing with classical physics in the sense of a force acting on an object. Instead we are trying to cope with a plethora of physical interactions taking place in a huge variety of times and places. The word 'chaos' hardly describes it. If you throw into the mix the fact that our means of measurement are crude and doubtful you can see that conjecture (or wishful thinking) in ALL directions has plenty of space in which to fly free. There-after, of course, psychology rules, not science! In the meantime, physics marches inexorably onwards and only "that old common arbitrater, Time" will settle it.
>Yes, hope all is well with you and yours Tim.
That's doubly ironic, coming from a sock puppet who is breaking the rule that requires him to post only on the Sunspot thread.
Sorry I was new here Bernerd and didn't know the "rules"
Is that supposed to be insightful Duff? You just posted what hundreds of denier trolls dutifully post in climate change threads every day - that because we do not know everything about climate change we should do nothing. Where is the shock? - the fact that you are a silly old fool is already well known.
Mike, To be honest, this is what those who deny a range of human effects on the biosphere have been doing for years. And, yes, in contrast with Jonas' willful ignorance, many of them are part of a broader anti-environment movement (one which has been well studied over the past 20 years and on which I often present public and university lectures).
About ten years ago I had on-line exchanges with a Canadian libertarian who argued that human effects on the biosphere were minimal (he was a Lomborg supporter, although, like Lomborg, he had no expertise in any of the fields Lomborg superficially covers in his book, TSE). Like other contrarians, he appeared to argue that without 100% proof, nothing should be done to deal with acid rain and other anthropogenic environmental problems. Duff's tactic is therefore not new. Its part of the A-E arsenal. Of course, there never will be 100% proof of complex processes, so the result will be to do nothing.
"Acid Rain"! Golly-gosh, I'd forgotten that one! That must have been back in the '70s, along with 'global cooling', when sundry 'experts' insisted that acid rain was on its way from Europe and would wipe out all British woods and forests. And you'll never guess what happened ... oh, you have! Quite right, nothing much happened.
Duffer, the phrase 'dangerously uninformed' might have been invented just for you. Like your fellow knuckleheads who also believe the C2K or 'Millennium Bug' was also a myth (news to those of us who spent months in 1999 checkng RTCs), your ignorance is similarly astounding.
The connection between the two is that [taking action in time](http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/08/19/acid-rain-20-years-on/) to prevent the worst manifestations of the problems went a long way to reducing their impacts. The lessons for dealing with climate change are exactly the same.
For God's sake Duffer what do you imagine the point of your publicly pontificating about that of which you know nothing or less is? Not that it's really possible for you to appear any more foolish than you already do.
>And you'll never guess what happened ... oh, you have! Quite right, nothing much happened.
Thanks to governmental emission regulations, catalytic converters and smokestack scrubbers, yes.
Oh, and much of the warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases that had been repressed by anthropogenic nitrate aerosols became expressed. Oops!
[David Duff(http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…).
Seriously, go get thee to a medical practitioner, and have an examination to exclude the high likelihood that you are non compos mentis.
If testing determines that you do still retain a resonable degree of faculty, then the only alternatives are ignorance, stupidity, or ideology - or the usual possibility of a combination thereof.
Here's a clue. What do acid rain, ozone depletion, and Y2K have in common? And don't be obvious with the denialist version of what constitutes an answer.
Chek and LB.
Snap.
Duff, you stupid uneducated old coot,
First, read Bernard's response. The read mine. And let the facts sink in.
Nothing much MORE happened because of Clean Air Acts that were passed across much of the world which reduced the amount of sulphates being emitted from coal-fired plants. Acid rain is still a significant threat to many temperate forests - check out the Appalachians especially at higher altitudes and you'll see exactly what damage it has wrought. The point being that if measures are taken, then systems can and do recover. Acid rain also decimated lakes in boreal forests of the north temperate zone, and many are still recovering.
"Thanks to governmental emission regulations, catalytic converters and smokestack scrubbers, yes."
I do realise that most of you weren't born in the 1970s but I don't think the satellite states of the Soviet Union gave a Marxist fig for 'Greenery', least of all if the result of all their pollution was damage to neighbouring democratic states.
[Bernard @ 106](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…) Actually, I am grateful for your contribution as it corrected a silly error of mine. I too of course meant Y2K bug.
I hope the very fine fellows and outstanding partners in our local education authorities at C2K took no offence, nor was any connection with havoc and devastation being wrought on computer systems meant or implied subconsciously or otherwise.
Duffer @108 - stop blathering and digging yourself deeper into your pit of ignorance. As far as I know the direction of the prevailing winds are still west to east at European latitudes, just as they have been since the 1970s and indeed centuries prior.
Quite what your ranting about ex-communist regimes causing environmental damage which you denied occurring just over an hour beforehand has to do with anything (apart from your mental condition) I'm not sure.
Anyone see this brief article about Jeff Harvey's Algonquin trip awhile back?
http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/en/node/2137
A few of the lines in this article caught my attention:
Jeff: âOn our trip we experienced climate change at first hand"
Jeff: "In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real."
I was curious. Why didn't Jeff mention the climate change he saw or experienced first hand? Was he misleading the reader? Was he exaggerating? Can someone actually see climate change first hand and realize it's climate change and not weather?
I had to know, so I asked on the April thread and then again here:
@66..."Jeff, I don't doubt that plant zones are constantly shifting to some degree, but could you share some, if any, of the ecological consequences you experienced first hand?"
After some back and forth which included displays of Jeff's past uncivil behaviour, I finally received a response @78 stating:
"I haven't answered your question because I think you may be too stupid to understand it." Of course, I forgave him for this because, as we all know, he has a superiority complex.
This was followed by a 370 word rambling @78 that didn't answer the question. Of course, I forgave him for that because I realize he can't help himself and he thinks I'm too stupid to realize he didn't answer the question.
After his usual rambling, Jeff seemed to have an afterthought and realized he didn't answer the question...so he answers it @79:
"As far as first hand goes, I'd need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can't describe things first hand."
Just as I suspected.
"The problem, it seems to me, is that we are not dealing with classical physics in the sense of a force acting on an object."
Gott in Himmel!! There's more to physics than the inertia experiments we did in yr 9 50 years ago. Repeat after me .... radiative transfer equations. That's physics too you know.
"...a plethora of physical interactions taking place in a huge variety of times and places." For pity's sake. These are mere details in the planetary scheme of things. For global warming it really is quite straightforward. Solar radiation keeps energy coming in just as it always does. The earth's 'skin' at the top of the atmosphere radiates energy away. If _something_ makes that skin thicker or less efficient, it can't radiate as much energy out of the system as it would otherwise. More energy retained in the oceans, ice and atmosphere changes how all those things behave.
The fact that we have some problems knowing in advance where to look and what to look for as examples of where that energy is and what it is doing doesn't alter the big picture. Your 'plethora' of 'interactions' sounds an awful lot like someone focusing on ferns and leaf mould and peeling tree trunks and chirping insects and fungi on fallen branches so much they fail to notice that it all adds up to ... a forest.
And it's the forest, or the physics, as a system that matters. Details are very interesting and may be important in various ways. But they are details.
Betula,
The article was written for the NIOO web page. One of your aims in doing the trek was to bring attention to the potential effects of climate change on biomes bordering other biomes, where biotic and abiotic factors determining community structure and function become more complex. Its an area that is currently receiving some attention amongst systems ecologists.
Given your kindergarten-level understanding of ecology, its not that I have a superiority complex (in spite of the fact that my expertise in said field blows yours away), but that, like other deniers, you have a one-dimensional view of the field and expect absolute answers. Sorry I cannot oblige, but there are examples of shifting biomes in Canada that were presented by a colleague at the University of Toronto in a seminar at NIOO three years ago. He showed how temperatures in central Ontario were approaching values experienced in the south of the province 40+ years ago, and how the life zones would have to track this. This winter was extremely warm - 10 C above normal during our expedition - and the longer trend is also significant. Just because I didn't do a comprehensive study whilst plodding over 170 km does not mean that nothing is happening. If the area is warming as fast as records indicate, then something will *have to happen*. Your response is exactly the same kind of thing I was saying in response to a posting by Mike H above (in response to a post by Duffer). You and your equally daft deniers use the strategy or arguing that, without 100% proof of a process, then the problem does not exist. This tactic has been used by the deniers to downplay a wide range of human-mediated environmental problems. The tragedy from your perspective is that the processes I describe are found in the empirical literature. Of course transition zones will suffer more than areas at the heart of biomes as things change. No news there. Except for idiots like you. You posted a bunch of stuff I'd said about you above, and I stand by all it it. You belong back in grade school if you think you can make hay of the NIOO web page article.
More details on what I wrote about above:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/01/12/mb-nasa-ecologi…
Betula, READ and DIGEST.
Duff@102.
You really are that monumentally ignorant, aren't you? Don't let mere historical events and facts stand in the way of your loudly-broadcast, made-up-as-I-go-along opinions, will you?
Fool.
South Korea to follow Australia with ETS.
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/the-great-wealth-red….
.
As an indication of what might happen to the Appalachians, it is my understanding that acid rain from Manchester in the 19th century (together with over-grazing) was a major factor in the conversion of oak forest into cottongrass moorland. Duff probably thinks that moorland is 100% natural.
Jeff Harvey...
Apparently you're having a hard time reading what I actually write, because you're arguing some point I never made.
To be honest, I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that parts of Canada are predicted to see major shifts northward of plant and animal species?
Okay, it's a prediction.
My question wasn't about a prediction, it was about the climate change you saw first hand...your words on the NIOO web page, not mine. You then admitted you can't describe things first hand. So you were caught in a LIE.
Meanwhile, you say you "stand by" all the uncivil things you said, so you admit you are UNCIVIL.
In addition, you denied having a superiority complex in a fashion that only someone with a superiority complex could do. In one sentence, you make an insult to make yourself feel superior, then you deny you have a complex, only to follow it with a statement about how superior you are.
Honestly, I can't make this up, here it is:
"Given your kindergarten-level understanding of ecology, its not that I have a superiority complex (in spite of the fact that my expertise in said field blows yours away)"
So to sum up, you're an uncivil liar with a superiority complex who is arguing a point never made.
You're on a roll Jeff, keep it up!
We really have reached an low ebb Troll-wise.
Betty, I suspect there are, indeed, many children in pre-school who already have a better grasp on the concept of ecology than you do, as one has to really actively resist any organic and intuitive understanding of the natural order and work at it - probably over many years - to achieve such a very-nearly pristine level of ignorance.
Honestly, we couldn't make you up. Well, if we did, we'd be accused of laying it on waaaay too thick...
Which brings us to the old Duffer, wheezing around like some heavy-handed caricature of his old occupation, right down to the faux bonhomie. Would you buy a used Ideology from this man? -
Caveat emptor, indeed!
*A pension, we're told - what would Hayek say? But then again, as always, Ayn Rand led the way...
Duffer gibbered re; acid rain..."And you'll never guess what happened ... oh, you have! Quite right, nothing much happened."
Gee, I don't know why I bothered to apply the brakes and stop before the railway crossing as the express train approached. Nothing much happened. I should've just kept going.
Duffer, you're not still permitted a driver's license, are you? There's something about your posts that conjures to mind those terrible news stories one occasionally hears of an addled senior driver careening through a crowded market...
Interestingly, it's my understanding that the Betula pollen season has already been responding to climate change with implications for hay fever sufferers.
>Duff probably thinks that moorland is 100% natural.
Moorland is [grouse](http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/grouse).
GSW wondered
>What happened to the "peer reviewed studies" you're always crowing about, I thought everything else was just malicious gossip!
Oh, what's this then?
All that global cooling is causing the West Antarctic ice shelf to tear apart:
>A new study examining nearly 40 years of satellite imagery has revealed that the floating ice shelves of a critical portion of West Antarctica are steadily losing their grip on adjacent bay walls, potentially amplifying an already accelerating loss of ice to the sea.
What happened is GSW ignores them.
Betula,
Your posts are annoying more than anything else. Simply because of the profound ignorance you embrace. Nothing I wrote is in any way 'controversial' in spite of what you are trying to make out of it. There's a lot of evidence of ecological stresses induced by climate change and other anthropogenic factors at biomes transition zones. And of course what the NASA report even failed to say was how species adapted to alkaline soils will be able to adapt to biomes with acid soils. Shifts like this normally take thousands of years to occur, giving the above and below-ground biota a chance to more realistically adapt as well as to manipulate their new local environments to create alternate ones. We know that there is a strong feedback between processes in the soil and the plants that grow in them, as mediated by a stupendous array of biotic and abiotic processes. Its certain that soil communities in boreal forests are adapted to these conditions and actually regulate them in this way, whereas soil communities in alkaline soils are very different. Expecting shifts from one biome to another in the space of 100 years is perhaps an unprecedented challenge for many ecosystems in transition zones and will certainly cause major ecological upheaval in these zones if - and I emphasize this - if AGW proceeds along some of the predicted trajectories. You and your denier brethren better hope that it many millions of years. I'd also like to point out that if I were to be doing research in these zones I would find a lot of evidence to support what I say, so its no use burying your head in the sand and saying that as long as nobody studies it all is OK. If we did not study extinction rates, you'd deny that there was any concern over this, either. I could cite a lot of articles in the literature providing evidence for what I said, but I should not always have to do your homework for you. Jonas uses the same strategy over on his own thread: that is, he demands that I and other list studies for him, and when we do, he ignores most of them and cursorily reads a few others and dismisses them with a wave of his hand. The GSW and his other clan members swoon at his omniscience.
"but I should not always have to do your homework for you"
So there Betula...listen to what teacher Jeff tells you. But hang on, he says it may be many millions of years, so I wouldn't be too much of a hurry to get your homework in.
Karenmackspot, nice to see you back.
"I'd also like to point out that if I were to be doing research in these zones I would find a lot of evidence to support what I say, so its no use burying your head in the sand and saying that as long as nobody studies it all is OK."
A classic Jeff.
"What happened to the "peer reviewed studies" you're always crowing about, I thought everything else was just malicious gossip!"
A classic GSW.
It is way past time to quit arguing with the wilfully ignorant, those who are so ignorant that they cannot appreciate how ignorant they are as Jeff Harvey's exchange with Betula demonstrates.
Duff of course is another of similar ilk, he thinks that it is fun to behave like Dana Rohrabacher throwing out what he perceives as crippling points accompanied by the written equivalent of the 'look how clever I am' smirk displayed by Rohrabacher during his exchange with Richard Alley at that 2010 Science & Technology Committee hearing - see Brain v Blowhard on YouTube or at Climate Crocks.
Duff always avoids answering direct questions so why bother to reply to this prime example of bad behaviour?
The pair of them deserve a Wendy Wright award . Note how strident Dawkins is, NOT. I cannot understand how the likes of Madelaine Bunting can keep accusing Dawkins of being strident. To be sure the opening paragraph of Chapter 2 of 'The God Delusion' was rather accurate, using the Bible for guidance, but to confuse accuracy of description for stridency is to lose sense of proportion.
It is said that the reason we continue to debate these 'spoilers' is so that casual visitors can grasp the sheer desperation of their tactics and perhaps take away a realisation that AGW is real and a big problem. Unfortunately these recent open threads, and the continuing blog bog role that is Jonas, are now of little real value IMHO and serve only to stroke the egos of these scientifically illiterate and rude time wasters.
Rohrabacher is amazing in that video - you can really see in the gleam of those shiny, tiny eyes that somewhere in the shiny, tiny brain that rattles around behind them he really, really imagines he's on to something! One almost feels sorry for him, except that he's incapable of realising he deserves our pity.
Dunning and Kruger, look no further: you have your poster boy!
Of course, his fellow afflictees just love him to bits...
If I were Jeff.
If I were like Jeff Harvey, I would be walking around my house claiming to have seen my son's State Cup soccer trophy "first hand"
Let me explain:
My sons team has a very good chance of winning the Connecticut State Cup Soccer Tournament. The Tournament is single elimination and has just started, though it will take many weeks to complete.
All the statistics lead to a consensus among soccer experts that his team will "very likely" win. Let's review the data:
The following peer reviewed data shows that his team is already ranked #1 in the State, they win over 82% of their games and have a goal ratio of 5.07.
http://rankings.gotsport.com/rankings/team.aspx?teamid=359216
Now, if I were Jeff Harvey, not only would I have already built a shelf in my son's room for the trophy, I would be claiming that I've seen the trophy in the house "first hand". If someone were to ask me to describe the trophy I've seen in the house "first hand", I would tell him "of course I can't describe the details (of the trophy) first hand" and then proceed to tell him he is "too stupid" to understand my son may win a trophy.
I would then label him a State Cup Soccer Champion Denier and go on (and on) to explain about the history, rules and nuances of soccer, expounding on my knowledge about each teams strengths and weaknesses based on the current coaching staff, each individuals strengths and weaknesses, how they match up to other teams, the quality of practice time and the current injury list. I would finish by calling him a soccer player in diapers and ask him to go away.
Speaking of [Heartland's in-case-you-weren't-quite-sure-completely-jumped-the-shark-now billboards](http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/heartland-institute-global-warmin…)...
And the comments include:
> If they want to point out the Unabomber is more sane than they are, I am not sure we should stop them.
Betula,
If I were you I'd be worried about my son's future, and especially the future for his children if he is to have any. I'd be concerned that the planet our generation is going to leave his will be a lot more impoverished than the one we inherited from our parents. I would be worried that the damage we have wrought and continue to inflict on complex adaptive systems will rebound on his and later generations, and that the conditions emerging from these systems that we habitually take for granted that permit our species to exist, persist and thrive will no longer be a 'given'.
Your post above, as expected, is gobbeldegook. The kind of stuff I hate to have to respond to here, because it is beneath contempt in its rank stupidity. Essentially, you are saying that its perfectly fine to drive at high speeds along a road while blindfolded because 'nothing bad has happened yet'. That, until all the evidence is in that driving this way will eventually lead to disaster, that there's nothing wrong whatsoever with continuing as you are. The truth is that humans are headed for a massive abyss of our own making, not just with relation to climate change but in the other myriad of ways that we are assaulting systems across the biosphere. Ed Wilson, promoting his new book, last week said quite correctly that humans are an enigma: a species with a Paleolithic brain but with immense technology that is being used to drive natural systems to hell in a hand basket. Against this background we have those like you desperately clinging to the notion that somehow our species will muddle its way through the bottleneck we have created and emerge unscathed out the other side. You probably don't even think there is a bottleneck at all, in spite of all the evidence that says *au contraire*. Every natural system across the planet is in decline. Every one. Qualitatively and quantitatively. Essentially, it appears that humans want to drive systems towards a point where they will only support micro-organisms, cockroaches and a few weeds. The Biosphere II experiment flopped because humans cannot replicate self-sustaining biome or ecosystem, and thus we rely utterly on nature to sustain us. No amount of technology can replicate most critical services. And, as I said, our species does not seem to have evolved in some ways very much in 30,000 years. We are still in many ways a rapacious bipedal organism with highly tribal tendencies. If we are to make it through the bottleneck we are in we are going to have to change our ways as a species, socially and politically. To be honest, I am not that optimistic. if your views, Betula, represent those of 'Joe Public' in the west, then I think that pessimism is not misplaced.
The only reason I write into Deltoid is to counter disinformation from the likes of people like you who clearly think they know a lot about environmental science when it is obvious to me that they don't. I certainly know where my professional strengths and weaknesses are, but that does not stop the pretenders on this and other threads who have no background in any relevant fields trying to give the impression that they are self-trained 'experts' in many different fields of endeavor. Like you, Betula, they come into these debates armed with their idealogical blinkers which explains their vehement denial. I am wasting my time on them and on you; my aim is to reach out to those who want to know more and who are not clouded by their own political agendas.
I agree with everything you wrote there in #132 Jeff.
I will suggest that Betula, and Duff and the rest of The Bash Street Kids, find copies of E.O. Wilson's 'The Future of Life' and for more context 'The Diversity of Life' and read them.
They may then, just, grasp what a knife edge the biosphere that sustains us is poised on and also the value of the services which it provides.
They should also grasp that even at our current level of 'mining' such resources (they should read Jared Diamond too) we are consuming the capital and not surviving on the interest. Why is it that most economists cannot see this?
But of course they won't. They will continue to stand in the corner with hands over ears and eyes and stamp their little feet whilst uttering, 'It isn't and anyway I cannot hear you'. They are behaving like children at the moment will they mature? That is the question.
Lionel, would that be the same E. O. Wilson who published a paper in NATURE in 2010, along with two mathematicians, which blows kin selection, so beloved of 'Archbishop' Dawkins and his 'Darwinista Sect' out of the water and replaces it with group selection?
And would it be the same E. O. Wilson who in July last year expressed great confidence in the future of Africa as agricultural methods improved and more and more people moved to the cities; and who joyfully pointed out that Africa was "the fastest urbanising continent in the world"?
Is it that E. O. Wilson?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/e-o-wilson-rsquo-s-…
You see, I always fall for a pretty lady! (Er, I am assuming here that Adelady is indeed pretty.) She tells me that when it comes to radiative transfer models (regretably they are not pretty ladies!) it is all easy-peasy: "For global warming it really is quite straightforward".
Well, of course, being a gent of the old school I took her word for it but just by accident I was skimming through Wiki, as you do, and I came across this:
"The radiative transfer equation is a monochromatic equation to calculate radiance in a single layer of the Earth's atmosphere. To calculate the radiance for a spectral region with a finite width (e.g., to estimate the Earth's energy budget or simulate an instrument response), one has to integrate this over a band of frequencies (or wavelengths). The most exact way to do this is to loop through the frequencies of interest, and for each frequency, calculate the radiance at this frequency. For this, one needs to calculate the contribution of each spectral line for all molecules in the atmospheric layer; this is called a line-by-line calculation. For an instrument response, this is then convolved with the spectral response of the instrument. A faster but more approximate method is a band transmission. Here, the transmission in a region in a band is characterised by a set of pre-calculated coefficients (depending on temperature and other parameters). In addition, models may consider scattering from molecules or particles, as well as polarisation; however, not all models do so.".
I thought I had summed all that up with my usual elegance and wit, thus: "Instead we are trying to cope with a plethora of physical interactions taking place in a huge variety of times and places. The word 'chaos' hardly describes it." But alas, the stern disciplinarian, Adelady, still lashed into me although, for the life of me, I can't see why?
That's the trouble with you lot, even when I agree with you you disagree with me! What's a chap to do?
Yes, Duffer, this is the same E.O. Wilson, who said in an interview last week:
*Weâre destroying the rest of life in one century. Weâll be down to half the species of plants and animals by the end of the century if we keep at this rate. Very few people are paying any attention, just dedicated groups. The only way weâve been able to get peopleâs attention is through big issues like pollution and climate change. They canât deny pollution because you can give them the taste test. You can say, âWe just took this out of the Charles River. Here, drink.â But they can deny climate change. Weâre in a state of cosmic or global denial. However, there are changes. The general direction is going up the right way. The only question is how much damage are we going to do to biodiversity before we catch on. Right now Iâm going to national parks around the world â Iâve been to Ecuador, Mozambique, the southwest Pacific, all of Western Europe. Iâm going to write a series on national parks â what the basic philosophy of national parks and reserves should be, and how it relates to our own self-image and our own hopes for immortality as a species*.
Kind of blows your attempt to downplay what he says about human impact on the environment out of the water, doesn't it? As for 'blowing kin selection out of the water', all his paper did was present one perspective. As a scientist, it always amuses me when the scientific illiterati (you being one example) take single studies they like and make big noises about them, whilst ignoring many more that they don't. As if you can interpret the science in the first place. Group selection is still very controversial, especially if there is a low coefficient of relatedness amongst different genotypes in a population. It is very likely that kin selection still has a major place in evolutionary biology, as many scientists have already weighed in critiquing both the Nature paper and Wilson's ideas in his latest book. But that is what good science is all about.
I love you, Jeff Harvey! Of course, I love Adelady, too, but then I have always been generous in my affections. Why do I love thee? Let me count the ways?
Well, only one reason, actually. You wrote this and I treasure it: "many scientists have already weighed in critiquing both the Nature paper and Wilson's ideas in his latest book. But that is what good science is all about."
Consider yourself covered in kisses - oh brace up, man, it's not that bad! I truly never, ever expected to see your last sentence on this blog.
Part of me wonders what David Duff thinks of Heartland's latest massive embarrassment, and just what knots he'd tie himself in while trying to direct attention elsewhere.
Thankfully, since I block all his comments, I never have to worry about finding out.
