re: 482
Yes, expertise and rationality in one domain does not necessarily confer it elsewhere. Despite the venue of that discussion, it was too good to pass up because:
1) It was such a fine example of intense D-K behavior in the face of clear expertise (note Clifford Will also showed up), where the expert stayed with it amazingly long.
2) It was so consistent with Bethell's other writing. as in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, a