I think you've made the right move there, Dave H. Duff's latest stuff is just embarrassing (and tipsy, perhaps?). Like Rohrabacher, in his mind he clearly imagines he has some kind of point, and is so pleased with himself he even manages to drip condescension.
Heartland just had another major sponsor pull out, incidentally.
Duff's every bit as extreme as HI - as the most cursory skimming of his blog (even that's more than is recommended!) will reveal.
Remembering Singer's recent efforts as well as this latest HI fiasco I reckon we'll be seeing the 'respectable' faction of Denial attempt to further distance themselves from the extremist nutters, at least as an exercise in public perception; the problem for them being that the extremist nutters are Denial, in a very real sense, constituting the majority of what passes for their 'intelligentsia' and the overwhelming majority of their foot-soldiers.
[Dave H](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…).
The short of it is that Duff is egregiously cherry picking and confabulating*, and has no clue how he is doing so.
And at his age, there's probably not enough time left to teach him where his gaping holes of ignorance are. The only consolation is that his grandchildren will one day remember how he was an obstacle on the road to attempt to make theirs a less worse world than it otherwise will be.
[* He also seems to be hankering after the sexual shennanigans of a public school dormitory past, hey what, but best to leave that one alone...]
Since when did 'straightforward' become 'easy-peasy'.
The physics of sport are pretty straightforward - lots of that 'classical physics' of inertia and the like. But just try playing tennis against Federer or Nadal or Djokovic, easy it ain't. Or even stringing their rackets - straightforward issues of materials science, probably backed up by lots of arcane physical equations about tensions and resistances and elasticity. Once again, easy it ain't.
When it comes to science, duff, you and I are like the audience at musical performances - and so are all the rest of the world's citizens who aren't musicians, composers or musicologists. Our singing in the shower or plinking on a guitar or a piano are not equivalent to the expertise of those who perform professionally, let alone to designing and building musical instruments.
We can appreciate the elegance of various flawless interpretations of a Bach cantata, or the consummate skill of a tennis player or a soccer goal shooter in the same way as we can look at science or scientists as a more-or-less informed observer. How do they _do_ that! is a legitimate expression of admiration.
The fact that looking more closely makes you realise just how much hard work - physical or intellectual - is required to perform at that level makes no difference. It really is quite straightforward to understand and appreciate as a non-participant. Seeing what's really required to qualify as a participant should enhance, not detract from, our appreciation.
Speaking of participants, here's a really neat demonstration of what Jeff keeps on reminding us about, the importance of maintaining diversity in various ecologies.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120503200557.htm
And what I talk about in actually doing science. 14 uninterrupted years of mainly routine, often tedious, concentrated work in establishing and maintaining experimental plots. Observing and recording minute details not obvious to the uninitiated eye. Analysing those records and producing a paper showing what most of us - but clearly not all of us - expected to see anyway. More variety and more complexity in plant communities produces measurably more plant biomass and associated living material than simpler communities with less variety of plants.
It's "beloved" because they think the evidence supports it. But E.O. Wilson et. al. may well be right about inclusive fitness and Dawkins may well be wrong ... which has none of the implications that an scientifically illiterate illogical imbecile like you seems to think it does. (Among other things, Dawkins' anecdote about the scientific ethic, about an old professor who thanked the young scientist for showing that the position he had held for many years was mistaken, comes to mind.)
Meanwhile, E.O. Wilson -- that E.O. Wilson -- blows you and all other faux-skeptics out of the water over global warming.
Beyond this switcheroo, Mr. Duff completely changed the subject, like if you had pointed out that heating a pot of water causes it to boil, and he then quoted a text on turbulence. That turbulence is chaotic has no bearing on whether it's straightforward that heating a pot of water causes it to boil ... it is. And that's the kind of thing we're talking about when we say that weather isn't climate -- the pot will boil, even though we can't make predictions about the location or size of the bubbles.
Actually, it seems that its the paper that was blown out of the water:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/big-dust-up-about-ki…
But for an intellectually dishonest scientific illiterate like Duff, "argument A blows argument B out of the water" simply means that he would prefer the conclusion of argument A to be true.
The Climate Comission have published a rebuttal to Plimer's creationist-inspired tome "How To Get Expelled From School".
I haven't read the book, and upon reading Plimer's "questions" I am frankly shocked at how far he is willing to go in order to mislead children for political motives.
DCCEE intro:
Plimer question 99:
DCCEE answer:
Ouch!
@136 Duff "argument from personal incredulity" only works with people who are thicker than you. In your case we are talking about a group that would fit into a phone box.
Dr David Archer teaches the [basics](http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html) to non-science majors. As adelady says the theory is straightforward, just not to you.
Gosh,you science swots certainly confuse an old chap like me. First one of you quotes E. O. Wilson with warm approval, then another of you leaps with joy because Wilson's paper is "blown out of the water"! Well, I'll leave you to fight that one out but I'm happy to hold your coats.
As for the HI poster campaign I can describe it in one 4-letter word - crap! (See, toujours la politesse, that's my message.) It goes alongside all those ridiculous pictures of polar bears floating on tiny lumps of ice and similar examples of agit-prop.
Having just embarked on a love-in with Adelady I have no wish to spoil it with a minor spat before even the honeymoon is over! "Straightforward" and "easy-peasy" are more or less the same adjective, that is, any subject to which they are attached can be easily understood. Thus, even I could (just about) understand the law of levers. I can even understand radiation. But when you have different types of radiation coming at different levels at different times and re-acting differently, not only with the same recipients at different times and in different circumstances, but also differently with different recipients which are themselves being subjected to different influences as well as interacting with each other, and all thes einteractions are virtually impossible to forecast with any degree of accuracy, then I would say that you have a chaotic system. Whilst I salute efforts to get to grips with it and to attempt to forecast future events, you will foregive my doubts as to the likely success.
Anyway, it's Bank Holiday Monday so I'm off to put my wellies and raincoat on and go out to enjoy the drought which yet another bunch of 'scientists' forecast!
duff duff has a remarkable ability to turn the straightforward into gibberish.
Duff does not understand the difference between weather and climate. Shocked, we are, shocked.
I also find it amusing that record rainfall - as, um, predicted by the whole AGW thing - is now being used by Deniers to discredit the Met Ofice, and this somehow discredits AGW, because the Met accepts the reality of that, so, that proves that... well, um, Deniers in general don't get the difference between weather and climate.
What we're really in danger of drowning in is The Stupid...
[Adelady](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…)
The study is certainly a neat exercise, but sadly the underlying premise has been understood for decades.
That we have to keep repeating the message to the deaf, denying ignorati such as David Duff is a damning indictement on our society.
David Duff.
Do your grandchildren know that you're doing your denialist damnest to destroy their futures?
Dumb-arse.
"...all these interactions are virtually impossible to forecast with any degree of accuracy, then I would say that you have a chaotic system."
Clearly you've never been inside a commercial kitchen at 7.45 pm. The people seem chaotic and any physical or chemical description of the actions and interactions going on in all the pans and pots and flames and ovens at any one instant would be completely impossible. Funnily enough, half an hour later the diners are all served, there's still some frenetic activity in the dessert and pastry preparation area but it's all apparently under control.
But, even now, anyone'd be hard pressed to list all the chemical interactions and physical processes during the previous hours that led to smooth sauces or aromatic casseroles or perfectly shaped dinner rolls. Do you really want to have a go at detailing the chemistry, biology and physics involved in producing perfect creme brulée - or fish'n'chips?
All science is hard. We _think_ we understand a lot of things we're familiar with in daily life, like cooking and laundry. But the underlying science is not so simple, it's only familiarity that makes it seem so.
Unfamiliar concepts like very large numbers or very long time spans or remote regions like ice caps or the deep oceans or the stratosphere are even harder to deal with because we don't have familiarity to give us the security of feeling that we know what we're dealing with.
I have saved you all in the nick of time! As you know I have been tireless in my efforts to offer you an alternative "End of the world is nigh" scenario as your global warming 'Shlock-Horror' slowly sinks into the history of utterly useless predictions. But now I bring you a super-swot, Mike Hapgood, a space weather scientist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford, no less. He is already making for the hills because anytime now, according to him, there is a really, really, big chance of a scary solar storm that will blow away civilisation as we know it! Asked what the chances were he said:
"A recent paper [published in February in the journal Space Weather] tried to estimate the chance of having a repeat of 1859 and came up with a value of a 12% chance of it happening in the next 10 years. That's quite a high risk."
There you are, you see, I always deliver on my promises.
Sorry, in my eagerness to please and thus win plaudits from Adelady I failed to provide thelink:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-solar-storms-20120505,0,5374…
Incidentally, my dear (if I may be permitted that very respectful endearment), may I remind you that the results emenating from kitchens are not always what is forecast and thus expected by either chef or consumer!
A competent chef, food scientist, chemist or physicist is perfectly capable of explaining what went wrong with 'unexpected' results from a kitchen.
Just as physicists and the armies of scientists in other disciplines give perfectly adequate explanations for what happens in climate.
*Incidentally, my dear (if I may be permitted that very respectful endearment)*
From you, Duff, its an insult. The sad thing is that you think you're having fun here with the crapola you are writing. But you are the only one laughing. Why Tim hasn't banned you is anyone's guess. You deserve your own little myopic corner of the blogosphere, but just expect most others not to want to be a part of it. You remind me of someone who would be cracking jokes to the passengers of the Titanic soon after it struck the iceberg. Your premise would be that its unsinkable, even as the mighty liner began to list. As the concern and panic grew, you'd be fiddling away on the upper deck in sheer delight even as the predicament became more and more apparent.
To be honest, you are, in my honest opinion, warped. I am sure that most of us here wish you'd take your stupidity elsewhere.
"From you, Duff, its an insult."
From my perspective, it's almost funny - despite the somewhat weird apparent intention. Addressing remarks in a tone much like someone indulging a teenage niece or neighbour looks downright absurd on this side of the screen.
To put duff straight - you've been addressing your remarks to someone who's likely more of an old fart than you are. Not just that, an old fart who's actually a bad-tempered cow spending a lot of time at a keyboard because pain prevents more productive activity - and provokes the aforementioned bad temper.
It's entirely possible that I'm older than you. In my case, it doesn't stop me from respecting the work of people half my age or twice my education or both.
Now [there's](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…) a true lady.
Adelady,
Great post @160. Outstanding.
@David Duff,
Don't them let you put you off David, I'm enjoying it.
Maybe in a different part of the country to you, but it's been droughting down here for the last few hours. For all the 'Global Weirding' going on elsewhere, it's a fairly normal Bank Holiday Monday weatherwise. Good excuse for staying in to watch the snooker.
;)
Jeff Harvey
You lied about experiencing climate change first hand, I call you out on it, and as a result, you accuse me of denying climate predictions...
C'mon Jeff, you need to question your assumptions. Try reading between your own lines, afterall, you're an honest scientist without biases "clouding" your vision, aren't you?
@Betula
Jeff is definitely not "an honest scientist without biases "clouding" your[his] vision", stop taking the p--s.
But Jeff . . . Jeff, baby . . . I thought we had just become engaged, er, with each other's opinions, that is:
You wrote this and I treasure it: "many scientists have already weighed in critiquing both the Nature paper and Wilson's ideas in his latest book. But that is what good science is all about."
And I agreed with you! And together we walked off into the sunset (which, as I warned you above @156 is a terrible, frightening threat to all mankind) but now you have turned against me. Does that mean "critiquing" (or 'criticisng' as normal English-speakers put it) is now off your agenda? Tell me it ain't so!
Betula,
Go away. You write an utter piffle of an analogy which, frankly, I found even to be idiotic for you, in spite of the crap you normally contribute here. IMHO you appear to be fairly stupid. Get over it. A lot of deniers are.
The article in question was written by a colleague for the NIOO web site. There's no way in a million years that one could say that they experienced climate change first hand and not expect the deniers to scream foul, but there are a lot of ways in which patterns can be seen in th ecophysiology of plants and animals over time. Many of these changes are occurring at biome boundaries. And the empirical literature is full of similar examples. Get off you backside and look for some of them. Its not my job here to do that for you. But don't play the denier game: that its up to me to prove to you than warming is having ecological effects. IT IS. Find out how for yourself.
But OK, I will play your stupid game. I saw little evidence of snowshoe hares which should have been abundant in the park. Lynx are virtually gone. These are species at the southern edges of their ranges. Its certainly possible that these species are moving north in response to the warmer climate. Many Carolinian species are certainly advancing northwards. Virginia Oppossums are found in areas they were absent from 30 years ago. Red-Bellied Woodpeckers are moving northwards. Many other species of birds are in population freefall. Warming in Europe is haveing all kinds of disruptive effects on species phenologies. African crop pests like Spodoptera littoralis are now overwintering in Europe. Plutella xyslostella, the diamondback moth, a south temperate and tropical species now thrives over much of central Europe. Plants are expanding their ranges from the south.
As for GSW, what an utter hypocrite. He once wrote, "Polar Bears, frogs and coral reefs are doing fine". Wrong. Try again. When called out on it, he then claimed that they aren't necessarily doing fine at all, but that climate change is not a factor in negatively affecting their status. For instance, he then tries to pawn off global amphibian declines as being exclusively due to a pathogen. Wrong again. Many factors are involved, and some secondary stressors facilitate primary stressors that manifest themselves in increased mortality. Direct and indirect effects are abundant in natural systems, so that cause-and-effect relationships are not black and white. But why expect GSW to understand this any more than Betula or Duff? The three of them belong together in their pit of ignornace.
Then GSW claims to enjoy Duff making an arse of himself. Or should I have said, 'classic GSW'.
Oh, my God, you may be right after all!
I have just read in The Telegraph that it was 'the dinosaurs wot dunnit'! And this is from a pair of real scientific swots of the kind that are so admired on this site. Apparently:
''A simple mathematical model suggests that the microbes living in sauropod dinosaurs may have produced enough methane to have an important effect on the Mesozoic climate,'' said study leader Dr Dave Wilkinson, from Liverpool John Moores University.
I mentioned this outstanding discovery to the 'Memsahib' but she reckoned dinosaurs had absolutely nothing on me! What can she mean? Anyway:
''Indeed, our calculations suggest that these dinosaurs could have produced more methane than all modern sources - both natural and man-made - put together.''
Cor, who'da thunk it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/9250032/Dinosaurs-passing-…
Betulant.
I can claim to have first-hand experience of the effects of climate change in my own region.
Over the last few years some of the orchardists in the district have started to replace various pome and stone fruit because the number of chill hours that were experienced several decades ago has been decreasing, and they are being forced to change to varieties that require less chilling.
The salmon farms where one of my in-laws worked is looking at diversifying to (or possibly completely moving to) other species in the next decade or so, because the darned salmon are starting to suffer ever more heat stress in summer, when water temperatures reach almost to the species' thermal limits. In the past they could shoulder the small amount of heat death; now it's becoming a real concern.
Thirty years ago the roads in the valley over the hill, inland, were blocked by snow almost every year for three or four days, at least. It stopped my kids' mother from going to school. There hasn't been snow on these roads for at least a decade, and there haven't been blockages for at least double that length of time. And a couple of generations ago the village where I live used to get a foot or more of snow at least once a decade - that hasn't happened for at least fourty years, going on fifty.
Talk to the old horticultural neighbours here and they'll tell you that temperature-sensitive spring flowering over the last three or four decades has been steadily occurring earlier, by two or three weeks now compared to then. And many old timers will point to trees that used to turn red or red-purple in autumn, that now manage only orange or orange-red at best. Chinese pistachios are a good example - a relative of mine has one in the garden, and for years it hasn't managed to come up with the red I was once shown when a preserved leaf was sent to me in my interstate days.
Don't tell me that there's no climate change.
David Duff.
I'll ask again - do your grandchildren know that you're a recalcitrant and active denier of human-caused global warming?
Bernard, I am not "an active denier of human-caused global warming", it's just that I have been reading the arguments of 'warmers' for years whilst also reading those of 'deniers' and all I can say is that you have failed to convince me. But I have changed my mind, or even made up my mind, on different subjects over the years, so all you have to do is convince me.
I should add, that actually given that the temperature of the earth's atmosphere has never ceased to change then, all things being equal, I would much rather have warming than cooling. Warming brings huge benefits where-as I cannot think, off hand, of any benefits from cooling.
That's because you're an imbecile.
An imbecile who doesn't understand the scientific enterprise and how it differs from argument from authority. Also a liar who blatantly misrepresents the discussion. And a pathetic hypocrite who himself offers E.O. Wilson approvingly (with the lie that his paper blew kin selection out of the water) while at the same time completely discounts what Wilson says about global warming.
You'll never convince us of your position, Duff, for the same reason we can't convince you of ours: you're stupid, ignorant, and thoroughly dishonest.
Duffer the puffer whined:
If that is your position then I take it you do not like eating and think that you can live on sunshine and water just like the green slime you resemble?
Food production will be seriously affected by global warming. Food shortages due to climate change are already occurring in certain parts of the globe.
You are one pathetic and despicable person but you already know that.
This paper by Walther et al. - which is now 10 years old - won't stop the armchair denial experts from claiming how much they know more than the scientists, but it puts into perspective what we knew about the biological effects of climate change even by 2002. Fig. 1 is illuminating: it shows the heterogeneous distribution of temperature changes that had occurred in only just over 20 years, and highlights Canada as an area that has experienced rapid warming. It also supports the temperature trends in the transition zones I alluded to earlier which by definition must be having ecological effects. Furthermore, many more studies have been published since this seminal paper came out in 2002 that provide irrefutable proof of biotic responses to warming, as well as how warming is increasing the stress on species interactions and phenology. We can attribute, for example, the decline of the Pied Flycatcher in much of central Europe to changes in spring temperatures as these affect bud burst in oak, emergence of oak-feeding caterpillars, peak food abundance for the flycatchers and reproductive success. This study alone (conducted by colleagues here at the NIOO) shows how climate change is affecting trophic interactions negatively with consequences for the survival of the flycatchers in much of their breeding range. This study is certainly the tip of an iceberg. For instance, climate warming has been implicated in the declining body sizes of North American passerines, as recent articles in Nature and TREE attest. Eric Post gave a seminar at our institute 2 years ago and he showed how warming in Greenland was affecting reproductive cycles and optimal browsing vegetation quality in Reindeer. He also showed how the increased intensity of NAO events is strongly correlated with poor reproductive out put in some North American passerines, especially at the heart of the range of these species (e.g. Summer tanager, Yellow-Billed Cuckoo). This research alone counters the pseudoscientific babble being spewed out by Mr. Know-it-all next door. The Walther article is here:
http://eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/Ecol206/Walther%20et%20al%20Nature%20…
As an aside, note how hypocritical Mr. Know-it-all claims that his opponents are 'asinine' here, then attacks me for my insults. Talks about asinine! I was willing to give the twit the benefit of the doubt, but he muffed it, and couldn't keep his massive, bloated patronizing ego in check. And he still hasn't answered the one question he's been asked a million times: what is his profession? Since he uses a pseudonym, its not like he will give his identity away. The reason Jonas doesn't answer this is because he is afraid of being humiliated when he tells us all the truth. That we'll laugh (we probably will). Any guesses from people here what out resident egotist does for a living? All answers welcome.
"Warming brings huge benefits where-as I cannot think, off hand, of any benefits from cooling."
So don't _think_, use your imagination.
Where I live, we're fully aware that shopping centres are not really commercial enterprises, they're temples dedicated to the worship of summer air conditioning.
When summer temperatures can exceed 40C without breaking any records, you're not really interested in it getting any "warmer". And watching 15% of our trees dead and dying over the final couple of years of a drought in a city famed for its parkland setting was particularly galling. In my own garden at the time we lost half a dozen fruit trees, not happy at all. No 'benefits' that I could see.
And around here? The wine growers are picking earlier and earlier and starting to get worried about quality. And grape picking during the middle of the night? Unheard of a few years ago. Not this wet year though, it's green everywhere and winter hasn't even started. Feels quite odd.
But my dear Adelady, your shit is my manure, so to speak! If indeed you warmers are right then those viniculturalists of yours will simply have to up sticks, I mean up vines, and move back to southern England where they used to be a few centuries ago. However, I should point out that there is absolutely no sign of global warming here, quite the contrary. However, we can boast of the wettest official drought - anywhere! Some scientific swots have insisted it's a drought and who am I to argue as I wrestle with my brollie in gusting gales! They may, or may not, be the same sort of scientific swots who for the last three summers have been forecasting non-stop heatwaves, and needless to say my BBQ, which I haven't used in three years, is getting rustier and rustier. I cannot stress to you strongly enough that I really do wish that global warming was happening - but it ain't! And were you to tempt me, you naughty Adelady, you, I might have a small wager that global cooling is more likely over the next few years not warming.
@Duff @adelady
You sound like an old married couple!
;)
@Duff and GSW. Take your creepy, patronising and sexist posts elsewhere.
So civilization ended in 1859. Interesting.
duff duff:
Swotting has nothing to do with it. People with low scientific IQs like duff duff can swot all they like, they'll never understand enough to pass the exam.
I realise that some people don't much care about droughts or flooding on the other side of the world, but surely most of us care what's happening a couple of hours' drive away.
From page 6 of http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/GEHO0312BWDT-E-E.pdf
A more recent update at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/drought/31749.aspx shows
Don't know how many of your not-quite-neighbours would agree with your casual sneer about wanting more warming.
Here's definition of "swot" from the Urban Dictionary that fits Duff well:
Heh, if David Duff the denialist doesn't like the cold, he should ponder on the likely eventual effect of global warming on the Altlantic thermohaline circulation.
Of course, he'll be pushing up daisies before that time comes, but if he's going to try to be objective about it he should be acknowledging the science and promoting the opposite of what he does.
But then, it's never about the science with Duff...
Hey Davie, you still haven't answered the question - have you told your grandchildren yet that you want to FUBAR their world and their lives, by actively promoting inaction as a response to the conclusions of objective science and empirical evidence?
Moron.
Don't get sucked into Duff's idiocy, Adelady. Benefits of cooling are irrelevant; the issue is that we're facing an increase of global temperature of several degrees, and there's a rather large benefit to not having that happen.
It should have been called planetary warming, rather than global warming, to head off at least one common misunderstanding.
Bernard @169..
"Don't tell me that there's no climate change"
I don't believe I did tell you that. I also never told you that you had a superiority complex or that you were a liar.
I did, however, ask Jeff to give details of his first hand experience with climate change in Algonquin and he replied he couldn't. Of course, he just recently contradicted his contradiction @167, saying that the little evidence of Snowshoe Hares and a lack of Lynx are signs of climate change:
"I saw little evidence of snowshoe hares which should have been abundant in the park. Lynx are virtually gone. These are species at the southern edges of their ranges. Its certainly possible that these species are moving north in response to the warmer climate"
It's possible, yes, if that's what you want to believe to fit your message while leaving other information out:
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/06/rise-fall-canada-lynx-snowshoe-…
Bernard, now wouldn't you think that someone as superior as Jeff would know better?
"Bernard @169...
"I can claim to have first-hand experience of the effects of climate change in my own region"
You list 4 examples, all of which may or may not have to do with climate change. For the sake of argument, let's say they all do. Is it all detrimental?
1.Orchardists are planting new varieties.
2.Salmon Farms are adapting:
âThe Tasmanian salmonid farming industry is well placed to adapt to the challenges of climate change."
http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/8961/tasmanian-salmon-changing-with…
3.Roads are no longer blocked so kids can go to school
4.In some cases, early spring flowering may increase and lengthen plant productivity, assuming the pollinators also emerge early.
So are there positive and negative predicted effects, or only negative predicted effects? Is there a negative to positive predicted ratio? Does the predicted ratio change by region and species? Is the predicted ratio weighed against other predictions?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying predictions based on other predictions, I'm questioning if these predictions are currently facts (experienced first hand), in which case, they are no longer predictions. And if the predictions are currently facts, are the predicted effects all negative.
"...assuming the pollinators also emerge early."
Pot luck really. If the required pollinators emergence relies on day length rather than seasonal warmth it's all a bit sad.
"Orchardists are planting new varieties." and later ...
"...are the predicted effects all negative."
I'd say losing your investment in a few thousand trees and having to purchase replacements long before their anticipated end of productive life counts as negative.
Speaking of recent [news coverage of dinosaur farts](http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/07/the-reports-of-dinosa…)...your source of reportage may not be particularly accurate.
Hmm, what is the ratio of positive to negative effects of raising the global temperature by, say, 4 degrees Centigrade? 6 degress Centigrade? This may help:
http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-…
Betula's response @ 188 reveals in detail why its a waste of time responding to him.
Dozens of times I have explained that species and especially local populations are adapted to cope wtih certain biotic and abiotic conditions. Dozens of times I have explained that species do not exist as isolated entitites but depend on an array of interactions with other species in food webs: mutulaists as well as antagonists. Numerous studies have shown that the strenght and resilience of food webs is determined by feedback loops within these food webs, and recent theory predicts that more species-rich food webs are more stable because they offer more alternate pathways for the circulation of resources through the system. We also know that there is inbulit redundancy into most systems, so that when a key driver of ecosystem processes delcines, other species within the same functional guild fill in for them and sustain the role the declining species filled. But some systems have a lot less in-built redundancy: for instance, ecosystems in higher latitudes with, because of thermal contraints, are less species-rich. But these species are well adapted to thrive under such conditions as a result of millions of years of evolution via frequency-dependent selection. Enthothermic species exhibit thermoneutral zones: this is where the organisms must invest variable amounts of energy in response to temepratures that fall within or outside the range of normal temepratures they would generally experience in their habitats. A rapid shift in temperature will likely shift temperature regimes outside of the normal range, meaning the organisms must expend more energy to regulate their internal body temperatures.Invertebrates are also adapted to certain temeprature regimes. The distribtion of a species represents its optimal habitat window as determined by intrinsic (physiological) and extrinsic (ecological) constraints. Innumerable paramters are involved, but when constraints fall outside of the norm, then we can expect the predictions of the Thomas et al. (2004) article to manifest themselves: local declines of species followed by the extinction of genotypes, populations and eventually the species as a whole.
Putting this all together, climate change represents a profound challenge to biodiversity. And I mean the kind of changes that are occurring now, well outside of normal boundries for a largely deterministic system. The Walther et al. paper already gave plenty of examples where climate warming was either shown to be or implicated in the declines of species and food webs. Since it was published, many hundreds more have appeared in the empirical literature. Essentially, Betula, like GSW and the other deniers here, wants us to cross our fingers and hope all turns out hunky-dory. Duff hasn't got a clue either and can also be excused for his ignorance. Jonas is a waste of time: he is too wrapped up in his own bloated ego and the reverential praise he receives from GSW to understand the basics of environmental science. Heck, he's afraid to tell us what his day job is, instead giving us cryptic clues that it is 'relevant' to the discussion. Well, one thing is for certain: he and his acolytes do not understand basic environmental science. We get fatuous remarks from Duff calling it 'soft science', when I am sure Duff could not analyse the illustration below showing a 'simple' aphid-parasitoid-hyperparasitoid food web (courtesy of the van Veen lab):
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/f.vanveen
To reiterate, this is a simple food web. Throw in thousands of other biotic interactions - intraguild predation, associational resistance and susceptibility, and then try to analyze the chemical and physical factors in the environment that account for the structire of this food web. Go ahead David D. Perhaps you'd like to use our HPLC and analyze the secondary chemistry of the plants at the basal end of the food chain or use an HPMS to analyze the plant volatiles while you are at it? And then write up your results using PCA?
This is where the effects of warming will and are being borne out. On food webs and species interactions. And the prognosis is not good. Certainly warming and other stressors are simplifying food webs through differentiual effects on various species in them. So when I see people arguing that warmer is better because it means the kids will have more snow-free days to get to school, or because farmers can plant more thermophilic fruit trees, I cringe. If this is what the public's attitutide is towards climate change and its possible effects, then we are in deep, deep trouble. A PhD student here recently showed here that the soil microbial community can be hammered by even short bursts of extremely host conditions. Soil-plant feedbacks mediate many key ecosystem properties, as described in the Janzen-Connell hypothesis. Uncoupling of soil- and above-ground processes will certainly affect ecosystems and their productivity. And, as I have also said dozens of times, warmer conditions will not be accompanied a simple shift of biomes to the north, at least not at the temporal scale being envisaged. Moreover, the landscape has been greatly altered across most of the biosphere by man. We are certainly living in the Anthropocene. Adaptation is challenging enough, given that we are talking about a century. But juxtapose that with the fact that species will have to cross vast expanses of agricultural and urban landscapes that create artificial barriers to dispersal. Habitat and dietary specialist herbivores are already showing signs of being negatively affected by warming.
In summary, the Betula's of this world are those who desperately cling to the notion that humans will 'muddle through'. It doesn't matter that the evidence is all around us that we are pushing systems towards a point beyond which they will be unable to sustain life in a manner that we know. And the evidnece is large and growing. GSW belittles the 'Planet under Pressure' document without really having a clue what it is about. He then runs off to his hero and mentor, desperate for reassurance that all if well with the world. Much of what the deniers understand comes from appalling anti-environmental sites like BH and WUWT. Not from the primary literature. The studies (or people) who are not liked are routinely ridiculed by people who are afraid to write up rebuttals for science journals, knowing they would be shredded. So they bang the drum and pound their chests on the blogs, while in real life they are a bunch of cowards.
I've been repeatedly called a liar by the lay-deniers on Deltoid and I have learned that one has to have a thick skin to deal with these people. My colleagues are forever telling me that I am wasting my valuable time responding to them. And they are probably correct. But what has kept me here are the voices of reason and not the right-wing nuts who are living out their D-K fantasies.
Some folks here might want to look at [this item](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3997798.html) via the ABC's Drum website.
On the bright side the Inst.-o'-Pub.-Affairs is acknowledging there's a problem I guess.
@ 192. Jeff Harvey | May 8, 2012 3:50 AM :
Thankyou. Your effeorts here are much appreciated - by some of us anyhow.
If we ever get to meet in person I'll be honoured to shout you a beer - or other poison of your choice.
@1. Harald Korneliussen | May 1, 2012 1:48 PM
Well, it certainly ain't a lack of material!
Plenty of possible columns for The Australians War on Science and the whole brief facepalm worthy [Heartland What the .. Unabomber posters really!?](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/05/04/the-heartland…) deal and so much more.
Been wondering that myself.
@ Tim Lambert - Hope you are well and happy. Please sir, can we have some more {/Oliver twist voice.) Any chance you can let us know what's going on here, please?
Betula.
Adelady's already pointed you in the right direction, but let me add to her comments.
1) Local orchardists are already running close to the break-even margin, and having to remove mature trees is a huge financial burden. To say nothing of the more general cultural and biodiversity significance of losing to extinction (often valuable) varieties because there's simply nowhere to grow them successfully.
2) Salmon are much better adapted to aquaculture than are local species. And believe me, I know - I have had the privilege of maintaining some of our local species in capitivity, and they are a completely different kettle to salmonids, which I have also husbanded. One big issue is that indigenous species simply don't grow as rapidly as do salmon and trout, so they offer no profit after housing and feeding - and that's aside from their less forgiving response to captivity.
3) The loss of (the very limited) snow cover in Australia will have profound consequences for a number of species, and indeed for (the Australian version of) alpine ecosystems. You might not give a shit, but those of us who understand think rather differently.
4) Phenological dissociation... well, that's a whole discipline unto itself. If you don't appreciate the significance, you probably aren't competent to operate machinery or to hold sharp implements.
As others have repeatedly pointed out, you're simply a waste of space.
So UEA are now proven liars thanks to FoI disclosures.
Oh dear, what a pity, never mind!
[StevoR](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…).
Chris Berg rooting for adaptation as a response policy is like the fox begging to be put in charge of hen house security.
However, if things have reached to point where the Productivity Commission has concluded that adaptation is actually a front-line strategy, then the fight is already lost.
Which, when all is said and done, I suspect is indeed the fact of the matter...
Where did Duff glean his latest information?... from WUWT, that's where. A weblog that routinely spews lies and disinformation.
Please Duff, leave.
Another nail in the climate change denial coffin just published in J. Geo. Res. Lett.:
http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1208/2012GL051094/
From the abstract: Our results hence show that the observed evolution of Arctic sea-ice extent is consistent with the claim that virtually certainly the impact of an anthropogenic climate change is observable in Arctic sea ice already today.
"Liars", eh? Is this really the best you lot can do? Deniers are hurting at the moment. Their desperation is out there for all to see. First we had Heartland's insipid billboard campaign, and now we have McIntyre flogging a dead horse from nearly three years ago to prove lord knows what.
I suspect the main motivation behind revisiting this ancient scandal in such a sensationalist and hyperbolic tone ("liars", Watts? What has been "lied" about exactly?) is to deflect from the mammoth negative publicity for the deiners that Heartland has happily created.
As Anthony Watts himself said âWhen youâre suffering battle fatigue, sometimes you make mistakes.â
Duff would know all about lying, what with claiming that sea levels aren't rising even though all evidence points to the contrary (90 year old ariel photographs of New Zealand not withstanding!)
At least he's consistent - Duffer having scored a big fat zero with every piece of regurgitated disinforming slime that's dripped off him for months now. And he so wanted all of it to be true, his faux joviality notwithstanding.
re John @200
Another clear sign of 'battle fatigue' is Watts' rapturous 'cosmic jackpot' carry-on re Svensmark's latest paper. Seriously, this is 'skepticism'?
Re Duff's faux joviality masking something altogether more, um, disquieting - I completely agree - remember this?:
"A week ago, the Information Commissioner notified the University of East Anglia that he would be ruling against them on my longstanding FOI request for the list of sites used in the Yamal-Urals regional chronology referred to in a 2006 Climategate email. East Anglia accordingly sent me a list of the 17 sites used in the Yamal-Urals regional chronology (see here). A decision on the chronology itself is pending. In the absence of the chronology itself, Iâve done an RCS calculation, the results of which do not yield a Hockey Stick."
"In todayâs post, Iâll also show that important past statements and evidence to Muir Russell by CRU on the topic have been either untruthful or deceptive."
[...]
"Conclusion:
In their original statement on Yamal, CRU stated:
'We would never select or manipulate data in order to arrive at some preconceived or regionally unrepresentative result.'
Undoubtedly this is how they think of themselves. But their history shows that they have had a strong sense of what their results âshouldâ look like and have, on other occasions, selected and manipulated data so that their results accord with âpreconceivedâ results."
"The âBriffa bodgeâ was a completely arbitrary âadjustmentâ of Tornetrask MXD data so that the answer made âsenseâ. The âBriffa bodgeâ was the predecessor to the âvery artificial adjustmentsâ described in Climategate source code documents."
"Likewise, CRUâs decision to âhide the declineâ by deleting MXD data after 1960 was evidently done so that the MXD temperature reconstruction accorded with preconceived ideas. This was done by CRU themselves and was a different manipulation of data than âMikeâs Nature trick (as described in more length in previous CA posts.)"
http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-…
Now Duff's over at McIntyre's Climate Fraudit. Move around the ant-science sites, don't you Duffer? Methinks you have a sad, boring life. Like McIntyre, if this is his 'science'.
The fact that the denialtwits have to cling to the long debunked climategate crap shows how really desperate they are. Since their credibility is hanging by a thread, don't expect them to let go of whatever they can.
Mitigation is what you choose. Adaptation is what's forced on you.
But Duffer would much rather believe a rank amateur like McIntyre - who we will remember created a tissue of lies and memes (automatic red noise or principal component analysis, anybody?) that were included unexamined in the Wegman Report and later exposed.
McIntyre is of course too vain to admit he's an incompetent and out of his depth and out of his field, even after the McShane and Weiner epic fail showed beyond all doubt that statistical analysis uninformed by a background able to understand the paleobiology was somewhere between worthless and misleading.
Not that it matters to the drooling Duffers of this world, who only want to believe they're victims of a conspiracy. And so the same old crapola goes around and around and around and back again, hoping for a different result each time as the insane are wont to do.
That's it, is it, Duffer?
Pa - thet - ic.
Re: #206 "automatic red noise" should read "automatic red noise hockey stick graphs" - not that Duffer will know the difference.
Duff, can you explain to us in your own words what the actual issue is here? And how does this bring down the case for AGW?
Reading Duff is like getting slimed in Ghostbusters.
Repeatedly...
Over and over...
All the time...
Can he be banned? Pllease can he be banned, please? All he ever really wants to do is annoy people, and why not, he has quite the spectacular gift for it, but this is a science blog, not a repeatedly getting slimed in Ghostbusters blog. I suppose the topic is a siren song for obvious trolls, but surely Duff wore out his welcome long ago...
Bernard...
I'm guessing that Dutch Elm Disease and Chestnut Blight were a result of Climate Change. Of course, the introduction of Hemlock Woolly adelgid and Emerald Ash Borer here in Connecticut is obviously from Climate Change. About 15 years ago we had a year where Woolly Beech Aphid was a major problem because of Climate Change. I haven't seen it much since because of Climate Change, which of course means less Canker due to Climate Change. One year we had a major problem with Army webworms, though in wasn't much of a problem before or since...no doubt it was Climate Change. I'm seeing Coyotes, Wild Turkeys and Bobcats more and more, though they were unheard of around here 40 years ago. Climate Change. We used to catch Weak fish in Long Island Sound, now you never see them, though there appear to be more Bluefish and Bunker...all because of Climate Change. Someone not to long ago hit a Moose on the Merrit Parkway, and more recently someone hit a Mountain Lion that wandered here because of Climate Change. Yet, I can remember as a child 45 years ago, my father said he saw a Mountain Lion in our backyard...only I was too young to realize it was there because of Climate Change. Sawfly on the Mhugo Pines wasn't a problem for the past few years, yet we are finding it everywhere this year. I wonder why? We are trying to control certain invasive species here like Mile-a-Minute Weed, not a problem 10 years ago...it's here now because of Climate Change. We are on the lookout for Asian Longhorned Beetle, we aren't seeing much Midge or Psyllid damage and we are finding a lot of Aphids because of Climate Change. We don't expect to have much of a problem with Anthracnose this year, probably not much Leafspot, Phytophthora, Cedar Apple Rust or Scab due to this years dry spring. Though lately we've had a lot of rain because of Climate Change. Excessive amount of Chickweed this year, very little Snowmold compared to last year and an excessive amount of Red Thread as a result of Climate Change. Irrigation Companies were scrambling to get their systems on, but now with the rain they are scrambling to adjust them because of Climate Change. We are spraying the trunks of White Birch trees with Safari to prevent Bronze Birch Borer, a secondary invader that tends to attack trees that are weakened as a result of Climate Change. The Ticks, active over 40 degrees, have been abundant due to Climate Change, so we will probably hear about more cases of Lyme Disease, Ehrichiosis and Babesiosis due to Climate Change. It's been a dry spring so there seems to be less Mosquitos which means less cases of West Nile Virus because of Climate Change. Now, if you will excuse me, I have to cut this short because I think I see some leafminer damage on the Ilex...
Duff @ #135
Unfortunately you have fallen into the 'we must have a conflict' trap installed by the author of tat piece. After all that is what fits the agenda of the publishers â conflicts in arguments sell copy.
I sense from your use of terms such as 'Archbishop' Dawkins and 'Darwinista Sect' that you have not read either Dawkins or Wilson, let alone others such as WD Hamilton, Robert Trivers, Peter Medawar or even Charles Darwin himself. For if you had you would appreciate that those such as myself come from a position of wide reading and understanding of the facts yielded by much exhausting field work and carefully thought out logic. Religion it is not.
I would suggest that you read the text of Dawkin's 'The Selfish Gene' and not just the title. Do you know what it is really about? Hint it is mostly not about selfishness. I would suggest looking out the 30th Anniversary Edition (2006), my current copy (this must be about my fifth, my children having borrowed previous copies and passed them on to college friends) as this has worthwhile additional material in the form of Endnotes, new Introductions and an updated Bibliography. The indexing is superb not only giving page number in text but, in parenthesis, also Note numbers where applicable.
Chapter 13 'The Long Reach of the Gene' contains an exhortation to read Dawkin's own favourite of his writings 'The Extended Phenotype'. If you know not the meaning of 'phenotype' then it is worth your time. You will also find 'haplodiploidy' which word you should have come across if you had studied the sources you cite with due diligence.
A misguided attack on kin selection
Researchers Challenge E. O. Wilson Over Evolutionary Theory
When it comes to disagreements over particular aspects of evolution then the dispute is rarely of a violent nature, any such is often the result of media stirring by those who either do not understand the field or who are afraid of their own parochial world view being convincingly challenged.
After all this is the same E.O. Wilson of whom Dawkin's writes, 'Not since Darwin has an author so lifted the science of ecology with insight and delightful imagery.
Now Dawkins has produced many examples in his writings of delightful imagery and non so fine as his exposition in the Chapter, 'A Garden Inclosed' in his superb, easily readable 'Climbing Mount Improbable', which is a sort of a many who-done-it on figs and wasps with many twists to keep you amazed. Dawkins also explodes many shibboleths in his other excellent easy reader 'Unweaving the Rainbow'. Those who cannot grasp from where Dawkins is coming should read this as well as the collection of essays, by Dawkins and others, that is 'A Devil's Chaplain'.
Those who dare to describe Dawkins as 'strident' have not appreciated the fierce verbal attacks that he was subjected to following the publishing of his first book. Many, clergymen and their cheer-leaders mostly, simply misunderstood the meaning of his carefully crafted arguments. Dawkins takes great care to be precise but fortunately not at the expense of clarity and readability. His later editions of his first book carried note on the rational behind his arguments at first, in later editions and also what prompted him to make the few changes he felt necessary. His focusing of late on religion has been largely brought on by the religious themselves â they poked a quiet unassuming scholar and were surprised at the result, hence the more venomous attacks that have issued since.
The bottom line is that this disagreement as to the relative importance of 'group selection' and 'kin selection' does not undermine the basic truths of Darwinian Evolution.
Lionel,
First of all thank you for the courtesy of your response which stands in direct contrast to other offerings here.
As far as Dawkins is concerned, yes I have read him and a copy of 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blindwatchmaker' are on a bookshelf to my left as I write. He is indeed a very pursuasive writer and I confess to the fact that I swallowed him whole at the time - although then I was slightly younger and trying to learn. Oddly enough, it was Dawkins's own, to use your excellent word, 'stridency' that first set off alarums in my head. As the regular commenters here will know, I always smell a rat if someone "doth protest too much"!
Anyway, his attitude drove me to read his critics and two of them in particular blew away much of his argument. The first was the philosopher, the late David Stove, in his 1995 book "Darwinin Fairytales", and the second was Richard J. Bird and his book "Chaos and Life" which seems to me to offer a very much more convincing explanation for evolution than the Darwin/Dawkins one of zillions of tiny differences gradually changing forms over time. (Bird in bis book references two Israeli mathematicians who worked out that there wasn't enough time in the whole existence of the universe for an eye to develop by tiny increments.
I should add also, that the other thing that set my worm of doubt in motion was the fact that there was so many huge divides amongst the 'Darwinistas' themselves. Does evolution proceed at the level of the species, or the individuals, or, as Dawkins maintains, at the level of the gene? The ferocious arguments between 'experts' that have erupted over that little teaser make this site look rather sedate!
Then there is the thorny question of altruism. If Darwin's theory is correct then there can be no exceptions to his rule that the fight for survival can allow of no altruism. If it does arise by genetic accident then it will be quickly snuffed out. But in humans it survives. As do some other rather awkward characteristics in human beings, like homosexuality and voluntary chastity.
It's fascinating stuff and makes for good conversation but, alas, even as I write I can sense the knuckles scraping along the floor as the mouth-foamers approach! Before they arrive please let me just say in a spirit of good humour that 'there are more things in Heaven and earth, Lionel, than are dreamt of in your philosophy'. And mine, too, come to that!
I realised after posting that the following wasn't clear as to who was in receipt of venomous attacks, text in bold clarifies.
As for the level at which evolution proceeds - one has to think carefully about the processes involved and how they are separated.
There has been plenty of time for eyes to evolve, they have repeatedly. Indeed some eyes, such as those in Cephalopoda are of a better design in a crucial respect that those in humans, do you know what that is?
Then the eyes of many arthropods are different again and different between different arthropod species at that.
Some creatures have patches that are sensitive to heat, and what is heat - a manifestation of a wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum outside of those of visible light.
I recommend Richard Feynman 'Lectures on Physics' too.
How long have eyes had to evolve do you think?
Are you trying to make room for some creator here? Seems like it.
Whilst child-boy Jonas continues muttering insanely on his own thread without addressing the results of a single study that have been linked, aside from snide dismissal (thank heaven he is stuck there), more empirical studies on the effects of AGW on species interactions and phenology. Note (1) that these studies represent the metaphorical tip of the iceberg, and (2) that the human fingerprint on the warming is taken as 'given'.
Lastly, Jonas wonders why I don't stick around on his sad little thread. The reason is because IMHO he is an arrogant little pr*** who tries to give the impression that he has wisdom in all areas of science whilst patronizing those who disagree with him. I tried the polite route and in return all I got was his usual psychobabble, condescension and blank-cheque support for the other idiots on the thread. He has yet to address a single scientific article that has been shoved in front of him - instead, we get vague dismissals as if he somehow is some sort of intellectual guru who is an overseer of what constitutes good and bad science. He attempts to defend Bishop's Hill, WUWT and Climate Audit as being 'science blogs' but somehow fails to explain why these clearly agenda-driven blogs don't publish much in the scientific literature and how, like creationists, they are consigned to feeble attempts at tearing down the studies they don't like. And their singular obsession with Climate-gate borders on the psychopathic. These people are so desperate for grist that they try and take molehills and make mountains out of them. I am well and truly finished with Jonas and his arrogant stupidity. Its enough to deal with the pseudos on this thread, let alone a sanctimonious Swede.
Anyway, here are some excellent recent studies. Note that some are reviews, so that the list is far from being remotely complete.
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/21/12219.full.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5929/887.summary
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16321776
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6794/abs/406366a0.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192301002337
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n7002/abs/nature02808.html
http://www.discoverlife.org/pa/or/polistes/pr/2010nsf_macro/references/…
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01193.x/abs…
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305…
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01059.x/full
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html
In response to Betula's latest musings, his approach is akin to saying that, since all environmental problems are not related to climate change, then climate change is not a problem. Yes, this is indeed his logic. Go figure.
Lionel, it's probably easier of I just quote from Bird's book:
"Mutation rates would have to be directed in some way in order to produce creatures like those presently observed. On the face of it, there are far too many possibilities that might arise in unpatterned mutation. Ulam(*) has calculated that, if achieving a significant advantage, such as the human visual system, require 10^6 changes, then it will take 10^13 generations to become established. If there is one generation per day this means several billion years. Other attempts to calculate the rate at which changes need to occur for mutations by themselves to become effective have also yielded enormously long times."
(*)S.W.Ulam "How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution" in P.S.Moorhead & M.M.Kaplan, eds, "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Philadelphia: Wistar Press 1967).
To cut to the chase, Bird is suggesting that constant generation by living creatures is simply another version of a mathematical iterated algorithm in which the 'result' is constantly fed back into the algorithm which leads to sudden large and unpredictable results - the very stuff of chaos theory. This seems to me to be much more convincing than itty-bitty changes many of which will actually be unadvantageous!
He also raises the odd fact that evolution seems to be driving overwhelmingly in the direction of greater complexity rather than simplicity which is hardly an aid to success in the fight for survival.
And no, I am not a theist, I am an agnostic.
Duffer the puffer proclaimed:
There I corrected it for you.
Duffer quotes a 1967 paper by mathematicians on the evolutionary rates of organisms. What a joke. Molecular biology was at a very rudimentary state back then. There were no genetic sequences available to measure changes. At that time evolutionary timelines were defined by changes in amino acid content of well documented proteins such as cytochrome c. By quantifying the number of changes it was possible to correlate changes in this protein with timelines as to when the organisms diverged.
Quoting 10E6 changes equals 10E13 generations is just gibberish.
This is a prime example of why scientists should not venture into other areas outside there area of expertise without doing rigorous background research i.e. if you want to do molecular biology then study molecular biology not mathematics.
So what? You're an ignorant imbecile and Dufus.
Natural selection selects the advantageous ones and leaves the unadvantgeous ones by the wayside, Dufus. Most mutations are fitness neutral, but provide fitness opportunities when the environment changes ... diversity -> robustness.
It is tautological that more complexity arises later in evolutionary history rather than earlier, Dufus. And as the parasites become more complex, so do the host organisms, Dufus. Meanwhile, simple organisms abound, in far larger numbers than more complex ones, Dufus.
You believe a lot of false things, some obviously so and some less obviously so, because you are stupid, intellectually dishonest, and so arrogant that you imagine that your cherry picking what seems convincing to you is in any way comparable to a body of established fact-based science.
Yes, we know what a moron you are that you use this stupid ad hominem argument. There are thousands upon thousands of evolutionary scientists who are not in the least bit "strident". But your imbecilic approach is to ignore all them and the massive amount of work they have done gathering and cataloguing evidence and testing hypotheses against that evidence, and instead to ride on your emotional response to Dawkins and thus to seek out those who oppose him without having the knowledge to evaluate their arguments, judge those arguments based on how appealing they are to you, ignoring the numerous rebuttals and contraindicative evidence, and then commit yourself to the contrary view. This is what you call changing your mind. But it doesn't matter what's in your mind because its all based on a process that is not at all effective in finding the truth.
Say what?
As Stephen Jay Gould constantly pointed out - arguing, possibly ironically in current circumstances, against the whole notion of 'higher' organisms - in how many other directions could evolution possibly be expected to go?
Well, at least we know your ignorance is as profoundly consistent across the sciences...
>Bernard... I'm guessing that Dutch Elm Disease and Chestnut Blight were a result of Climate Change. Of course, the introduction of Hemlock Woolly adelgid and Emerald Ash Borer here in Connecticut is obviously from Climate Change. About 15 years ago we had a year where Woolly Beech Aphid was a major problem because of Climate Change. I haven't seen it much since because of Climate Change, which of course means less Canker due to Climate Change. One year we had a major problem with Army webworms, though in wasn't much of a problem before or since...no doubt it was Climate Change. I'm seeing Coyotes, Wild Turkeys and Bobcats more and more, though they were unheard of around here 40 years ago. Climate Change....
...[Snip. Hack, chop.]...
Way to go Betula. You not only engaged in the formal logical fallacy of affirming the consequent once, or twice, or even three times, but on multiple times to the point of not being worth counting.
How does it feel to be a prize tit who can't even establish logically-correct attribution for his so-called examples? I note too that it is almost exactly 24 hours since you [previously responded to me on the subject](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…) - so how does it feel to be a slow prize tit who can't even establish logically-correct attribution for his so-called examples?
Look it up - the formal logical fallacy of affirming the consequent - and perhaps you might learn how to, well, learn, rather than to simply reinforce your own ideologies with specious illogicality.
Oh, and that button that says 'enter'... don't be scared of it - it won't bite.
[David Duff](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…).
You should take that incredible mind of yours over to Pharyngula and share your wisdom with the denizens there.
In fact, if you're too shy to wander there under your own steam, I think that we should quote you holus-bolus on a Pharyngulan thread - just so that your insights are not lost to those to whom they would matter.
[Truly](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CtZX9gmZ8), you are the most profound and original paradigm shifter of the modern age.
Bernard,
I think I've got it...
A genius might arbitrarily pick a response time and assign significance to it.
Bernard arbitrarily picked a response time and assigned significance to it.
Bernard must be a genius.
Now, who's the genius who said there was an "enter" button?
Jeff @215...
"In response to Betula's latest musings, his approach is akin to saying that, since all environmental problems are not related to climate change, then climate change is not a problem"
No Jeff, think again.
Since alarmists believe all environmental problems are related to climate change, climate change alarmists have problems.
From the [comments in the 'We can't stop climate Change -time to adapt post onthe Drum](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3997798.html) comes this gem.
(PS. I didn't write this but wish I had.)
Seems about right!
Just thought I'd share this with y'all, hope that's okay.
Zibethicus is FTW far more often than most.
Words cannot express my contempt for the IPA, Australia's own HI, as far as I'm concerned.
Zibethicus, on the other hand nails it.
I thought there was a much wittier comment further down:
>One item that writers utterly refuse to distinguish is that there is climate change which is created by our Creator, not mere puny mans' overall doing. It is arrogant and ignorant to even imagine that the dramatic climate change that is coming can be pinned or blamed on mankind. Global emissions is just a small selection compared to all of the relative laws in the universe known to man and you are most correct to state it is a pipe dream of seriously mitigating climate change. The sceptics are correct in the sense that climate change is happening but not from man. It is from our Creator and the laws, rules, rhythms, rules and principles both known and unknown. There has been unmistakeable clap-trap and pseudo-science created by the corporate press and media to collude with those that are 'installing' a $trillion dollar annual system of taxing its citizens without democratic representation.
>The pagan Gaia myth of 'Mother Earth' is trying to replace or counterfeit the real true worship of our Creator. There has been recently many articles worldwide entitled 'God's Judgements or Climate Change' comparing God's faithfulness is greater than humanity's greed and destruction that seems to continued unabated. Our human failure to govern ourselves peacefully and respectfully is waning quickly and people are searching for the divine promises instead of fear, destruction and excessive taxation.
>When dinosaurs were alive the world was very hot, but humans adapted by living in cool caves. If we could do it then, we can do it again. The parts of the world that are frozen now will become very fertile, so the outlook is not so desperate as it seems.
Goodness!
Where's Tim L these days?
John - tell me that's a Poe!
Reminds me of the H Simpson Halloween-Special time-travel classic -
I wonder if 'user-illusion' appreciates, or even spots, the irony in this sentence of his:
"Yes, we know what a moron you are that you use this stupid ad hominem argument."
Probably not.
"or even spots, the irony in this sentence of his:
"Yes, we know what a moron you are that you use this stupid ad hominem argument.""
Except that isn't an ad hominem argument.
Like always, you manage to big-up the fail, Duffski.
Wow, I suspect you probably just burst Duffer's brain. He's going to be woefully confused about which one isn't the ad hominem now, particularly as, like most of his tribe, he has no idea what it means in the first place.
I'm sure userillusion (ianianam?) will be along to forthrightly point that out shortly.
So, Davie Boy, do you concede that your argument about the direction of evolution is so ludicrously wrong that even you should have been able to figure out the problem with it?
If not, please do consider taking it up over at Pharyngula. And sing out if you do so - I'm sure some of us will want to watch...
> I'm sure some of us will want to watch...
I would pay good money for a ticket...
[Betula](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…).
I simply pointed out that it took you another day, after your replied the first time, to come up with a completely logically-fallacious second attempt.
It seems that having these truths pointed out to you rankles with you rather a lot...
Ouchie, eh?
Dufus, not just a climate science denialist, an evolution denialist as well. Who'd a thunk?
Grizzly bears (and other non-locals) are [moving into the Arctic](http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Hybrid+bears+offer+glimpse+wa…) - and hybrids from the newcomers mating with the locals are showing up.
Thanks Lotharsson. More proof of the human experiment on climate. Again, nature does not lie; *it responds*. Its warming and doing so rapidly. Changes are afoot; many will have serious repercussions on nature. These passages were particularly alarming:
*Up until about 20 years ago, sightings of grizzlies in the High Arctic were extremely rare; a quirk of nature, many biologists thought, that may have occurred because the bear walked the wrong way or strayed too far following mainland caribou that sometimes cross the sea ice to Arctic islands. No one imagined that hybrids such as the one Derocher saw would be part of the land or seascape*.
*But that thinking began to change in recent years as more brown bears and a succession of other animals such as red fox, coyotes, white-tailed deer, Pacific salmon and killer whales began showing up in areas traditionally occupied by Arctic fox, Arctic wolves, caribou, Arctic char and beluga whales. Some of these animals, we now know, are also producing hybrids*
@Chris O'Neill
Just as a point of interest, well, actually I'm not that interested, but what, in my two immediate comments, gives you the slightest idea that I do not accept evolution? All that I have indicated is that the debate between evolutionists as to the mechanism of evolution continues to this day - as it has done since Darwin first put forward his theory. Equally, the apparent exceptionalism of Mankind which irritatingly defies the strictures of evolution continues just as Darwin himself feared because he was intelligent enough to spot the weakness in his own theory. But you, of course, know better!
Yes Bernard, I'm rankled because I have a life, which includes family and work. Ouchie!
It seems my comment @211 really got to you, to the point where you are now hunched in front of your computer screen imagining your own assumptions. Crazy how the mind works isn't it?
Anyway, it's raining here on the East Coast today, so I only have one crew out injecting Boxwoods and Hollies with Imacloprid to help prevent potential future outbreaks of Leafminer and Scale as a possible result from Climate Change. This allows me the few precious moments to share with you how proactive I am in terms of Climate Change.
As you know, the timing is a little late, but that's because we were busy with fungicide applications that we had to start early due to the early budbreak resulting from climate change.
Jeff @240..
Pretty "alarming" passages you've got there...
"No one imagined that hybrids such as the one Derocher saw would be part of the land or seascape."
"Some of these animals, we now know, are also producing hybrids"
Yes,it is truly "alarming" that there may be Polar Bear/Grizzly Bear hybrids!
What is even more "alarming" is all the information Jeff intentionally ignores...once again.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/arctic-bears/how-grizzlies-evol…
Bernard.
Hey, did you see the passages Jeff listed as "particularly alarming" @240?
"I'm seeing Coyotes, Wild Turkeys and Bobcats more and more, though they were unheard of around here 40 years ago. Climate Change."
Oh wait, sorry about that, that was actually my "logically-fallacious" attempt @211.
Here's some of the alarming passage from Jeff's comment:
"Up until about 20 years ago, sightings of grizzlies in the High Arctic were extremely rare; a quirk of nature, many biologists thought"
"But that thinking began to change in recent years as more brown bears and a succession of other animals such as red fox, coyotes, white-tailed deer, Pacific salmon and killer whales began showing up in areas traditionally occupied by Arctic fox, Arctic wolves, caribou, Arctic char and beluga whales"
Climate Change.
[Betula](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…):
>It seems my comment @211 really got to you, to the point where you are now hunched in front of your computer screen imagining your own assumptions. Crazy how the mind works isn't it?
Eh, you're still projecting your own inadequacies onto me?
I too have a life, a family, and much work, but it took me all of a couple of seconds to see that you employed a logical fallacy with which to respond to my own fairly straightforward attribution to climate change. I pointed out as much, and you try to make out that I was the one who went off the rails?
Perhaps you should take care with that [occupational Imacloprid exposure](http://www.pesticide.org/get-the-facts/pesticide-factsheets/factsheets/…). It can make the mind work in crazy ways...
Bernard:
Berfore I begin, let me first apologize for not responding to your comment @245 in the allotted time required. I know I've been keeping you waiting by the computer, but I had to go make an application of Aluminum Sulphate and Iron to some chlorotic Pachysandra. Appears to be a high PH problem due to climate change...you know, leaf color.
Anyhow, you posted this comment:
"Perhaps you should take care with that occupational Imacloprid exposure. It can make the mind work in crazy ways..."
You may be surprised, but I think I have to actually agree with you. Afterall, I keep responding to you don't I?
So I was hoping you would get on the bandwagon with me to fight the greedy republican backed corporations and evil Bush administration officials who must have allowed this product onto the market in the first place...
What? It was the EPA under Clinton/Gore?
Well then, I guess you were wrong. Used by someone not like you, Imacloprid is perfectly safe.
Apart from Heartless' recent disastrous PR effort, does anybody have an idea of what's behind the latest apparently concerted effort which has McIntyre, Watts and Montford issuing torches and pitchforks to their orcs in the latest episode of their neverending quest to kill the magick symbol that is The Hockeystick?
If not, it's not important and as I've never provided links to a denier site, I'm not starting now. But I'm slightly curious as to what's going on.
I'd thought they might conserve their co-ordinated forces of denial for the day West Antarctica slid into the sea, but satellite pics show it's still there...
More from josh on the [Inquiries](http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/9/give-us-a-clouseau-josh-166.ht…).
Chek, me dear old thing, allow me to help you out:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/9/the-yamal-deception.html
Chek is such a shy boy but honestly he's quite capable of showing a link which proves beyond doubt that Briffa's confirmation of Mann's 'hockey stick' was a load of old hockey balls.
So come on you science swots, get to it and prove that Nriffa's infamous Yamal paper was the scientific equivalent of one of the bits of old second-hand shrapnel I used to sell to the unwary!
@David Duff
Doesn't make for pretty reading is it? -the Yamal stuff. Paints CRU in quite a bad light, as if couldn't be any worse. Doing a good job David and, to use a military term, KBO.
;)
While there is much that is unknown Duffer, what we do know is that McIntyre, Watts, Id and Montford are not and never have been capable of decent science, and are totally incapable of being decent human beings - hence their appeal to you and your fellow orcs.
Thanks for the attempt, but I'll hang on until someone with a triple figure IQ contributes.
Another report came out yesterday, detailing some of the impacts of climate change on [fish stocks](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.2248/full) around Britain.
Not that Betula will read it.
Which is precisely what is to be expected from partial, edited private conversations made public by those with an agenda, Griselda.
Which is precisely what is to be expected from partial, edited private conversations made public by those with an agenda specially manufactured for morons who accept these things at face value - rather like you Griselda.
Attacking the scientists when you can't refute the science is what vested interests do. Just ask your Lomborg-lover Jonarse about that - it's his entire carefully minuted and threaded agenda, when he's not busy creating 'impressions' for dipsticks like you.
@chek
Thanks for the response chek, your distorted world view, as usual, consigned to the 'pointless abuse' folder. Jonas asked you for a link to something you considered to be a 'contribution of substance' any luck yet? It's not as if you don't have thousands of your posts to choose from.
;)
Exposing Jonarse's stupid, ego-driven, empty posturing is good enough for me, Griselda. Anything more is redundant.
@chek
Weak response chek, very very weak. Had any leg "action" lately?
;)
@chek
Apologies chek, it's the little yappy dog imagery that Olaus gave you. You can see it everytime you post something.
;)
*your distorted world view*
So says one of our resident idiots, GSW.
Ha! That's a laugh, coming from you. Go back to the thread with the self-righteous 'genius' that you worship. Like you, it seems like his global scientific output is restricted to endless rants on his eponymous asylum thread on Deltoid; the guy is a bloody coward and has no intention of throwing his so-called 'wisdom' re: climate change into the scientific arena where it would be chewed up and spat out in a flash. You clowns can ridicule me all you like, but I have a thousand times more respect in the scientific community than the bunch of you idiots put together. In fact, none of you are even close to me in terms of qualifications, publications, conference invites, university seminars etc. That would not be hard! My guess is the grand total for all of you clods is a big NIL. Therein lies the rub, eh? I've also demolished your wafer-thin arguments re: biodiversity so many times, and in the end you have to run back to the sanctimonious Swede(s) for succor. You have the audacity to ridicule the Planet Under Pressure Report without having a clue what it is about.
Chek, Stu, Ianam, Bernard and others here must be as sick of you and your vast sea of stupidity as I am. And then we have Betula, equally vacuous, who comes up with this gem: Polar Bears evolved from Grizzly Bears - so heck, an increase in hybridization is nothing to worry about? What an fool you are Betula. The diversion, according to the article occurred at least 70,000 years ago, and was probably a transition that took many thousands of years more. You actually appear to think that species 'a' can evolve from species 'b' in a century or two. Are ya' kiddin' me, dopey? I gotta admit that you, like the equally gormless GSW, seems to think you can stand in the ring with me in the field of evolutionary biology. I have to give you both the 'Brainless Balls Award' for that one. So now here you are, claiming that there is nothing at all unusual about Grizzly Bears expanding their range into the dwindling habitat of the Polar Bear, because the two will produce offspring that - let me guess - you think will have higher per capita fitness than pure members of either species? Come again? Do you anything remotely about the fitness of hybrid zones? And how long speciation takes in K-selected endotherms at the end of the food chain? How daft are you? As daft as Jonarse? That is pretty daft, I will admit, but really?
If the article is anywhere close to accurate (you'd better hope it ain't, dumb-boy) than we are seeing the beginning of genetic dilution of Polar Bears and the nail through the hear to of the species. Unlike the views of one Bjorn Lomborg, who actually said that the loss of Arctic Ice would mean that Polar Bears would just have to evolve like their Grizzly cousins - yes, the comic Danish statistician apparently said this, one which had me on the floor - the truth is that there is no way in hell's chance that Polar Bears will evolve within the space of 100 years to adapt to (1) a different habitat, (2) a different diet, and (3) different behavior necessary for radiation to (1) and (2). Hybrid zones are a disaster for a species - just look at what hybridization by the North American Ruddy Duck is doing to the genetics of the European White-Headed Duck, or the Blue-Winged Warbler is doing similarly to the Golden-Winged Warbler in eastern North America. Hybridization with Grizzly Bears is devastating news for Polar Bears. I can't even believe that you, Betula, sunk into the primordial ooze to come up with anything arguing that this is not so bad. Unbelievable.
Its been enough of an embarrassment having to deal with the kindergarten level antics of Jonarse, GSW and their acolytes, as they squirm in their own pit of ignorance whilst trying to give the impression that they hold the intellectual high-ground. Politically and scientifically their views are gumbified tripe. Then you come up with this nonsense. Like it or not, you guys don't stand in the same room with me on evolutionary and population ecology. Aside from trying the belittle these complex fields with childish taunts and put-downs, you guys really just do not have a clue.
Intersting abstract Old Bones @ [#252](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…) in that one of our MLA's (a kind of regional parliament) has been campaigning to allow local politicos to decide catch-quotas.
Whilst obviously an exercise in kite-flying for the benefit of a coastal constituency, it graphically illustrates the prevalent head-in-the-sand attitude we see globally from those convinced we can always eat money.
No, dufus always knows better than the climate scientists.
Not going to challenge the Darwinistas and nasty strident old Archbishop Dawkins over at PZ Myers' place then, Duffer?
Pity, after being subjected to the dreary monotony of your peri-senile ramblings here that might have provided some small consolation in the form of a little genuine entertainment!
In a Roman Circus sort of way.
Also, here's a challenge for you, 'skeptics' [*cough*]. I am increasingly finding that you simply cannot provide evidence that hails from anywhere outside of your own ideological bubble. Epistemic Closure appears to be nearing completion.
Can any of you give an instance of anything that you're currently squawking about that doesn't hail from The Weatherman's, the Sticky Bishop's, Jo Nova, Fox, the usual gaggle of superannuated Petroleum Engineers, or the dreary bully-boy shock-columnists of prole-feed rags like the Daily Mail or the Telegraph?
Any reports at all by observers who aren't already card-carrying members of your noisy little mafia?
Any science, perhaps? Any published papers to show us?
No?
What a fascinating study of the perils of ideological inbreeding you all represent.
Though I'm almost tempted to commend the sheer scale of your seemingly endless re-use and recycling of the same old rubbish.
The irony I spot is your employing yet another dishonest fallacy, this time tu quoque, to again avoid addressing or acknowledging substantive points. tu quoque is the most dishonest of fallacies and is inherently ironic, as it is an attempt to defend oneself against a charge of X by accusing the other person of X -- implicitly admitting that X is wrong -- while never denying or even addressing the charge (which is why tu quoque is a fallacy of irrelevance). In most cases of tu quoque, as in this one, the original charge is valid and the turnabout charge is not. If you want to effectively detect rats, look not for "stridency" but for repeated use of fallacies and other forms of dishonesty and illogic.
Ahem. Descent Of Man by Charles Darwin, as well as that Amazon review of Stove's book that I cited that refutes the claim.
Aside from all your lies and misrepresentations, 150 years of intervening science makes us better informed than was Darwin. Ah, but you and David Stove know better ... except that even Stove accepted natural selection.
*the apparent exceptionalism of Mankind*
Yeh, sure. Our species is so exceptional that it destroys its own ecological life-support systems, exhibits tribal tendencies and kills its own species on this basis. Our arrogant anthropocentric tendencies are likely to be our undoing as a species - one that was so arrogantly caught up in its own evolved intelligence that it failed to see that its inability to live sustainably within constraints imposed by nature drove it towards extinction with a whimper instead of a bang. As I have said, humans exist and persist because natural systems permit it. Those pushing this exceptionalism nonsense appear to believe that our species is largely exempt from natural laws: that we can foul the nest indefinitely and not reap the costs of doing so. Pure folly.
"none of you are even close to me in terms of qualifications, publications, conference invites, university seminars etc."
Consider my cap well and truly doffed, Jeff, Oh Great One as I try to type this whilst kneeling!
("Conference invites" - gotta love that man!)
"our arrogant anthropocentric tendencies..." Yeah Jeff, but there are none so arrogant as those who entertain the idea that man can affect the global climate.
[http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…).
Anthropocentrism and human impact on the environment are two separate concepts. That you confabulate the two is simply another example of the logical fallacies that you and your cronies are so inclined to use as your first defense.
I'll leave it to you to figure out which fallacy this one is.
[Tim really needs a few exterminators. Perhaps some mod help is in order...]
Schmidt responds to the latest outrage:
>This is more of the usual obfuscation - they are confusing the raw data (available online for years), with as yet unpublished analyses of that data, which McIntyre feels he is entitled to for unclear reasons. They are conflating work by mann and colleagues (which didn't include Yamal) with work from briffa's group that did. We'll have more to say on this soon. - gavin
So the latest outrage turns into another fizzer because McIntyre has no idea what he is doing. *Quelle surprise*! Seriously, can you guys get anything right?
Of course, perhaps Anthony Watts is correct. He is an expert on telling lies, such as this cracker about the BEST project:
>Iâm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.
Oh my sides!
Almost as good as David Duff claiming that a ninety year old photograph of New Zealand is proof there has been no global sea level rise!
Bernerd, It's called Man Made Global Warming, I'd be thinking that's pretty anthropocentric wouldn't you. What's the matter Bernerd, you sweating and calling out for the moderator?
Did folks see there was yet another anti-climatologists op-ed. in the Australian the other day? Weds. 9th May or Tues. 8th maybe (read in the library, jotted down author / title missed date) page 12, "Science hijacked atschool levl" by Michael Asten. the gist of which was arguing that high schoolkids should argue with teachers and be told the Climate Contrarains fallacious talking points in classrooms across Oz.
Tim Lambert, if you're out there, I miss those Australians War on Science columns debunking such rot here..
@269. Mack | May 10, 2012 6:20 AM :
The Contrarians sure love to play semantic games instread of focussing on the actual science don't they?
Anthropogenic vs anthropocentric - there is a difference between a point of view that has Humans at the centre of everything or gives nature human-like characteristics versus something happening as a result of human activity.
Please Mack can you explain why you think changing the level of a known Greenhouse gas from 280 ppm to 395 ppm will somehow have no effect despite basic physics and the observed evidence all suggesting otherwise?
Duffer expresses the angry, unfulfilled little man's resentment and fear of the intellectually gifted. Your ignorance is as good as any posh bugger's fancy book-learnin' any day; right, Davie? ;-)
And aren't you some toy-soldier military fantasstrategist? Good God man, where are your cojones? Since, with your self-described pedigree of unloading lemons on the unwary, you're clearly in a strong position to judge the validity of all aspects of evolutionary theory, why aren't you over at Pharyngula right now storming the Darwinist citadel, setting that strident Archbishop Dawkins to unmanly flight?
Immortality awaits you!
(That particular engagement spawned one of my all-time favourite blog comments.)
*Yeah Jeff, but there are none so arrogant as those who entertain the idea that man can affect the global climate*
Are you serious? Humans have affected the regulation of other processes occurring over huge scales of space and time - biogeochemical, hydrological etc - and you somehow don't believe that our species can influence climate? Time for you to go back to school, Mack
Duffer: I've been called everything on Deltoid by a merry band of idiots who have no scientific qualifications in any relevant fields, and one in particular, a sanctimonious Swede, has said a number of times how much he knows more than anybody else. And then Betula writes some frankly peurile b* about Polar Bear and Grizzly Bear co-phylogeny, appearing to argue that hybrid zones involving these two species are nothing at all to worry about, or else that the shrinking habitat of the former species means they will have to adapt to a terrestrial lifestype in less than a century. GSW once wrote off the top of his head that Polar Bears, frogs and coral reefs are doing fine, which is patently false and frankly misleading. He then tries to atone for this egregious error by claiming that he meant in response to climate change, and then argued that the global declines in amphibian populations were solely due to pathogens, without even having a basic understanding of the concept of indirect and direct causation, and of the link between environmentally sub-optimal conditions (e.g. due to increased abiotic stressors like temperature or moisture) and the sudden shift of sub-lethal effects into lethal effects. You've chipped in with primary school level stuff about human evolution, whilst appearing to suggest that intelligent design or more direct creation may account for our existance. Forget that the late Stephen J. Gould once called humans a 'wildly improbably evolutionary event', which is essentially correct; if you go back through our evolutionary history to ther Burgess Shale you'll find that nature experimented a lot in the Cambrian, with up to 100 organismal body plans that eventually was whittled down to 30 or so through natural selection. Our ancestors, like Picaia gracilens, a primitive chordate, up to Pugartorius, a primitive Tertiary primate, survived as much out of good luck as from good genes. When various changes occurred across the planet duing various transitions, our ancestors probably existed in areas that were most sheltered from volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, and the like, enabling us to get through the various diversity-related bottlenecks that occurred coinciding with the five previous mass extinction events. We are now into the sixth and know the culprit: we are. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Homo sapiens as being a uniqely gifted species, eh? The first mass extinction generated by one of the planet's evolved inhabitants. Now that's something to put on the CV of humanity.
>Bernerd, It's called Man Made Global Warming, I'd be thinking that's pretty anthropocentric wouldn't you.
No. As StevoR pointed out, it's anthropogenic, not anthropocentric. Different beasties entirely. At least, anyone who is literate would know that.
And the bottom line is that the laws of physics don't give a flying fuck how the 'greenhouse' gas concentration came to increase so rapidly. The fact is that GHG concentration is increasing, and that increase warms the planet.
Or are you now retreating to the twin denialist arguments of "CO2 is not increasing", and "if CO2 is increasing, it's natural"? If so, please provide defensible evidence.
>What's the matter Bernerd, you sweating and calling out for the moderator?
Ha! Don't flatter yourself Foulspot. I'm just annoyed at the number of your intellectual cockroach buddies that are crawling around crapping on the science.
Now, back to the fact that you don't know your head from your arse...
StevoR..Anthropogenic vs anthropocentric, point taken,but you would most likely be anthropocentric to say there is anthropogenic global warming. Semantics again eh. But still the arrogance is there. @ Jeff ,Time for you to leave school and think for yourself.
First of all, you need to have a brain of sufficient horsepower to 'think for yourself'.
Unfortunately, dribbling recognised AGW-denier and creationist memes indicates a severe lack of the necessary capacity and ability.
But you'll probably be able to nurture your delusion for longer by sticking with your herd.
@ Bill
"angry"! Moi? When have I ever appeared angry on this site?
"And aren't you some toy-soldier military fantasstrategist?"
Have a care, sir, I rose to the rank of Corporal, substantive mind, even if it did take me nine years!
@ Jeff
I feel your pain, honestly I do, but I am quite certain that Betula and GSW having read your enormously long list of, er, credits are thoroughly ashamed of themselves - I mean, how many "conference invites" do they receive?!
However, and despite the love I bear for you, it simply isn't on to suggest that *I* am suggesting intelligent design or some supranatural creationist theory. We have what we have, a marvelously beautiful and yet cruel and indifferent universe but who or what kicked it off, I have no idea and as nobody else does either (including all you scientific swots) then I don't bother my head with it.
So that just leaves the existing mechanism by which both the inanimate and then the animate world developed. I do not share the Dawkins et al theory of tiny incremental changes leading to huge variety. I, like several distinguished (I gather) biologists, go with the 'sudden jump' theory, and I think that Richard Bird's theory that constant regeneration is the equivalent of an iterated logarithm in which the result (offspring) are fed back into the algorithm in the next reproduction cycle. As in chaos theory, this proceeds steadily along until, suddenly, the graph shoots off the page. To me, this is a more convincing explanation than any others I have read.
As for Mankind, there can be no arguing with the self-evident fact that we behave differently from other animals, and in doing so we transgress Darwin's theory. Altruism, homosexuality, voluntary chastity and, increasingly in these days of relative affluence, the voluntary choice to have fewer children or, indeed, none at all. All of those characteristics are totally foreign to the animal kingdom from which we are supposed to have evolved. Darwinists need to explain these matters - and do it a lot better than most of the convoluted thinking I have seen elsewhere in which they succeed where that MI6 chap failed by locking themselves into a tiny suitcase from which there is no escape!
@ John
It says more about you than anything you have written that you so obviously despise these words from Anthony Watts:
"Iâm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."
They sum up, of course, the very highest principle of good science which is, sadly, so very, very rare in 'warmer' circles.
>They sum up, of course, the very highest principle of good science
I don't disagree with you Duff.
Of course, you don't realise that when the BEST results came in Watts went back on his claim, obviously showing a complete disregard for "the highest principle(s) of good science", but that's neither here nor there. I don't expect you to *know* things. That you are wrong yet again is simply par for the course around here.
Much like your claims that sea levels haven't risen based on a ninety year old ariel photograph of New Zealand. Don't worry, I don't expect you to admit you made a mistake as you have never one showed one iota of "the very highest principle of good science". *You* are the liar Duff.
Duffer,
You are getting into the nurture versus nature aspect.... that is a discussion all unto itself. Selfish genetic elements still largely influence human behavior IMHO. And as far as incremental steps are concerned in the evolution of life, certainly Gould promoted the idea of sudden shifts and not gradual changes. But none of this presupposes that 4 billion years is not suffienct time to evolve the complexity of life and various traits we see in nature today. Humans are only exceptional in terms of the evolution of intelligence. And yet it is this very trait and its attemdant anthropocentrism that may be our undoing. As far as Betula and GSW are concerned, much like your views on climate and ecology, I find the level of simplicity in their arguments to be staggering. Or perhasps not.
Mackspot: your inability to understand basic environmental science is noted. But this is a usual denier meme.
> ...but you would most likely be anthropocentric to say there is anthropogenic global warming.
Er, no.
Go ponder until you can figure out why.
> ...there can be no arguing with the self-evident fact that we behave differently from other animals, and in doing so we transgress Darwin's theory. Altruism, homosexuality...
Er, dude, go look up the research on topics such as altruism and homosexuality in the non-human "animal kingdom".
**Then** ponder what else you've been so confident is "self-evident" may be wrong. (Hint: start with the implications you draw in that post, which would not follow from the self-evident "observations" you have cited even if the observations were accurate. Then start wandering back towards your prognostications about climate science...)
> It says more about you than anything you have written that you so obviously despise these words from Anthony Watts:
Reading comprehension ain't your strong suit, is it? (But we knew that.)
He didn't despise *the principle proclaimed in those words*; he despised the fact that Watts utterly abandoned the principle the minute those words (and the real world data) conflicted with his pre-existing beliefs about climate science - and then contemptuously told his followers that he had done no such thing.
@ John
So it all boils down to what is the definition of "best". A conclusion I realised within a matter of weeks reading the pros and cons of AGW. Personally, I found the 'sceptics' more convincing than the 'warmers' but I will change what passes for my mind the minute any of you offer a better argument than those offered so far. You see, it's not "a cause" for me! Calling people 'liars', by the way, does not improve your persuasiveness!
@ Jeff
"But none of this presupposes that 4 billion years is not suffienct time to evolve the complexity of life and various traits we see in nature today."
@ Lotharsen
"Er, dude, go look up the research on topics such as altruism and homosexuality in the non-human "animal kingdom"."
I have and my opinion remains unchanged.
But such traits which operate *against* the fight for survival and thus greater reproduction as described by Darwin should not, indeed, could not, have developed in a Darwinian system of 'survival of the fittest'.
Ooops, sorry, in my haste to watch the Leveson enquiry my remarks to Lotharsen interrupted those aimed at Jeff.
No Duffer, BEST is not a qualitative desription, it's an acronym for the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which the denier community including Watts were delighted with when it was announced because it had no warmists onboard and included Richard Muller (a JASON like Happer)and Judith Curry.
The denier community were less impressed when the B.E.S.T. results coincided remarkably closely with all the other existing temperature records, thus proving that the warmists hadn't been fiddling the data.
Of course such an outcome puts intellectual trash like Watts and his fanbois out of business, which is why he had to humiliatingly go back on his word. That's the type of 'integrity' you admire, Duffer. It's not surprising.
"Yeah Jeff, but there are none so arrogant as those who entertain the idea that man can affect the global climate."
Whyever not? We, all by our little ineffectual selves, dig up and shift more soil and rock every year than all the natural glaciers, rivers, winds, storms, avalanches, landslides, oceans and floods put together can do all over the globe.
If we can do it with visible, tangible, dusty, dirty, hard to handle _heavy_ stuff, why can't we do it with invisible, light as air stuff?
>So it all boils down to what is the definition of "best".
Okay then. Duff doesn't know what BEST is. Stop the presses. Alert the media.
Putting the fact you didn't know what one of the major studies of last year was...
>Personally, I found the 'sceptics' more convincing than the 'warmers'
Yes, I realised when you were flaunting the views of seiral conspiracist Nils Axel-Morner that you were easily convinced. Who needs "evidence" when some clown tells you the instruments have been tilted!
Who needs modern data when you have a ninety year old ariel photograph of New Zealand!
>I will change what passes for my mind the minute any of you offer a better argument than those offered so far.
Go nuts. Retract your beliefs that there has been no sea level rise if your mind is so easily changed by actual evidence.
>You see, it's not "a cause" for me!
Duff, you clearly have an ideological cause. Nothing else explains your frankly bizarre and undignified behaviour.
>Calling people 'liars', by the way, does not improve your persuasiveness!
Except that two days ago you said:
>So UEA are now proven liars thanks to FoI disclosures.
Funny how you never practise what you preach.
>But such traits which operate against the fight for survival and thus greater reproduction as described by Darwin should not, indeed, could not, have developed in a Darwinian system of 'survival of the fittest'.
Oh dear, you really are an ignorant bastard, aren't you?
A Flatlander.
The mechanisms underpinning evolution via survival of the fittest are far more subtle and complex than is appreciated by your obviously limited capacity for understanding. Take your targetting of homosexuality, for example. There is solid evidence to show that this does in fact increase certain reproductive fitness...
I'll leave this little tidbit to ferment in your strictured mind, and for you to determine just how such fitness comes about.
That aside, take a hint Duff. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. This include most all of the scientific realm.
David Duff â unfinished business as your list of blunders grows.
In your #213 you repeated your derogatory, and unnecessary for there is an acceptable alternative, term
this after other repetitions of citing the work of pretenders such as Stove and Bird. Anybody who feels the need to use a term such as, 'Darwinin [sic] Fairytales' should be treated with great scepticism.
Now as for Bird citing the work of,
Presumably they used a methodology as valid as Archbishop Ussher's when that later calculated the age of the Earth. Thus Bird too should be treated with suspicion.
Your question:
contains a straw-man â Dawkins does not maintain that evolution proceeds at the level of the gene as you should well know if you had truly read 'The Selfish Gene'. Now you may have that book on your bookshelf, as well as 'The Blind Watchmaker' so why don't you take them down and read them.
To be sure some passages in both require a degree of concentration and comprehension ability, if you devoted as much time to studying what others have really written as you do repeating garbage on here then you would be taken a good deal more seriously. The continued usage of derogatory language such as 'Darwinistas' does not help in that latter respect, neither does your over-familiar, sickening, ingratiating and suggestive faux bon-ho-mie style. That may have worked in the barrack-block (I would not know after all I was in the Senior Service) but that is where it should have been left.
You wrote:
You clearly have a poor grasp of Darwinian Evolution as further defined by the works of R A Fisher, W D Hamilton, John Maynard-Smith and Dawkins himself, amongst others. Where Darwin was unsure about detail he refrained from making stuff up. These latter evolutionary scientists, each in turn, realised something new but which still fitted well within any original Darwin paradigms, indeed they would remark how prescient Darwin was in his postulations.
Another thing that you should realise is that you should never judge a person such as Dawkins by what some others have said, or written about him for they have either through ignorance or deliberate malice misunderstood his meanings, just as you have done.
A useful primer on this aspect is 'Richard Dawkins: How A Scientist Changed the Way we Think' (The Selfish Gene' is that important). On page 48, Marian Stamp Dawkins write:
she continues, reporting on the subsequent attitude of one of her students who had been told in a London seminar, 'that Richard [Dawkins] was a genetic determinist' and the student then having been advised to read ''The Selfish Gene':
Another author, and a philosopher this time, whom you should read is Daniel C Dennett and in particular his 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life'.
I could go on and on but in the end t is up to you to make yourself accurately informed, you may then be treated with more respect.
There are none so arrogant (and dishonest and imbecilic) as those who declare that the mere entertaining of an idea is arrogant. There are none so arrogant (and dishonest and imbecilic) as those who a priori rule out some finding from the facts.
@ Lionel - because you were las tin line and I'm pressed for time.
"In looking at Nature, it is most necessary to keep the foregoing considerations aways in mind - never to forget that every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers; that each lives by a struggle at some period in its life; that heavy destruction inevitably falls on either young or old, during each generation or at recurrent intervals. Lighten any check, mitigate the destruction ever so little, and the number of the species will almost instantly increase to any amount. " Darwin: On the Origin of Species, 1st Ed.
Grand style but still, absolutely clear and, please note, with absolutely no exceptions - "every single organic being"!
Here's another quote:
"Indeed, according to this conception of life [see above], there could be no greater error than to think of intelligence and consciousness as external to teh struggle for life, or as a possible source of interference with it. On the contrary, intelligence and even consciousness are just some of the means which have evolved in certain species for use inthe struggle for life, and nothing else; just as in other species, a hard shell, or fleetness of foot, or a certain kind of dentition, has evolved. Theintelligence of higher animals and the consciousness of humans, are merely other weapons employed in the struggle for life, and are entirely subordinate to their possessors' striving to survive, reproduce, and increase". David Stove: Darwinian Fairytales: Essay 10.
Now I would suggest to you that if, one, Darwin's description is accurate and, two, humans do not stand outside and seperate from the animal kingdom then, at the very least, altruism to strangers to the point of death, homosexuality, voluntary chastity, and a free choice not to engender children, needs some explanation.
I will leave you with that whilst I type up another for your perusal.
Duffer,
Don't bother yourself typing quotes from Darwin because firstly I have my own copies just cite chapter and para'
second because you still have not consider the full picture as spelled out by Dawkins and others.
BTW it isn't only humans that display homosexuality. You seem particularly enervated by this topic in particular. Bad experience as a 'sodyer' perhaps.
Another thing is that this is all getting away from the increasing signs of climate change even in the UK. Now go talk with some wild life experts and forestry people if you do not believe it. Spend a few pounds a month joining and supporting a local Wildelife Trust - that should clear your mind.
Most of all, stop being such a small minded myopic prat.
BTW The deniers of your choice will not be able to use the Antarctic Sea Ice as cover for the true picture which those of us who knew the topography of that area could see coming as a result of all that heat energy building in the oceans - you know the sort of heat which does not register on thermometers, that I have repeatedly asked you about.
John @287...
Your graph in the link @287 is of Global Mean Sea Level, which can't be used to predict the changes in sea levels along coastlines. Since climate change is all about predicting future outcomes, try predicting Relative Sea Level next time...
I see, Lionel, so you're not too keen to continue the conversation. Nor, it seems, do you understand a simple point - homosexuality should not exist in *any* species not just Man, because it transgresses the basic tenets of Charles Darwin. And I can understand your reluctance to try and explain the other facets of life which upset your Darwinian applecart. Well, let's try a bit of Dawkins on you.
"The argument in this book [The Selfish Gene] is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes. [...]This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I shall argue that a predominate quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness"
Of course,being a clever weasel, and recognising the very obvious flaw in his silly proposition, he hastens to assure us that our 'selfish genes' might sometimes instruct us to behave in a way that might be construed as altruistic but, of course, naturally, doesn't need to be said really, they only do it for selfish reasons! Yeeees, quite! He then goes on a few sentences later to urge us all to "try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish". Needless to say, he fails to explain who is to do the teaching when we are *all* helpless puppets controlled by these 'selfish gene machines', nor I might add, does he explain how even the concept of altruism arose in us poor human puppets in the first place!
As David Stove describes with acid accuracy:
Where-ever Darwinism is in error, Darwinians simply call the organisms in question or their characteristics, an error! Where-ever there is manifestly something wrong with their theory, they say that ther is something wrong with the organisms. Their theory implies that there is no such thing as natural celibacy, contraception, or feticide, and where all other species are concerned it is true that there is no such thing. But in our species, those and many other anti-productive characteristics do exist and so Darwinians, rather than admit that theory is simply not true of our species, brazenly shift the blame, and designate all the characteristics as 'biological errors'. [...]
Here, for example, is a respected sociobiologist, Prof. R.D.Alexander writing in 1979: "... we are programmed to use all our effort, and in fact to use all our lives, in reproduction." Darwinism and Human Affairs, 1979.
This is one of those statements which are so breathtakingly false, that initially their only effect on the reader or hearer is to produce stupefaction.
Anyway, I wait patiently for one of you swots to forego the knuckle-dragging and just try and offer an answer to these perplexities. - and if you don't think they are perplexing, then I can only suggest, gently, that rather like your global warming faith, you have got a bad dose of religiosity!
Yes, totally! Let me just make sure you are right on this. Doop-dee-doop-dee-doop...
Okay, first link for "homosexuality in animals":
"A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them."
Hmm. Looks like you are completely wrong on that one.
Okay, what else? Doop-dee-doop-dee-doop...
First link for "altruism in animals":
Some termites and ants release a sticky secretion by fatally rupturing a specialized gland.
Hmm. Looks like you are completely wrong on that one.
I could go look up celibacy, but you know what, Duff? If your entire argument is "we are not like animals because some of us choose not to have sex", you are not only dumber than a sack of hammers, you are clinically insane.
Thank you, Stu, but you seem to be missing the point. None of these behaviours is 'allowed' under Darwinism whether it's in earthworms or humans because it goes against the implacable, according to the man himself, drive to reproduce the species. Any signs of deviation from this engendering lark will doom the species eventually and the 'practice' will die out - er, except that it hasn't!
Sorry for tehe repitions but the host server insisted!
There are none so arrogant as those who entertain the idea that man can't affect the global climate.
Your statement is correct now Mack.
"None of these behaviours is 'allowed' under Darwinism whether it's in earthworms or humans because it goes against the implacable, according to the man himself, drive to reproduce the species."
You really don't get out much do you. Come to think of it, you don't stay in much either. I can't believe you're the only person in the English speaking world who's managed to miss every single minute of television news reports, documentaries and other presentations of the natural world.
How on earth do you explain the reproductive 'abstinence' of most meerkats, bees and ants, just to get started with the best-known examples. Humans really aren't terribly exceptional in organising themselves so that significant numbers of adults are allocated roles that assist in raising the children of their family, tribe or village rather than their own personal reproductive 'success'.
The 'drive to reproduce the species' is often well satisfied by being surrounded by healthy growing infants even if they're not from your own loins. In humans we call it family feeling, we might call it self-sacrifice when non-parents or even complete strangers put themselves in danger to rescue unrelated children, but it's all useful in producing, raising and teaching successive generations.
You've never read Darwin, have you? Could you please, please, please stop putting forth your glaring ignorance as some type of argument? Just by saying "allowed" you are showing you haven't clue one.
I hope Tim Lambert actually does a book called "The Australian's War on Science" and gets it out there while their are still traces of public awareness of the Murdoch Empire scandals.
So, we're actually going to argue Darwin and Evolution with someone who clearly hasn't read him, equally clearly hasn't read anything more recent, thinks altruism, celibacy and homosexuality are purely human phenomena, but nevertheless believes himself to be right, and backs himself with outlier arguments from 'experts' who can't even grasp that from single-celled organisms there's really only one direction in which 'complexity' can run.
Gee, that's almost like arguing with someone about the IPCC and AGW who hasn't read an IPCC report, consults only Epistemic Closure world for sources of information, thinks CO2 is a harmless trace gas and anyway its the sun, but nevertheless believes himself to be right, and backs himself with outlier arguments from 'experts' who can't even grasp the most basic laws of physics.
Dear lurker, I hope the consistency in Stupid is painfully apparent.
Other than that - Tim, if you are about - and I'd be delighted to hear the book Marion suggests was on the way! - once we start getting stuck in this kind of pointless and discursive loop the Duffer thread is long overdue, I'd say.
@300 Nice one Chris O Neil , but as Clint Eastwood would say..."a mans got to know his limitations".
>Nor, it seems, do you understand a simple point - homosexuality should not exist in any species not just Man, because it transgresses the basic tenets of Charles Darwin.
FFS Duff, you really are a myopic prat.
I've already hinted at this particular example, and it's telling that you didn't bother to do some background checking...
I'll make this brief, because it's not my responsibility to teach you everything. In some examples of male homosexuality the genetic association indicates that those carrying the genetics are especially "male attracted" (trivially obvious, in practice). The thing is, this effect seems to manifest in females of the family too (if not in exactly the same way), and family tree analysis shows that the women in such lineages have a greater number of children than average - sufficient to counter any loss through non-reproducing males.
Do you understand what this means for the generational continuance of the trait?
If you can't wrap your head around it, consider the fact that heterozygosity for sickle cell anæmia confers a survival advantage against malaria, even though the homozygotes are adversely affected. It's not the same structural mechanism, but sufficiently similar that it should tweak some comprehension in your mind...
In terms of evolutionary outcomes, female homosexuality is a completely different kettle of fish to male homosexuality. There's a good argument indicating that it can consolidate status and alliances in the adult female members of tribal groups, and thus improve the survival of offspring of practicing mothers. And given the behaviour of heterosexual males (and indeed, the reproductive pragmatism of homosexual females), female homosexuality is no barrier to the passing on of genetic heritage.
And then there's the fact that if there are cultural or genetic factors that result in a net reproductive disadvantage to homosexuality, the genetic heritage of the individuals exhibiting the trait will over time decrease. But it wouldn't happen instantaneously - evolution is a continuous process, and not something that happened in the past... If it were, there's be no genetic diseases around today (and before you make the leap, I am not equating homosexuality with 'disease' - unless it is your own dis-ease with the idea).
The same analytical approaches apply to each of your other 'examples' against Darwinism. Each is eminently explainable, and each need not present a disadvantage to overall genetic continuance: quite the opposite in fact.
Duff, you're completely out of your depth here. Leave the science of genetics and of evolution to the smart people, and just go sit in your rocker and drool on your blankie. At least you might be able to do that well.
I think the recent discussion has impressively illuminated the way Duff reaches his "conclusions" - acquire a flawed understanding of a theory, assert that reality is in conflict with it using false "facts", and when those are pointed out shift the goalposts to arguing they (a) "need explanation" and/or (b) "can't be explained" by the theory - and then ignore all evidence that it is his understanding is incorrect and that explanations are already well-known in the discipline, all the while condescendingly implying that others who are schooling him are deeply misinformed and not particularly bright.
I've just got this vague feeling I've seen something much like that before, but I can't quite recall who and where... ;-)
Betula, you mean sea level rise isn't equal everywhere? Who knew? Because that is exactly what Duff is arguing.
C'mon Duff. Where are those "highest scientific principles" you were boasting about? Admit you are wrong. It must be humiliating to not only believe the proections of a conspiritorial dowser over the actual observations, but also to never have heard of BEST. Some "sceptic" you are.
As an aside to further fruitless debate within the flock-papered corridors and aging piles of the Twilight Home for the Terminally Bewildered, those not already aware of it may enjoy Tom Harris' (of HI & the ICSC, no less) 'interesting' defence of his university climate curriculum over at SkS.
(Of course, the unkind might even note some passing resemblances to the dotard's strategy... ;-) )
David Duff - a must read for you:
[Yamal Yawns](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/yamalian-yawns/)
Wow, this place really is the Pripyat of the climate blogosphere -- decayed, forgotten, and abandoned by all but a few dodderers with no place else to go.
*Wow, this place really is the Pripyat of the climate blogosphere -- decayed, forgotten, and abandoned by all but a few dodderers with no place else to go*
As if a denier like you, Rick, would know. And when it comes to real science, the denialblogosphere doesn't do any. You see, very few if any of them are actually scientists at all. They see their role as attacking the science and the climate scientists (meaning most of both) they don't like. In other words they are morally and scientifically bankrupt. Glad to know that's the company you keep, Rick.
Oh MacDuff of Duncinane.
Continuing a 'conversation' with a self evident avoider of anything that may prick his bubble or threaten to straighten out his distorted conceptual networks is becoming increasingly pointless, and besides the point against the main point of this particular blog. You really should go over to 'PZ's' place and raise your smokescreens there.
Your statement re-quoted above is based upon a fallacious appreciation of the strands of evolution expanded by Darwin, let alone those by the many renowned evolutionary biologists since.
I have mentioned 'The Extended Phenotype' previously and I particularly draw your attention to Chapter Three 'Constraints on Perfection' and specifically pages 36 - 38 beginning at
although the whole Chapter may be worth your while reading. Fortunately for you there is a Glossary at the back of the book.
Also Jerry Coyne in his excellent, and for you a must read, 'Why Evolution is True' has something to say about this topic too in the Chapter 'Evolution Redux' where he writes, page 248:
"and abandoned by all but a few dodderers with no place else to go"
Says dodderer Rick with no place else to go...
Dod, don't do it
Off on me hols - yes, and thank you for your good wishes! - so that means I will have to leave you for a few days. At the rate your brave band of heroes is dwindling I just hope there's someone LEFT here to natter with when I return.
KEEP THE FAITH!
Farewell Duffer, I'm sure your remarkable 'wisdom' will be sorely missed by some.
Unfortunately, I personally don't know anyone that stupid, but I suppose theoretically there's always Jonarse and his virtual crew who positively adore cranks, fakes and quacks as much as you do.
Mack:
Pity you didn't take his advice.
For those interested in the further career of one Alex Harvey.
Here he is addressing one Gavin Schmidt -
(It's well worth reading the original post above it, too.)
Yep; let's spread that love; you may wish to observe Alex spreading the love some more back here at Deltoid last week.
Sure they did.
Heh.
[Duff's realised that he has been caught speaking garbage](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…) about evolutionary processes and about the complexities of adaptation, and he's [turned tail and run](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs0UwW7kCvg).
If anyone should "keep the faith" Duff, it's you. The rest of us will rely on the scientific method. And when you return from you "holiday", we'll link right back here and pick up where you fell off.
Bill,
Gotta love the title of your link.
"Mature debate, not abuse, the only way forward"
http://www.hark.com/clips/tksttlcnwg-the-debate-is-over
Bernard,
Was that video representative of Duff showing some survival of the fittist skills while being chased off by a CO2 emitting Deltoid mobile?
Betty: I don't know; maybe you are 12?
Next.
Can't we all just get along? Peter Hadfield gives Tony Watts an entertaining serve regarding Watts' looking-glass-world claim that he 'will not engage in a face-to-face debate in a neutral venue' with Monckton...
Many in here like astrology, tea leaves ect so I thought this might add some cheer for you all.
( http://mytechnologyworld9.blogspot.in/2012/05/world-may-not-end-soon-pr… )
Karen - you really need to get yourself a GPS (or is that against the Tea Party religion?).
The person you are after is across the ditch in NZ - climate change denier and cat palmist [Ken Ring](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/sunrise_on_ringworld.php).
Or perhaps the water witching dowser and climate change denier [Nils Axel-Morner](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/the_australians_war_on_science_…) from Stockholm.
While you are here Karen, can I ask for the official Tea Party view on Mitt Romney's ["magic underpants"](http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/a-brief-guide-to-mormon-underwear).
Ah, Ken Ring!
Really, Warmists, who among you dare challenge the man?
Duffer, Sundry Scandinavians, Betty, KarenTeaPartyMcSpot - meet your antipodean cousin.
Good One Bill!
Even though I have never denied the greenhouse effect. You just believe I have because your vision is understandably clouded by your ideology. It's okay, really.
Hey, do you remember this famous slogan from Coke?
"Things go better with Coke."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY0U7nwAYnU
Isn't it interesting how many denialists feel the need to declare "Deltoid is dying"?
Clap harder, chaps, and maybe your fantasies will come true.
It seems to be a variation of the old 'final nail in the coffin' meme that deniers regularly comfort themselves with.
Back in the real world, the Heartland hub is imploding as its financiers fall away one by one, McIntyre exposes himself as a poisonous, paranoid crank (again) barely two weeks after announcing his 'retirement', BEST blew Watts' central UHI meme out of the water, and the Bish flounders around in a sea of futile FOIA's hoping to find Mann and Jones' concocting a grand conspiracy to fit his 'theory'.
'Look over there - squirrels' is the only denier response to this series of catastrophes, being the best they've got as the global climate warms as predicted by AGW theory.
In other words, more denier projection of what's actually happening to their own jihad.
It's amazing if you mention the BEST results, that you never, ever get a response from a trolling denier. They always change the subject.
Thanks Karen. I do like tea leaves and you reminded me to pick up a box of tea this afternoon.
Nice shots in the Mayan link too.
Very true pantiesizeZ. Heartland being of course supremely dishonest and targetting children, whereas the CRU leak merely showed they think less than highly of cranks and quacks like McIntyre et al.
Has John Coochey's comment regarding alleged 'death threats' against Australian climate scientists been deleted? It was here yesterday.
John Coochey says:
I feel I can throw some light on this matter as I am undoubtedly the person who is alleged to have shown my gun licence to people at the dinner. That is not accurate. At the mediocre dinner on the first day I was approached by Dr Maxine Cooper, then the Commissioner for the environment, who recognized me as someone involved in the kangaroo culling program in the ACT which occurs each winter. After politely asking if she could sit next to me she asked me how I had gone in the recent licence test which is challenging. I told her I had topped it with a perfect score and showed her my current culling licence, not gun licence, to prove it. The conversation around the table then drifted around the benefits of eating game meat v the poor fare on offer. I might add that earlier in the day I had challenged two speakers to comment on a letter in the Canberra Times that claimed that temperatures had not increased in the Canberra area for decades. They were unable to do so, having not apparently checked the record despite the the âDeliberationâ (conference) supposed to be about rising temperatures in the Canberra region. As all daytime conversations were recorded (we all signed waivers to allow this) this can easily be checked.
No, it hasn't been deleted and it still is 'here', you inept specimen of denier trash. You just need to look in the relevant thread - something surely not beyond your allegedly renowned computer 'skills'. [Or maybe it is.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/more_on_the_threats_on_and_abu…)
ants in a jar
you struggle in despair
nor all your piety nor wit
will let you share
the idle amusement
of the child who put you there.
losers, all of yuz.
:) that's a good thing.
Let me guess; our Friend of the Ether wants to join the charming ranks of those who, using the ever-popular technique of cherry-picking, wish to deny the validity of the fears of those on the receiving end of alleged abuse and threats.
Very classy - you'd think after the HI billboard debacle some lessons might have been learned, but apparently not.
But by all means keep going with this angle, and we'll have a bit of a further public discussion about the lengths your camp are prepared to go to, shall we?
First, please read this. I've excerpted the most relevant sections below to indicate that, as usual, recent cherry-picking ain't likely to save you.
Secondly: you're now championing this guy, right?
And, seriously 'it was here yesterday', but somehow you can't find it today? Heard of 'Ctrl+H'? So how might you know it was here, then? Gee, why do I just know this has become a Denier imbecility du jour?
Oh, lookie here.
And well done on coming straight out with an accusation of malfeasance - it was deleted I tell you, deleted! - despite being, um, wrong.
Again: classy.
And here's a little 'skeptic' humour, from that thread at BH I linked to above:
But, sure; keep going. It's a great plan, with no drawbacks I can see.
I'd be a little (but only a little) surprised if Rog Talltales is actually so stupid that he can copy Coochey's name and post, but then 'can't find' it on Deltoid a 'day later'.
Seriously, that's an exercise that someone who's only been blogging for a day in their whole life could still manage to do. Nah, I think Dodgy Roger's trying to reignite the squib, and easier to do so where there's not already evidence that it is such.
It's interesting to see the recent influx of denialists to Deltoid though. Even with Tim Lambert occupied in his off-line life, the blog has great pulling power...
Some people recall the silly stuff from Peter Wood last summer, which I'm sorry to say brought certain posters here ...
We find Peter Wood of the National Association of Scholars continues to conflate odd combinations of things, in Gay Marriage, Climate Change, and Academic Freedom. Really.
Heartland Experts:
BigCityLib does yeoman work, hears from Dennis Avery.
Unsurprisingly, Fred Singer's coauthor is proud of his association with Heartland. I hear Bob Carter is also.
Reviewing the current list of Heartland Experts, I notice a few more from Oz, I think:
David Archibald
William Kininmonth
Ian Plimer
Of course, not on that list, but:
Jo Nova & David Evans were both on early Experts List, see Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax, pp.51-52. Both spoke at ICCC-2 and -5, so they surely know the people with whom they are associated. Also, it seems likely money went to them for Skeptics Handbook (pp.63-64), well employed in Fakeducation.
SO, instead of playing with D-K afflictees, maybe polite emails to people asking them if they are still with Heartland, given BillboardGate. Be nice ...
Interesting brief clip here via South Oz's '7.30 Report' on climate change affecting trees up where I live in the Adelaide hills. [Take a look](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-11/sick-trees/4007080) especially from the 2 and a half minute mark.
I've seen a lot of sick trees myself - phtyopera killimg many in the Belair National Park but also eslewhere and many seen locally and even down in Mitcham on the plain to be shooting from their base which, I understand (please correct me if 'm wrong) is a sign of stress.
The thought also occurs to me that snakebites may occur more frequently with a hotter drier conditions meaning more days when they are active. Has anyone looked in the records and seen such a rising trend? (Complicatedof coure iknow by growing population and density in snake-rich areas, can tahtbe compensated for? Surely?)
The otehrday isaw what I'm pretty sure was a red-bellied balck snake in the Waitiparinga reserve - swimmingand hiding in rocks when I was walking a dog there. I've only ever seen three snakes in many yeras of walking there. One was last year or earlier this year, the other many years ago.
G'day John,
Wood's stuff just really like "See, I've created this really high-falutin' meta-narrative theory of why I'm right about the things I don't like and they're wrong, so, see, I really must be right. And now I've lumped two of these things I don't like together and am waving my hands in the direction of a link between them."
Frankly my brain just slides off this stuff - it's like bad-pop music; 20 seconds later you realise you're no longer listening, you're now wondering if you bought enough eggs to make that omelette...
Actually, no, I must take that bit back: after a while the numbness began to wear off and I actually started to get offended:
'Are likely to' is doing an extraordinary amount of work in this sentence, entirely unsupported by... well, let's consider this bit:
'I have no statistics on this, but I doubt that...' This guy's the president of the National Association of Scholars, right?
As to 'such an argument' being unimaginable: One; I wonder why? Hence, Two; what 'serious secular argument' against gay marriage? (Other than the traditional 'it gives a lot of Rightists the heebie-jeebies and they're somehow more real than gay people'?)
( Well, this was all under the heading 'Cultivating Ignorance'! ;-) )
As to the Climate that's somehow being held hostage in this extraordinary argument, too - yes, imagine all those students who may well have graduated believing that in science it's the side with the evidence that wins the debate!
Sheesh.
338 "No, it hasn't been deleted and it still is 'here', you inept specimen of denier trash. You just need to look in the relevant thread - something surely not beyond your allegedly renowned computer 'skills'. Or maybe it is."
So Chek, you badmouthing piece of alarmist scum, it *has* been deleted from 'here' (this current thread), and anachronistically tucked out of sight in a year old thread no-one visits any more. Seems a reasonable M.O. for a blog which has thrived on the 'death threats' hype and is in denial of the truth (about so many things).
My "allegedly renowned computer skills" are good enough to win European blog of the year (I see Jo Nova got the Australian title) and Tim Lambert has posted four articles in five months. Have a look at the latest UHI at airports study on my site if you want to see some computer skills (from co-blogger Tim C) in action. The climate alarmist meme is dying and climate realism is ascendant.
Good riddance to you.
To be fair Rog, I don't think it was posted here, just on the relevant thread. Congrats again on the Best European Blog! I voted for you and Jo.
;)
PS For the record I don't have a proplem with
"So Chek, you badmouthing piece of alarmist scum"
It's fair comment in my book.
StevoR.
In SA Phytophthora cinnamomi affects 2 species of Eucalypt, both of which are stringybarks - Eucalyptus obliqua and baxteri.
As far as I know only obliqua is recorded for Belair NP, but there are also half-a-dozen unaffected species. Having seen the massive Pc scalds in WA where it affects dominant tree species over vast areas we really are relatively fortunate.
Tell-tale signs in healthy scrub in the Adelaide Hills include clusters of die-back in Yaccas, Hakeas, the small Myrtle Wattle, and the Silver Banksia, particularly in a spreading area as it 'flows' with local soil water movement down hill. Given that it effectively destroys the plants roots - and hence its ability to take up water - Pc stress and drought stress can look very similar, but in most of 'The Park' - and certainly in Grey Box country like Watiparinga - drought and lerp stress is probably more likely to be what you're seeing.
(I was on the state Phytophthora Technical Committee. I can't find the most recent version of this guide, but this older version still gives a good background and lists the susceptible species.)
I seriously doubt the water table in the hills has really recovered from the early-century drought. I also suspect it never will. Combine that with lerps, and demolished understorey habitat meaning fewer birds around to pick them off...
Perhaps we should start a market for the lerps? Their starchy casings - you can see them in the video - are composed of a sugary material, and they're actually a 'bush food'!
*Bonk!* Dear me, Rog, you're really not doing well, are you? The post is where it always was, my boy, on one of the original threads discussing the issue. I remember being surprised by a comment appearing on an older thread.
So, tell us; is this a typical example of how you build a factual argument? ;-)
Gee, Jo Nova and Rog win the Bestest Blogs in the Universe - just like Watts! That must have been an impartial contest with no gaming the system, fer sure! It's just like the climate, ain't it; it's the polling and alleged 'meme ascendency', not the, um, science, that counts...
Sensitive about it all, ain't he?
Keep digging, tallmoron.
My IE history shows Coochey's claim right where it always was - where you probably saw it was on the recent posts list which it's since dropped off as newer posts were made.
Then you can do the math and contrast your crowing about 11 FOI'd emails with the ['over 30 scientists' mentioned here.](http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/mature-debate-not-abuse-the-onl…)
I'll ask Tim to secretly move this post later and file it under: another idiot denier crank who prefers his own paranoia as a substitute for actual research. But he won't.
340 "It was the chilling nature of that threat - and the casual way in which it was made - that prompted the ANU to question its security arrangements."
Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/mature-debate-not-abuse-the-onl…
I think this is the 'death threat' which has been debunked by John Coochey's comment I reinstated above isn't it? And isn't it the case that the debunked 'sniper' comment never was reported to the police?
Personally, I condemn threats or depictions of violence from any corner of the argument over carbon taxes, climate science, unbalanced curricula, or environmental issues, actual or fantasised.
For example, that 10/10 video of the teacher murdering schoolchildren who politely questioned man made global warming dogma was appalling. Is that a message you would approve of?
Equally, The dirty tricks and threats endured by ex TV presenter Johnny Ball are real, criminal and culpable offences.
"The news report was based on information - including copies of a number of abusive emails - provided by more than 30 scientists in all states and territories."
Why isn't that article linked? And where are the copies of the emails? having seen the way John Coochey's innocent response to Maxine Cooper was twisted, lied about and blown up into a 'death threat', I'm a sceptic who wants to see the evidence before making a judgement.
OK, I stand corrected on the original location of John Coochey's comment. No harm in repeating it on this current thread though. GWS, I give as good as I get. ;)
Tell you what tallcrank - get back to us when you've 'sceptically' investigated John Coochey's claim. Because you haven't so far, have you?
@Rog
"I give as good as I get."
You do indeed Rog, you do indeed.
;)
349"it's the polling and alleged 'meme ascendency', not the, um, science, that counts..."
Seems to have been the M.O. of the alarmist camp for the last 30 years I agree.
"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth -
President of the UN Foundation
This is the guy who switched off the aircon before Hansen's June 1988 testimony to the house, to make sure everyone was sweating.
Personally, I also have an environmental agenda, but I don't agree with Tim Wirth that pushing a fatally flawed scientific hypothesis is a good way to promote it.
Thanks for that, bill. I'm newly moved to the southern suburbs and I've been a bit surprised by the numbers of dead and dying small trees and shrubs around the district. Didn't like it back in the eastern suburbs when my fruit trees and a lot of large street and park trees died during the drought and water restrictions, but that was all quite understandable. This I've found a bit mysterious since everything's so green this summer and autumn.
As for sprouting from the base being a sign of stress. I've always thought so. It tends to follow on from bark peeling and splitting and separating from obviously drought affected trees. At least in large trees I've observed over a few decades.
And what is it with watsonias and hollyhocks flowering now? Not having been around here before I don't know if it's a common regional aberration if there is such a thing, or if the plant life round here struggles so much it'll flower any chance it gets. (The soil is dire.)
It's the Cosmic rays wot dunnit.
Yep, the award-winning Rog knows the Coochey version of events is correct - you were there, right, Rog? ;-) - and hasn't noticed the whole 30 or so scientists telling the CT about their experiences thing.
(You also knew that comment had been deleted, Rog, and then you knew it had been deliberately shifted, too.)
You entire argument is, after all, one long conspiracy theory, with scientists as evil manipulators, the logical consequences of which we are now seeing; the utterly repellant tactic of people like yourself cynically striving to prove that scientists are 'lying' about alleged threats made to them, combined with snidely deriding their reactions to any such perceived threats.
As I said, I would have thought that Heartland's spectacular own-goal might have given pause-for-thought on ratbaggery as a tactic, but apparently not... don't say you weren't warned!
Tallbloke @ 340
Well you could start with the [most recent ones](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/13/us-climate-scientist-…) directed at Kerry Emanuel.
Not here - if you are serious, condemn it on your own website where you are currently belittling previous threats.
When you have, come back and give us the link.
Let us see if you mean what you say or you are just another blowhard.
>@Rog
>"I give as good as I get."
>You do indeed Rog, you do indeed.
>;)
>Posted by: GSW | May 13, 2012 5:19 AM
Get a hotel room, you two.
*"I give as good as I get."*
*You do indeed Rog, you do indeed*
In the bathroom, perhaps. But not in an academic setting or in the peer-reviewed journals. There you don't give a thing. Nada. Nix.
> My "allegedly renowned computer skills" are good enough to win European blog of the year...
Apparently your "alleged logical skills" are so strong that you must resort to a category error.
>@Rog
>"I give as good as I get."
>You do indeed [Rog](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger#Slang), you do indeed.
>;)
>Posted by: GSW | May 13, 2012 5:19 AM
...because more can be said with less, as I explained to an already-terse Wyvern.
358" I would have thought that Heartland's spectacular own-goal might have given pause-for-thought on ratbaggery as a tactic, but apparently not."
Still nothing to say about the 10/10 video showing schoolkids with doubts about anthropogenic global warming theory being murdered by their teacher as classmates get splattered with their blood Bill?
Makes Heartland's attempt at associating whacky warmies with, well, whackier warmies look pretty tame doesn't it? ;)
353"Tell you what tallcrank - get back to us when you've 'sceptically' investigated John Coochey's claim. Because you haven't so far, have you?"
Crock, We'll wait and see if any of the scientists at the table step forward to contradict him. As it stands his testimony has as much credibility as Kerry Emmanuel's.
Looks like your skillset at interpreting what you see is as poor as your grasp of climate science, or what award you won, smallcrank.
Firstly - the fantasy Pythonesque 'victims' in the 10/10 film weren't murdered by anybody. The puerile 'joke' - such as it is - is that while 'no pressure' was put upon them by their peers, the explodees exploded under their own internal pressure at doing nothing.
That you internally rant your poor cultural understanding of a bit of acting for a film into 'murder' in the tiny echo-chamber of your mind and then have the nerve to claim equivalence with your actual fellow right wing nutters who issue real-life threats demonstrates an aspect of the victim-bully fantasy that permeates your rancid, paranoid view of climate science you hold in common with McIntyre, Watts and Montford.
Stick to playing at science you don't have the background or training to understand such as your latest Heathrow UHI promotion of quackery. Even though you might think it looks t'riffic because it has all graphs'n'numbers'n'shit, I predict here and now that even Sonia's E&E will run a mile from it even in a slow year. It really is that dire, ill-informed and ill-considered.
No, it doesn't. Emanuel is a respected MIT professor elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. While it suits your anti-science crank agenda to claim equivalence with some hitherto unknown claiming to be the person present at an event - and conveniently if only apparently defusing the situation at that event - the credibility remains with Emanuel and the others, at least in the sane world.
>Still nothing to say about the 10/10 video showing schoolkids with doubts about anthropogenic global warming theory being murdered by their teacher as classmates get splattered with their blood Bill?
I've said it elsewhere recently but I'll repeat it here.
Whipping boys such as 10/10 and Al Gore are not the basis for the physics of human-caused global warming. They're one end of a public campaign to bring the science to public attention.
On the other hand, most everything of the denialist argument comes from propagandists and lobby machines. There's almost nothing in the peer-reviewed literature that diagrees with the consensus, and what little there is, is almost universally completely rebutted. What remains requires an electron microscope in order to visualise.
The consensus case is the peer-reviewed literature. The Denialati's case is guff coming from Heartland, WWWT, and other FUD mills. That's the true comparison, and that's why climate change denialism is nothing more than a pernicious smear on human intellectual endeavour.
I must have missed that bit of news, unless Tallbloke is recycling these half baked claims:
[Was Johnny Ball really victimised by environmentalists](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/was_johnny_ball_really_victimi…)
Have you seen this TB, it made it on to the GWPF website:
[Global Warming Spokesperson Passes Away](http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/global-warming-spokesman-…)
367 Crock, you obviously have a badly warped and twisted mind full of hate, but even you should be able to sense the public's revulsion of the sick-minded propaganda used by your friends at 10/10. Describing this despicable video as "Pythonesque" ought to have your friends here squirming with embarrassment and hurrying to disassociate themslves from your extremist views. That they don't speak up and shun it says everything about the groupthink and reality-denial that infests this site.
Again no, smallcrank.
That you bleat on about a minor, withdrawn promo film depicting actors to divert attention from the issue of real threats issued against real people by whipped-up, right-wing, gun-toting crackpots with [multiple](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords) [track records](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01tiller.html?pagewanted=all) is only another indication of how far into la-la land you've progressed.
[Many days late and many dollars short.](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/yamalian-yawns/)
Stick to manufacturing feigned outrage. It's more your level, pantiesizeZ.
367 Crock: " the fantasy Pythonesque 'victims' in the 10/10 film weren't murdered by anybody. The puerile 'joke' - such as it is - is that while 'no pressure' was put upon them by their peers, the explodees exploded under their own internal pressure at doing nothing."
Oh I see, in your sick fantasy it's the fault of those schoolkids who doubt the climate alarmism you help promote that they get splattered all over their classmates.
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/10-10-no-pressure-movie-taken-down…
The video shows a few different scenarios, including young children in a classroom, and whenever anyone says they are not going to do anything about climate change, they are blown up *at the touch of a button*. Everyone not blown up gets covered in blood and guts.
Whose finger is on the button you sick crank?
Roger continues to talk about PR stunts carried out by advocacy groups.
Relevance to science - ZERO
Denialists like Rog interest in actual science - ZERO.
377: "WHERE'S MY GLOBAL WARMING? I WANT IT. NOW!"
I know I know. It was nice while it lasted though.
376 Michael, the denial of fantasy murder thing Crank has going on is quite revealing, but if you want to start a conversation about climate science, that's cool with me.
How about you try to answer this question for me:
Since the negative phase of natural variation has nixed the alleged co2 caused warming for a decade or so, how much did its positive phase contribute to the warming we saw in the last two decades of the last millenium?
Logic says at least half, but what say you?
Brent,
Stop hoarding all the ignorance, or there won't be any left for anyone else.
I dunno smallcrank, was it ultimately Sauron's, Voldemort's, Al Gore's, Phil Jones or Mike Mann's? Only you can deconstruct the live action cartoon worming its way through your steamed brain.
I maintain the edit I saw had no buttons but did have spontaneous carnage, but it was two years ago so who cares?
I also maintain that it doesn't matter which to those with a healthy grip on the difference between reality and fantasy. It's likely the fake sceptics whose ability to tell the difference are most threatened, due to their wholesale adoption of fake science that makes their grip on the real world so tenuous.
However it's all by the bye now as it was withdrawn.
Me? I'd have put it out as a short with Sean of the Dead and enjoyed you mugs sucking up your faux offence even more.
Even now you're fixated on essentially a cartoon, and seem completely unable to acknowledge the real life, right wing gun nuts actually threatening real people, as if your primped up and preening self-manufactured, self-regarding 'offence' outweighs all other considerations.
That's merely one of many reasons why you're a contemptible joke, smallcrank.
Well it is fun to have another AGW denier showing how they missed out in their educational travails. RTB shows that he missed out on his English grammar classes by making many simple errors that would embarrass a grade 6 child. Why are AGW deniers so lacking in this area?
He then shows that he has difficulty in finding posts if they are on a different thread than on the one he is reading. He then blames all and sundry for "hiding" anything he cannot find. Such misplaced outrage but it is what we have come to expect from uneducated AGW deniers.
Then he shows a complete lack of any understanding or knowledge of climate science, which is easily understood since they pride themselves in never reading the scientific literature but prefer to waste their time on denier websites. He makes this (in his small mind) profound statement:
Of course this has been explained [here](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022…) and [here](http://www.skepticalscience.com/john-nielsen-gammon-commentson-on-conti…) by knowledgeable people who understand climate science.
Clearly Brent hasn't caught up with the events leading to the Younger Dryas.
Brent, stop hogging the ignorance!
381: The Fluster/Ramsdork paper implies a sensitivity giving around 4C/doubling for co2. In their dreams.
Both this paper and the SKS post from Eggsandgammon ignore the cumulative nature of solar input on ocean heat content and the consequent ENSO effects. They completely fail to account for natural climate warming early in the C20th. They are junk science. Exactly the sort of pulp fiction you ignorant warmist idiots fall for. Get real.
The above constitutes a comprehensive and complete rebuttal, according to smallcrank's pseudo-science.
Much like a Kalahari bushman might shake his fist at the sonic boom of a Space Shuttle scattering his goats, and about as effective. But doing it makes him feel better.
> The Fluster/Ramsdork paper
Pathetic personal attack.
> implies a sensitivity giving around 4C/doubling for co2. In their dreams.
Evidence-free assertion.
> Both this paper and the SKS post from Eggsandgammon
Pathetic personal attack.
> ignore the cumulative nature of solar input on ocean heat content
Evidence-free assertion.
> and the consequent ENSO effects.
Evidence-free assertion.
> They completely fail to account for natural climate warming early in the C20th.
Evidence-free assertion.
> They are junk science.
Pathetic personal attack.
> Exactly the sort of pulp fiction you ignorant warmist idiots fall for. Get real.
Pathetic personal attack.
"Logic says at least half, but what say you?" - Rog
I say; WTF! What logic??
386:They completely fail to account for natural climate warming early in the C20th.
Evidence-free assertion.
Logical deduction. If you disagree, demonstrate otherwise from the paper.
379: "I maintain the edit I saw had no buttons but did have spontaneous carnage"
I can believe that some warmist re-editing of history took place. Jim Hansen does it all the time with GIStemp data.
386:"Pathetic personal attack."
When in Rome...
387: Global average temperature hasn't changed much on average over the last decade, according to the more reliable data providers (i.e. not hopelessly biased activists like Jim Hansen).
So if natural variation has been able to nix the alleged co2 global warming signal in its negative phase (weaker Sun, cooler PDO phase) Then that combined natural variation must be at least as strong as the co2 forcing. Therefore in it's positive phase it must also be equally as strong. Therefore it was responsible for at least half the warming. There are complicating factors, but the basic argument is realistic.
I don't have to believe anything when you're fantasising that 11 FOI'd emails somehow trump 30+ witness accounts in your forlorn quest to minimise real life by being fixated on a short comedy movie.
But when that's all you've got, what else is an anti-science crank like you to do? Facing the reality would seem to be too distressing for you, hence your displacement activity.
> Global average temperature hasn't changed much on average over the last decade
Oooh, a decade! What an incredibly long time over which to detect a trend!
> So if natural variation has been able to nix the alleged co2 global warming signal in its negative phase (weaker Sun, cooler PDO phase) Then that combined natural variation must be at least as strong as the co2 forcing. Therefore in it's positive phase it must also be equally as strong. Therefore it was responsible for at least half the warming. There are complicating factors, but the basic argument is realistic.
You realise this entire "argument" falls apart if the period of oscillation of the sun "cycle" is different to that of the PDO "cycle"? Furthermore I note that you are using a **model** (a sinusoid) to determine the contribution of "natural variation" in the 80s/90s. How awful, we know that models are inherently evil!
Roger, that wasn't logic, that was handwaving.
390: 30+ witness accounts
Where can I read them and the content of the emails they have received?
@387 tallbloke, you so funny, nice cherry picking!
To deliberately ignore the inconvenient truth of the warmest decade since the age of reliable recorded weather data, from 1880(something that even the leading skeptic and former denialati Richard Muller at "B.E.S.T." does not dispute). Interestingly, the politically neutral science of "Phenology" also contradicts your rash totally fact free unsupported statement as well. I laughed so hard, I spilled my coffee on the keyboard( a good thing it was waterproof!), for one should not leave pure fact free crap unchallenged! A quick search of the Internets will dredge up all the peer reviewed climate science information I need, in order to debunk your entire pure fact free denialati canards. For example "Skeptical Science" link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy
However I digress, back to the point of this post, the fall out from the insane Heartland Billboard continues unabated.
Eli Rabett : "I used to be a Heartland Expert" , link :- http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/i-used-to-be-called-heartland-exp…
Collide-a-scape "Climate Wars Reach A New Low", link :- http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2012/05/04/climate-wars-reach-new-low/
Beware, that which goes around, comes around, to bite your posterior, as Roger Pielke Jr. well knows.
392:Roger, that wasn't logic, that was handwaving.
Unless you can refute the logic properly, the handwaving is all yours Michael.
391: You realise this entire "argument" falls apart if the period of oscillation of the sun "cycle" is different to that of the PDO "cycle"?
You haven't thought this through, have you? It doesn't matter how you slice it, natural variation is nixing the alleged co2 warming, and has been for a decade. Without any help from stratospheric volcanoes too. The warmist calculations are in disarray.
Here's something else to think about. Hansen told us many moons ago in 1988 that if we were to reduce our output of co2, then the level in 2010 would be 390ppm.
Well, we didn't heed him and co2 output from human sources has increased 20% or so since. Yet here we are in 2012 and the level is under 390ppm. How did he get this so badly wrong?
What logic Rog?? - your completely evidence free assertion that if the component of natural variation is -5 at some point, then later at some time 'positive phase' it must be +5.
This isn't logic, it's nuts.
396 Come on Michael, you can do better than that. Take a temperature curve of any arbitrary length and stick the linear trend through it. See how the data wimbles above and below the line? Those are positive and negative phases of natural variation QED.
Co2 was rock steady at 270ppm and has only increased since. So that can't account for negative temperature trends. QED.
For negative trends to occur, natural variation must be stronger than co2 warming. QED
Natural variation varies - by definition
Therefore its positive phases must add to any co2 warming. QED
With me so far?
Well well, RTB got it so badly wrong. Can't say I'm surprised.
RTB gets it so wrong:
Do you ever read the papers you quote? If you did read them are you capable of understanding the words in them or do you just look at pictures? Too bad Hansen didn't post a pic of his CO2 projections, then you might have been close. Why do you just cut and paste nonsense without checking and verifying it. Oooh wait a minute, you are a AGW denier not a "skeptic" my mistake.
Here is what [Hansen actually said](http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf):
When one actually goes and checks the scientific literature it is easy to tell AGW deniers from "true skeptics". The deniers are nothing but "fake skeptics". We now know what RTB is.
You want an earlier decade with rapid warming? No problem.
Rog, your 'logic' has no logic.
You are suffering from determinism - a negative effect doesn't have a corresponding positive effect of equal amplitude at a different time, 'just because' (which is what your 'logic' boils down to). The wiggles on the temp series are random - ie noise.
Do you really think that a volcanic eruption today (with it's cooling effect) necessitates an equal and opposite natural warming effect somewhere down the line?? Nuts.
Ah, the quality of 'skepticism'!
>So if natural variation has been able to nix the alleged co2 global warming signal in its negative phase (weaker Sun, cooler PDO phase) Then that combined natural variation must be at least as strong as the co2 forcing. Therefore in it's positive phase it must also be equally as strong. Therefore it was responsible for at least half the warming.
This statement deserves to be bronzed.
If Dodgy Roger doesn't understand how noise intereacts with signal he shouldn't even be allowed to sit at a keyboard. Seriously mate, take this to Tamino and watch him squeeze a few lessons-worth of statistics basics from this one paragraph...
Although even after such an education I doubt that Roger Tallbloke would appreciate or even understand the silliness of his statement.
Brent,
>"Hah! Can't fool me. I use a MODEL. It tells me everything I... want.... to. aCHOO!"
Except the laughably amateur "conjecture" piece you published on your blog relies on computer models.
Watching Brent play "science" is like watching a child with test tubes of coloured water.
Rog,
>367 Crock, you obviously have a badly warped and twisted mind full of hate, but even you should be able to sense the public's revulsion of the sick-minded propaganda used by your friends at 10/10. Describing this despicable video as "Pythonesque" ought to have your friends here squirming with embarrassment and hurrying to disassociate themslves from your extremist views. That they don't speak up and shun it says everything about the groupthink and reality-denial that infests this site.
I think that says everything about your sense of confected outrage and lack of humour. That you are still repeating this (and the demonstratably false Johnny Ball accusations) years later shows how hollow your position is.
Mostly I just feel sorry for you lot. Rog, Duff, Brent, Pentaxz. You were all so sure that the "scam" was moments away from "collapsing" around the time of the criminal CRU email theft. That you all grow increasingly shrill as the scientific evidence mounts is more proof of the vacuity of your arguments.
What "sceptics" you all are. Duff, who believes that a ninety year old ariel photograph is a better indicator of sea level rise than the actual data. Brent, who has been reduced to shrieking about conspiracy theories because, amazingly, his volley of contradictory, long discarded arguments has failed to move us, and dear, sweet Tallbloke, who can't even find a comment from two days ago in another thread and thinks a satirical comedic video is serious.
Will Steffen stands by the science and the security concerns of his group:-
[http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3502194.htm](http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3502194.htm)
'Fluster & Ramsdork'?! God, Rog, you are a gift to our side of the argument!
On the basis of your performance above I'm afrad that I can only conclude that you are a fanatic. Fanatics are scary, yes, but not very interesting.
By all means, carry on acting the extremist ratbag, as it could hardly be better timed for our purposes, for the reasons I've even helpfully outlined for you above.
(You know, I'm actually giving you some sound tactical advice here - ever won a political campaign, Rog? I have. Several, in fact - but if, as I suspect, you are, indeed, a fanatic, you simply won't be able to take it. More fool you.)
This is a good one too.
From real skeptics: How We Know
Global Warming is Real
and Human Caused
Pentaxz, I am delighted to see you back, even in spite of your claims that "there is no point in debating [us]" and your faith in Christian apocalypticist Dr Coffman over actual evidence.
I'm trying to correct the link but it gets stuck in the moderator queue: `www.skeptic.com/the_magazine`
398: "The wiggles on the temp series are random - ie noise"
The Wiggles on the GISPII ice cores are at a frequency of around 60+/-15 years. Cyclic climatic variations have been identified in instrumental and proxy records at around ~80years (Gleissberg), ~180 years, 206 years (de Vries), ~970 years, 2240 years (Halstatt) to name a few. I know you warmies are in denial of these cycles, but in the real world outside the carbon catastophe knitting circle, everyone else knows they exist. And in order for them to have existed prior to the increase in co2, there must be cumulative effects of natural variation. Therefore the Sun being more active than the long term average for ~70 years from 1930-2003 must have made a significant contribution to the rise in temperature over the C20th.
That's one of the many reasons why so few people take any notice of your failed co2 driven climate hypothesis any more. However, the political show rolls on, because as Canada's ex environment minister Christine Stewart said:
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
I'm all for justice and equality, but trying to bring about radical political change on the back of a phony theory is an enterprise doomed to failure. Give it up.
402: "By all means, carry on acting the extremist ratbag"
As I said, "When in Rome..." Anyway, I'm not the one making propaganda snuff movies of brainwashed teachers murdering their students who dare to question the extremist dogma you and your friends promote.
"I'm actually giving you some sound tactical advice here"
Tell it to your friends at 10/10
>Cyclic climatic variations have been identified in instrumental and proxy records at around ~80years (Gleissberg), ~180 years, 206 years (de Vries), ~970 years, 2240 years (Halstatt) to name a few. I know you warmies are in denial of these cycles, but in the real world outside the carbon catastophe knitting circle, everyone else knows they exist.
You're really strecthing here. Let's not get too hyperbolic, buddy.
396: Do you ever read the papers you quote? If you did read them are you capable of understanding the words in them or do you just look at pictures?
In scenario C the CO2 growth rate is blah blah.
The deniers are nothing but "fake skeptics"
I was referring to scenario 'B' you arrogant badmouthing alarmist piece of crap.
"In scarynario 'B' the growth of the annual increment of co2 is reduced from 1.5%yr today to 1%yr in 1990, 0.5% in 2000 and 0% in 2010"
Tosser.
404:"I wonder how stupid one must be to miss the red button. Tell us, chek."
I fear you are wasting your time PentaxZ. Alarmist buffoons such as 'Chek' don't Chek their facts before making total tw@ts of themselves in public. Then they make up stories to try to backpedal out of their mis-statements without admitting they are wrong. It's symptomatic of the general warmist mentality; keep bolting ad hoc unsupported false reasoning on to prop up the creaking edifice of their failed theory.
Travesty Trenberth tells us the missing heat has started hiding in the deep ocean since the near surface atmosphere all but stopped warming a decade ago. No explanation of how this can be when the rate of sea level rise has slowed to almost nothing above the centennial rate and gone negative over the last few years though. Still, alarmist tosspots like 'Chek' avert their brains from such illogicalities, just like they do from the big red murder button in the snuff movie their propagandists made.
While you're here, Rog, can you please do something useful identify a credible source for that quote - which occurs in several different variations, according to the political requirement of the blogger, I suspect - but apparently only in looking-glass-world. All references I can find certainly circle straight back to looking-glass-world
'Calgary Herald 1998' ain't overly useful. Their archives don't go back that far.
The most thorough I can find to date describes the quote as 'a selectively edited misrepresentation', and originating from Terence Concoran, an ally of Tom Harris of the ICSC.
Pentaxz
>Rog, I know I'm wasting my time. But it's a bit fun to watch the foilhats squiggle like worms on a hook when they are presented facts on which they can't respond
A bit rich coming from someone who has refused multiple times to engage in a debate with me, and who agreed to back down if his six copied-and-pasted questions from an extremist right-wing fringe blog where answered (which they were) before calling me a volley of uninspired names after you were unable to answer the rebuttal.
Tallbloke,
>I was referring to scenario 'B' you arrogant badmouthing alarmist piece of crap.
Calm down, son. You're not doing your ideological cause much good by abusing people.
Rog @408
Raising credulity to an art-form.
414: PentaxZ: "There are so few alarmistic blogs left these days where you can get so much laughs as the pseudoscientific Deltoid. ;-)
The numbers are dwindling I agree. Realclimate doesn't even get its viewing figures graphed by Alexa anymore unless you stretch the time frame. Tim Lambert hasn't written more than 4 articles in 5 months here.
SKS keeps putting up more fallacy fodder, but then that site has a paid propagandist behind it.
Michael@417 reducing response to a non-reply.
"2240 years (Halstatt) "
LOL.
Sure it isn't 2239 years?
Credulous clowns.
420:Michael, I mistook you for someone who could debate reasonably. If I'd realised you were a pedant, I'd have put tilde symbols in front of all the numbers instead of half of them. Now you have reduced the conversation to this sort of childishness, I'll leave you with it.
*There are so few alarmistic blogs left these days where you can get so much laughs as the pseudoscientific Deltoid*
*The numbers are dwindling I agree*
I have been reading this to-and froing with bigmouth-no substance RTB and a few morons like PentaxZ, Brent etc. and frankly its pathetic.
So RTB, when can we expect to see your stunning science written up into a major scientific journal? The numbers of denial papers in the peer-reviewed literature is not increasing; hell, it's still close to a big fat zippo. Instead, your brand of stupid, myopic science is that carried out by non-scientific simpletons like yourself, Watts, McIntyre and Mountford on blogs. That's it. Most scientists - you know what they are RTB? - (hint: the people working in universities and research institutes and who actually, lo and behold, do research!)- wouldn't touch your brand of ignorance with a ten foot long barge pole. That's why you denialti are an incestuous lot: you venture into each other's blogs and slap each other on the back and tell each other how great you all are and how great your brand of anti-science is. But when push comes to shove your bilge rarely gets published - and when it does it ends up in E & E or in LaRouche's rag.
Its amazing what big mouths the denilati have on blogs but when it comes down to the nitty gritty you D-K acolytes shun the major conferences (Heartland not included) where climate scientists assemble and discuss these issues.I have asked the other world expert-with no publications Jonarse to submit his Earth-shattering rebuttal of Hansen to a major journal and, like you, he backs down every time with the disclaimer that he doesn't need to write up a rebtuall because real scientists know he's right! You lot are a sordid bunch who try desperately to camouflage your right wing political agendas in scientific clothing. It doesn't wash, RTB: your agendas stink so badly that they can't help but be smelled by most reading them. So cut the crap and admit that you hate climate science (science in general) and abuse it to promote political and economic agendas. At least then you'd be being honest.
Seems the Heartland disease is firmly entrenched amongst the deniers.
Over at Curry's one of the not-IPCC dittoheads has labelled schoolkids concerned about AGW, "suicide bombers".
Their only concern is science....of course.
Yeah. Facts like this one and this one.
Response: zero.
> If I'd realised you were a pedant, I'd have put tilde symbols in front of all the numbers instead of half of them
Talk about missing the point! Even if this mysterious 2239 (epi)cycle were to exist, it has such a long period that it cannot possibly influence the climate on the decadal scale.
Your contentions are pure numerology and contain zero actual physics.
Rog @ 420.
There's nothing to respond to.
Your throw up a bunch of random stuff and cry "Voila".
It's incoherent.
Oh dear Tallcrank really seems to be getting quite flustered, up at the crack of dawn UK time to get banging away on that keyboard.
Firstly Rog, a 'snuff movie' is generally accepted to involve real death occurring on film for entertainment, as opposed to pretend deaths usually depicted for dramatic narrative purposes. Real death didn't happen in the 10/10 film, nor in the Python's Peckinpah spoof 'Salad Days' which were respectively, a promo film and an entertainment aimed at adults who can differentiate between fantasy and reality, so neither can be termed 'snuff films'. I accept that may be a fine line too far for some cranks.
Secondly as a search shows, the only people still interested in the 10/10 film are denier sites, hugging it to their bosoms as a virtual icon of martyrdom. But rest easy in your beds as deniers are really much too stupid to be worth crossing the moral line of murder for. The arguments of deniers are so weak all the slaughter occurs in the intellectual realm.
Thirdly, have I misremembered a short film last seen 18 months ago? It's entirely possible. Was there more than one edit released? That's possible too, but as it was withdrawn in response to a wave of ersatz puritanical bleating by the victim-bully contingent, who cares? (Apart of course from you Rog and your fellow cranks who cling to it as a displacement equivalent for actual, reel-life thuggery).
Fourthly, and more importantly do I think it had any connection with reality and real-life threats? Of course not. That's the territory of loons and cranks, which is your home ground.
The thing is Rog, there are serious scientists who disagree with the consensus: Lindzen and Pielke Snr for example. But they wouldn't touch your cranky notions with a bargepole. There are also harmless cranks like Corbyn whose record is only slightly worse than chance.
But you tallcrank were a central player in CRU leak 2 redux.
Now as things went, nobody gave a flying one about that - all the meat that could be lied about and misrepresented had already been done in CRU 1 - but you were ready, willing and able to resurrect the whole meaningless circus again, without even the wit to evaluate and recognise there was nothing there in Part 2. And that's why you're ignorant denier trash. IMHO, of course
P.S. regarding sea level rise, [the trend is still upward](http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/alt_gmsl_seas_rem.jpg) regardless of the short term 'wiggles' as you scientifically refer to them.
> It's incoherent.
Roger in a nutshell.
> a negative effect doesn't have a corresponding positive effect of equal amplitude at a different time, 'just because' (which is what your 'logic' boils down to).
Oddly I have just realised.
One continuous whine from deniers is "So what temperature SHOULD the earth be at?!?!?".
Yet their continued "it's just a natural cycle" INSISTS that there is a "natural temperature" that the earth system just deviates from side to side on.
"Since the peer review process in the climate science is so full of bias and cheating, nobody outside the co2-bubble according to the cranks and fakes who no longer take the process seriously.
Corrected that for you patiesizeZ. And the rational response is 'who cares'?
It's not as if your worthless, manufactured opinions on areas outside your expertise are of any value to anyone whatsoever.
And there you have it right there. Your preference for indulging insane fantasies rather than dealing with the real world leads you to exactly where you are, marginalised in your own echo chamber.
Alright, Rog, I'll put it to you straight out: would you accept that yet another pet quote that you all ping back and forward to each other so often you've come to believe it as gospel is likely to be, at best, just another piece of decontextualised selective quotation?
(It's all a bit like all your favourite phrases from the CRU hack, isn't it? Which was a long time ago, and- do please site down before you read what I'm about to say- Duffer, GooSeWuh, KarenTPMcThingy, Pentax, you too- I'm afraid it's not coming back. There there; chin up, people! I know you all tried to revive it and everything, but so many media people got burned the first time they're just not listening anymore, are they?) ;-)
And, even if it were true; who is Christine Stewart anyway? I never heard of her until, um, today. Who are 10/10, for that matter? Do they run Jim Hansen, NASA and the National Academies of Science as agents, of vice-versa? What an extraordinarily paranoiac individual you'd have to be to credit any of this nonsense.
AGW Denial: the 9-11 Truth movement makes the big time! Have you read any of that stuff over at your fellow Bestest-Ever Blog award winner Jo Nova's place? Seriously; valorous Austrians fighting sinister conspiracies - including the sinister conspiracy that calls your conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory - and adulterated gold bars? Sapping our vital bodily fluids? You couldn't make it up!
Heartland, on the other hand, is not obscure, it is central. Heartland is the organizer of your major 'Skeptic' (*cough*) gabfest. Heartland chose to run these billboards as a frickin' centrepiece for this very same conference. Heartland is a channeler of funds to many of your most beloved people and projects, Precious.
In other words: Heartland is you, Sunshine!
And let's see what the reports say Heartland's billboards have managed to achieve (ask the LA Times!) thus far, shall we?;
Withdrawal of support:
Diageo (e.g. Johnny Walker, et al);
Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers;
State Farm Insurance;
XL Group;
Allied World Assurance;
RennaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.;
United Services Automobile Association.
That's on top of AT&T and GM a couple of months back after the Gleick papers release furor (and, yes, we know about the Strategy doc.)
(They also managed to alienate the environmental organizations they were working with -I kid you not, folks!- along with the insurance companies listed above in getting developers out of low-lying, high-inundation-risk areas. That pleasantly surprising project may yet simply shift outside the organization.)
Withdrawals from the conference:
Laframboise -
Now, Ms. Raspberry, with her 'interesting' theories about the IPCC that so excite people who've never bothered to read-up on how it all works, was to be a star of the show, just like the billboards. Read all about it if you don't believe me. (Oh, but you do believe me!)
McKitrick -
Oh, yeah, even Sensenbrenner threatened to withdraw. And Microsoft issued a formal statement denouncing both HI's stance on climate and the billboards.
And could you please name a more comprehensive own-goal, if you're aware of one? You know, with similar, identifiable outcomes in the real world, not the endless reams of imagined outcomes confabulated in the overwrought hothouse of online Denial. Denunciation by Watts or the Conservapedia doesn't count, I'm afraid...
*As you should know, in the case of the climate science, the debate and the truth about it has moved from the peer reviewed literature to the blogosphere. And that for a good reason*
Yes, the good reason is that the cranks and nutjobs and right wingnuts for the most part don't do science. They do, on the other hand, promote political agendas, and the internet is a great place for that. This is why flat Earth theories, alchemy and the like are still taken seriously by some clowns on the internet. Moreover, since it isn't peer-reviewed, and since any Tom, Dick or Harry can profess to be a world class expert in any field even if their qualifications are in cleaning public lavatories (with a hat's off to Monty Python for that), then the internet has become a great source of profound stupidity. The climate change deniers have cornered that market. You are a member of a special club, PentaxZ. One that is scientifically and morally bankrupt but who don't give a damn.
So let's get to the heart of the matter PentaxZ.
And let's clear all of the rhetoric out of the way and get to the truth:
You are a raving lunatic who has about as much understanding of science as a soil-dwelling bacteria. And on the contrary, I give the bacteria more common sense.
Hardly. Deltoid is one of the blogs that actually connects to the scientific world and process although perhaps not quite as directly as say, Real Climate for example, which maintains a community of world-class scientists.
That you are totally unable to distinguish it from your preferred crank's and quack's sites actually says more about you and your collective need to regularly declare your periodic victories, based solely on your vaporous imaginings, chronic insecurities, slanders and wishful thinking. But never, ever any substance.
"Well, smart pants, how do you think a, say five to ten year old child would react on that video"
In Fellowship of the Ring, when the Uruk Captain gets his head cut off, a kid of around that age gasped "Cool!".
It seems the only fainting flowers are you deniers.
RTB @ 393 sucked up this from the bilges:
I have News for you.
In reply Ian Forrester pointed out that we know what RTB is, indeed we do, a prat who gets some of his 'science' from Michael Crichton and Pat Michaels.
Seriously RTB you are full of it, however there is help here.
The Z head:
Oh, the irony.
Wow @ 429;
"One continuous whine from deniers is "So what temperature SHOULD the earth be at?!?!?".
Yet their continued "it's just a natural cycle" INSISTS that there is a "natural temperature" that the earth system just deviates from side to side on"
This is indeed, the unifying theory of Denialism.
This view is stuck 100 years or more in the past, when it was believed there was a 'natural order' that was beyond man's influence. It's a semi-religious theme coming from the idea of a creator who made everything as it should be.
This is the intellectual underpinnings of Roy Spencers 'Iris' - it was his attempt to explicate a mechanism for the unchanging natural order as set by the creator.
Anybody that says the following:
> the near surface atmosphere all but stopped warming a decade ago
Is either a liar or an incompetent. Which is it, Rog?
(And wait - it's a decade ago now? Not since 2000? Not since 1998? Not "this century"? Not "the last 15 years"? So hard to keep up when you keep shifting that window round like that. Its almost like, if you left it in one place long enough, people might be able to see through it.)
Time for a new War on Science series, this time about the ABC. What has happened to it?
False 'balance' here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-14/heatwaves-bushfires-predicted-to-…
Now a global oil company CEO saying we're 'first' to price carbon - and not even any attempt at balance here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-14/coalition-takes-aim-at-household-…
> It's a semi-religious theme coming from the idea of a creator who made everything as it should be.
However, the point I had only recently connected was that they whine about how "alarmists" have it wrong because there's no "right" temperature for the earth, yet here they are pretending there is an INHERENTLY right temperature of the earth.
I'd already made the religious connection (for the irreligious, they merely prate Randian mythology that insists that if rich people want to do it, it MUST be right, it can be no other way).
> This statement deserves to be bronzed.
Indeed.
It was so lovely to have RTB turn up here and demonstrate the astounding depths of his igknowledge and illogic combined with the self-assured certainty with which he proclaims it - and the complete lack of awareness of the effect on his putative credibility.
"Your contentions are pure numerology"
Go tell it to scientists Gleissberg, de Vries, Suess and Halstatt.
You natural variation deniers make me laugh. There is plenty of empirical evidence for these cycles, writ large in paleo records, on the shores of northern Canada and Siberia, in seabed ice-rafted moraine deposits, in speleothems worldwide. There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers documenting them. yet you carbon dioxide asphyxiated wankers can't see further than back 50 years to the start of the Mauna Loa series. And you think we're the ones ignorant of climate science. Heh. Clueless tossers. :-)
Anyway, back to the fun:
........
If youâre licensed for huntinâ down âroos
Beware the bold benders of truths
Theyâll say youâre a sniper
And then get all âhyperâ
To make sure their lies heard on the news
*And you think we're the ones ignorant of climate science. Heh. Clueless tossers*
We don't think it RTB. We know it. You have the gall to insinuate that you are some kind of 'expert' when you've never published a bloody paper in your miserable life. Big talk, little man.
What makes you look even more ridiculous than you already are is that 20+ years ago your lot were calling AGW a 'doomsday myth'; it wasn't happening. Then, as more data came in, and the myth suddenly became reality, it was then either (1) due to natural forcing (i.e. solar) or (2) fell within the range of natural variation. Essentially you deniers shift the goalposts as it suits your political narrative.
What an ugly bunch of science-abusers you are. Why you wade in here with your profound ignorance is anyone's guess.
There are cycles in my dog's bowel movements, but whether they affect the climate is another matter.
Tell me, are we at a peak or a trough of this 2239-year cycle, or somewhere in between? And what is its amplitude, say to the nearest 0.1°C?
"as more data came in, and the [doomsday] myth suddenly became reality..."
lol. Junk_Science_Jeff steps into the fray.
"it was then either (1) due to natural forcing (i.e. solar) or (2) fell within the range of natural variation."
Well Jeff, as the paleo reconstructions show, nature has been capable of causing big and sudden swings in temperature over large sections of the plaanet since... forever. I doubt nature suddenly lost this capability when man set fire to coal.
Now I've no idea what planet you, Jeff, are personally in orbit around. Those like me, who are highly sceptical of the (now many times falsified) co2 CAGW chicken-little junk science you peddle, are grounded in the reality of looking at empirical data regarding Earth. Rather than getting all hyper over utterly inadequate and incomplete computer generated doomsday scarynarios.
RTB @377:
Are you saying that we should prepare for a large increase in temperature once the 'negative phase of natural variation' (whatever that is) passes? This seems to be at variance with your general opinion.
When I see people claiming to detect lengthy cycles, I wonder how robust their statistics are. I've seen too many examples of people making, say, 100 comparisons then discussing at length the 5 that were 'significant' at 5% and suspect something similar is going on.
Shorter RTB:
Because forest fires have been observed to start naturally, dropping a lit cigarette in tinder-dry brushland is a-ok.
In fact, the people arrested for Arson in the Australian Outback are victims of a MASSIVE HOAX!
PEOPLE CAN'T START FOREST FIRES!!!
Need proof? Watch "Walking with Dinosaurs": A forest fire MILLIONS of years before mankind existed!
If it talks like a quack, only draws support from Z-head and Brent like a quack and ducks (questions) like a quack ... it's most likely a quack.
The only thing you're lacking Tallquack is a coherent theory tying all those hundreds/thousands/millions of your 'cycles' together to match observations. Well, that and coherence.
Kinda like AGW theory has already managed to do, but better.
I don't think you have it in you.
"Are you saying that we should prepare for a large increase in temperature once the 'negative phase of natural variation' (whatever that is) passes? This seems to be at variance with your general opinion."
Richard, I think we're in for several cooler decades, followed by a brief warming around 2045-2065, and then generally downhill again after that. If you're interested in why my research leads me to that conclusion, visit my website. Trying to discuss it here will only set off the howler monkeys and baboons.
Regarding the reality of cycles in climate related phenomena, you may find this article of interest:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/further-terrestrial-evidence-…
You'll find an answer to your stats question down in the comments to that article.
"The only thing you're lacking Tallquack is a coherent theory tying all those hundreds/thousands/millions of your 'cycles' together to match observations."
Well no-Chek, my global energy model replicates 150 years of temperature evolution better than co2 driven climate models and does it without ad hoc-key stickery joggery pokery involving extra aerosols on demand as required to save the model.
It's also gives approximate future temperature evolution directly calculated from the underlying equations. It doesn't predict ENSO events but correctly captures the underlying multidecadal trends due to the domination of La Nina and El Nino over the relevant time periods.
1) Rog Tallbloke works at the University of Leeds, which has a substantial School of Earth and Environment (SEE), with people who do research and get published in real journals.
2) Many people are as lucky as RTB to be located near a major university where they can easily attend seminars, talk to researchers, etc. Presumably RTB can mention some names of researchers there that know him.
3) Even better, maybe he could give a seminar on his work, with plenty of time for questions by experts, ideally video'd and made available, as the EPA did with this talk of N. Scafetta, which may be quite relevant. (Just flip through slides, which include mention of Rhodes Fairbridge.)
It is plausible that SEE might not want to sponsor RTB to speak, but it might be a valuable educational experience, as blogs and in-person experiences can be ... different.
"my global energy model replicates 150 years of temperature evolution"
By form fitting.
Give me six free parameters and I can construct an elephant.
Remember too: if you've written your model to replicate the past 150 years data, it isn't proven by replication of the past 150 years worth of data.
It only gets proven by data AFTER that 150 years.
PS: where is your paper? If it were anything REMOTELY true (after all, G&T's paper got published), there are a score of journals who would love to print it.
RTB.
Listen to [John Mashey](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…). He is offering you invaluable advice.
John, You have hit the crux of the matter on the proverbial head. Climate change deniers are like schoolyard bullies - they huff and puff and pound their chests, but when push comes to shove they like to hide on their weblogs. RTB does not hesitate to attack James Hansen and other climate scientists, but if were asked to debate them face to face, he'd chicken out in a second. Not that I think busy scientists should waste their time debating primary school beginners like RTB, but its these beginners who try and give the impression that they are world class experts whilst having no pedigree in the field. John gave you a good challenge RTB: sign up for an international scientific conference on AGW and invite Jonas N along and you both can get up there and make complete idiots of yourselves. Or maybe not.
Besides, RTB: you wouldn't know junk science from the real thing if it hit you in the face. How many international conferences on climate have you attended? Or workshops? How many publications do you have in any peer-reviewed journal? Heck, as John said you've got researchers all around you. How many of them do you speak to? How many actually agree with you on the slim chance that they do? When you've actually gotten off your butt and done some science, other than the blog variety, you can criticize me...
PentaxZ: Yes, you nitwit. Many of the deniers are admitting it is warming, but claim its 'natural' or within the normal range of variance. Which is utterly ridiculous, given the spatial scales involved. Large scale systems are highly deterministic Back in the early 90s the deniers said it wasn't warming at all. Another one of their canards is that it hasn't warmed in 10 years - or is it 13 - or 15? Take your pick. Anything to deny, deny, deny.
*Richard, I think we're in for several cooler decades, followed by a brief warming around 2045-2065, and then generally downhill again after that. If you're interested in why my research leads me to that conclusion, visit my website*
What a hoot! MY Research! MY! What research is that? On a blog for heaven's sake? Where are the papers? The conference invites? The beef? Dunning-Kruger would have a field day with you, RTB.
"Give me six free parameters and I can construct an elephant"
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/2011/02/21/tallbloke-and-tim-…
This is *one of* the several approaches to attempting to get a handle on solar variability we have developed. They are all giving similar predictions of an imminent steep drop in solar activity levels. All the studies in mainstream climate science say the effect of solar variability on climatic variation is small. This is because they consider TSI variability in terms of W/m^2 only, and take no account of large variability within the emitted spectrum.
There is increasing evidence in the literature of large amplifying effects due to UV variation affecting upper atmosphere chemistry which in turn affects the disposition of the jet streams around the polar vortices. Our climate scientists and our spurious leaders ignore this stuff at our peril.
The ocean heat content built up by 75 years of above average solar activity levels has been buffering the surface temp against the drop in solar activity since 2003. The current low cycle 24 is using up the reserves fast. It is likely to get a lot colder from late 2013. Farmers take note.
@451
How many trees did McIntyre have while still claiming that he was being stonewalled?
And yet somehow this same ocean has kept on expanding since 2003. How, pray tell, do the oceans keep expanding while their heat content decreases?
Delusional.
Brenty blathered: "How many trees did mighty Mann have data from for his hockey stick reconstruction?" Anticipated Jeff Harvey answer: "Why must you denialists be so obsessed with quantifying things? Can't you feel that Gaia is angry?"
Or more likely, how many deniers have successfully refuted Mann?
Despite the impressions you may have been drip-fed, that would be a big fat zero, wouldn't it, Brenda?
"How, pray tell, do the oceans keep expanding while their heat content decreases?"
First you need to work out the relative contributions of steric changes and runoff vs evaporation. Then you need to know a bit more about how the satellite altimetry is calibrated. Thirdly it is adviseable to compare several datasets, including Envisat, Topex and Jason. Finally consideration should be given to varying interpretations of the ARGO data, and the dodgy splice to the XBT data.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-…
Come now pantiesizeZ, denier trash aren't impressed by Mike Mann's repuitation as one of the world's leading experts.
In fact brainless, dumbed-down cretins like you despise him for it. So, as you're somehow oh-so certain his research can't be right, I'll ask again - where are all the valid denier refutations?
Or are you too snivelling a coward to admit there aren't any?
*"Why must you denialists be so obsessed with quantifying things?*
Because you don't. If you did, you'd publish the odd paper in a good scientific journal. As it is, the denial literature is as thin as the creation 'science' literature.
I see Jonas is making an idiot of himself agin in his asylum. Tell you what RTB: why don't you and he write a paper together and submit it to Science or Nature? Since you both are self-professed geniuses, I am sure it would be a breeze to get it it.
As for RTB writing this: *Richard, I think we're in for several cooler decades, followed by a brief warming around 2045-2065, and then generally downhill again after that*...
it sounds suspiciously like Lomborg when he estimated extinction rate to be .075% of biodiversity over the next 50 years in his appalling book (TSE). The media love 'handles', even if they are patently absurd, like Lomborg's (and RTBs) estimates. I could dissect the myriad flaws in Lomborg's calculations here but I won't. I have better things to do. But since population ecology is my field of research (and not Lomborg's), I can see why laypeople would be taken in by his estimates. Just as they might be by RTBs. Until he submits it to a scientific journal, its worthless. He may call it 'research', but it means diddly squat until it is reviewed critically by experts in the field. Science by blog ain't science if its not thrown to the wolves. This is where the deniers are rank cowards. Big talk but little substance when challenged to put their ideas to the real test.
"Until he submits it to a scientific journal, its worthless."
75000 people view my site every month Jeff. Why would I want to pay a journal to hide my work behind a paywall?
"patently absurd, like Lomborg's (and RTBs) estimates"
That estimate stems from an R2 value of 0.99 in reproducing Leans TSI reconstruction from climate cyclic periodicities. I'm sure you're a great population ecologist Jeff. I think you understand jack all about solar system dynamics though. Unfortunately, the mainstream journals reviewers don't either, so we'll continue innovating in the open where peer review and co-operative development from intelligent laymen is continuous and ongoing.
The proof of the pudding will be in the accuracy of the predictions, not the approval of groupthinking consensoids. Looking good so far.
Rog @ 458
Open Access.
But of course Jeff only asks a rhetorical question, he knows that the vanity bloggers have no interest in science and would no sooner publish a scientific paper than they would fly to the moon.
You're all piss and wind Michael. Results talk, bullshit walks.
...then publish Rog.
Oh, you're walking away from that aren't you......;)
Maybe, if the results continue to be validated for 10-15 years.
If only co2 driven climate modelers were as cautious eh? ...;)
Hansen from 30 yrs ago is looking pretty good.
IPCC from 91 - on track.
Sucks to be in denial.
It must suck to have eyesight that bad Michael. Wipe your windows.
Has Hansen published any validation stats on his 30 year old nonsense recently? If he has, I'll bet they're against the GISS dataset he controls. A clear conflict of interest.
Ah yes blogscience, that special place where cranks bask in the adoration of inept laymen.
It's peer review of a sort, I suppose Jim. But not as we know it.
Is that it Rog, is that all you've got?
A conspiracy theory about Hansen?
I'm sorry, I didn't realise your case was that weak.
Lots of the trolls that infest threads here are objectionable, stupid, pointless and tedious, but it is a while since I've encountered someone that is actually fractally wrong. It really is astonishing to behold.
I agree, Dave H - this guy is hilarious! Rog, you are a third-rate mind with a fourth-rate audience.
And deep down you know it too, little man. And that's why you ain't ever going to attempt to publish - it'll only make it ever more clear that you're no peer of the reviewers!
Why wait? There's apparently at least 2240 years of data to hindcast against. Your model doesn't know whether it's predicting the next 10-15 year period or a 10-15 year period that occurred 800 years ago. It should do equally well with either.
OK, so you can agree the worlds glaciers are rapidly shrinking.
Because it's all shonky, of course.
Yeah, so?
Sea level is an independent check of ocean heat content. Didn't you realize this?
Delusional.
Yes Rog, it's those experts in solar system dynamics (you know, the peers who conduct the journal reviews) who know nothing about solar system dynamics- not you. The old expression "If everyone around you seems crazy, maybe it's you" certainly comes to mind.
Eli Lilly, BB&T and Pepsi confirm they will no longer be supporting Heartland.
As I asked above, Rog, could you please point out a bigger own-goal than this one? Hint: saying 'Gleick ' will only be hilarious...
And then explain to us why you think more ratbaggery - e.g. casting scorn on scientists' reactions to alleged threats, an unsurprising consequence of the hysterical and toxic atmosphere you have all created - is the ideal strategy for your side to pursue at this point?
With enemies like you lot, Rog, who needs friends? ;-)
Rog smallmind really doesn't have a clue or he is being deliberately ignorant.
He mutters:
Now, apart from the childish obscenities emanating from his foul mouth (what is the betting he has halitosis) he shows his lack of scientific acumen by not telling us either which paper he was referring us to, or which of the three scenarios he chose for his mistaken analysis.
Rog smallmind, that is not how real scientists discuss science. You may act like that on your silly blog or on other even sillier blogs such as climatefraudit, wattsuphisbutt or Bishop Shill but not on real science blogs (you did see that his blog is referred to as a Science Blog, didn't you) that means when responding it behooves you to act like a scientist and be accurate with your discussion and provide valid cites and links so we can actually see what you are referring to. It makes it a lot easier that way for us to find all your errors and misinterpretations. Oooh wait a minute, that is your MO, you don't want us to check up on your references. Silly me, I should have realized what your game is before now.
As Ray Ladbury [reiterates elsewhere](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/yamalian-yawns/co…):
> If you donât publish and choose instead to pontificate on blogs or in Opinion pieces, you are a bullshit artist masquerading as a scientist.
Ah, so Roger is a compulsive cyclist, believing that cycles that may have operated in the past trump all else. Roger: being able to predict solar irradiance to within a gnat's whisker, even if you can do it, does little to predict global temperatures if you insist on ignoring changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols. And, no matter how proud you may be of your blog, it counts as nothing in the world of scientific publishing.
re: #472
1) BigCityLib has politely emailed a lot of the Heartland Experts to see if that status is one they a) know they had and b) wish to maintain. The answers vary. See Washington Post Picks Up Chris Landsea Story and earlier stories.
2) ANOTHER OWN GOAL FOR HEARTLAND
See Illinois Coal Association, Heartland's new Gold Sponsor for ICCC-7.
Great move on the parts of ICA and Bast.
This is a common rhetorical (and thought) pattern in certain circles (many of which contain RT)* ... they opine some assertion, "bet" that it's true, and henceforth treat it as established fact.
* I'm not at all surprised to learn that RT is a General Relativity denier. His foolishness on that score is rebutted (with citations) here.
*75000 people view my site every month Jeff. Why would I want to pay a journal to hide my work behind a paywall*
I am sure the web sites of the KKK or NRA or other wacky right wing groups get thousands of hits, too, RTB. The same with 'creation science' sites. I am sure they same kinds of people who log into those kinds of blogs love the climate change denier sites. Does that make them legitimate? Of course not.
Lotharsson's link to Ray Ladbury's comment on Real Climate is important. As a fellow scientist, my research ain't worth a dime if it is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Blog sites are exactly as Ladbury described: venues for bullshit artists masquerading as scientists. And the pay-wall argument is flawed for two reasons: first, a lot of journals are open access now, and second, if you do manage to get your material published in a scientific journal, it gives the piece credibility it will never find on a blog. And this is especially true for the denier literature: there is so little of it that you can guarantee that Watts Morano, Milloy et al. will run to the hills screaming about it if it is published in a reputable journal.
re: 477 user-illusion.myid.net
Well, it all goes toghether. You might be amused by the section on Tom Bethell in Weird Anti-Science..., pp.16-19.
See especially "Professor of Physics Barr133 reviews Bethellâs article on relativity." in which nontechnical Tom Bethell argues about relativity with 2 senior physicists. You can skip straight to that discussion.
In the comments, among the back-and-forth, we find:
'âTom Bethell November 8th, 2009 | 12:50 am
MR BARR DOESNâT KNOW THE FIRST THING . . .
"He shows no understanding of relativity at all. I mean really none. Maybe he took a course on it once but maybe he already forgot it. On the basis of his post, I doubt if he could be teaching the subject. ⦠I donât think he knows the FIRST THING about science. And that includes physics."'
Actually, Professor Barr teaches graduate-level relativity theory. The long back and forth between Barr and Bethell, with comments by others, is quite amusing ... and maybe be familiar.
469"Why wait? There's apparently at least 2240 years of data to hindcast against. Your model doesn't know whether it's predicting the next 10-15 year period or a 10-15 year period that occurred 800 years ago. It should do equally well with either."
We only have 350 years of direct solar observation to calibrate against. This is the model against Lean's 400 year TSI reconstuction:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/tsi-lean2k.jpg
Here's the model against the Steinhilber Beer and Froelich TSI reconstruction from 7350BC :
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/sbf-tsi-c.png
The difference plot is calibrated to the left scale, not the right as stated in the legend.
Link to full article given in comment 450
The two biggest amplitude cycles are the well known de Vries cycle at 207 years and the cycle of solar system internal angular momentum redistribution at 979 years which sees the return of the gas giant planets to approximately the same locations. There are several possibilities for explanation of the underlying mechanism. We don't know which it is yet, and that's a principle reason for holding back on publication for now.
You know, it would be interesting to establish a CMI - that's a Crank Magnetic Index - in order to assign a helpful value to the various Deniati.
You probably get the idea - starting off with a base of zero for believing CO2 in the atmosphere won't bring about significant global warming, one can then add points for any of the following beliefs, starting with the related conspiracy/crank theories (1 point each) -
And then moving on to the genuinely Magnetic material (2 points each for these), including beliefs in -
I'm sure you can think of more of your own examples, but I'd guess that most Deniers would not score lower than 7 on the above.
Arguments between right wingers are indeed amusing. Lest you think that, because he's a physicist and, unlike Bethell and the other cranks in that thread, he understands relativity ... he must be rational, consider this and this.
Thanks John for the link to the Barr-Bethell interaction. This exemplifies the problems when interested but untrained (i.e. self-trained) amateurs enter into debates in complex fields. It is well illustrated IMO here with RTB, Jonas and others. They have waded into the field of climate science, learned something about it, then run off with ideas in which they challenge the views of many senior scientists with years of expertise in the field. They routinely ridicule the positions of scientists with whom they disagree, but they refrain from throwing their ideas into the scientific arena where they would be subject to intense scrutiny. To defend this they casually dismiss the peer-reviewed literature and perr-review itself, as if this validates their arguments.
Whatever they may say, this illustrates the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon to a tee. I recall once being dragged into a debate with someone on a contrarian blog over estimates of extinction rates and the value of biodiversity. It was clear that the person did not have a clue what they were talking about (much like Lomborg in his superficial chapter on the subject) but because their views resonated with the target audience of the blog, I was heavily criticized and was repeatedly told that I knew less about the field of conservation ecology than this person, who in the end said that they had just finished high school. Their views were so simplistic and wrong that it was hard to know where exactly to begin debunking them. In the end, as RTB appears to admit, its more about web hits than scientific scrutiny.
It seems nowadays everyone thinks that they can become instant experts is various scientific fields. Climate science and ecology are certainly not exempt. When I defer to the views of those with pedigree in climate science with respect to AGW, I am ridiculed by Jonas and his attack dogs as well as by the other cranks who sadly have begun to populate Deltoid in ever increasing numbers.
>The two biggest amplitude cycles are the well known de Vries cycle at 207 years and the cycle of solar system internal angular momentum redistribution at 979 years which sees the return of the gas giant planets to approximately the same locations. There are several possibilities for explanation of the underlying mechanism. We don't know which it is yet, and that's a principle reason for holding back on publication for now.
This surely is self-parody.
The only other explanation would see RTB's family in quiet, desperate discussion as to who initiates medical intervention.
The 'anything-but-CO2' church is a very broad one, encompassing all manner of crankery and quackery.
The more the merrier, in fact.
But the aim is always, always, always one and the same.
In a just world, we could look forward to all this crap coming to an end by 2014.
But I'm not betting on it.
@345. bill | May 13, 2012 4:02 AM : Thanks for that info. Appreciated. :-)
> ...and second, if you do manage to get your material published in a scientific journal, it gives the piece credibility it will never find on a blog.
And third, IIRC it's rather interesting how many papers behind paywalls one can find for free if one really wants to.
> In a just world, we could look forward to all this crap coming to an end by 2014.
Nah, it's like Friedman units. By 2014 there will be another explanation that will be validated in just a couple more years.
> The ocean heat content built up by 75 years of above average solar activity levels has been buffering the surface temp against the drop in solar activity since 2003. The current low cycle 24 is using up the reserves fast.
You know what - he's right! [Check out Figure 1!](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermed…). You can clearly see ... er, the ocean heat ... er, rapidly declining since ... er, ...
To be fair Lotherson, Rog did warn that we need to sterilise the calibrations, torpex the JASONS, ARGO the data and reform XTC to be able to tell properly. [Something like that anyway.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…) Probably be a good idea to regenerate the dilithium crystals while we're at it.
Basically whatever's required to remove the fingerprints of those greeny, Gaia loving, pre-industrial, back-to-the-stone-age proto-naturists at NASA.
[He-he](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI5ulKiZAoE&feature=player_embedded).
Heh, the wittering web wankers are out in force again today.
RT @ 450
Ah! But when Jupiter moves into Taurus and Saturn slips into Virgo what happens then?
"We don't know which it is yet, and that's a principle reason for holding back on publication for now."
Titter.
The Beano editors must be getting very fustrated.
Today? You're about the fourth or fifth this month Rog.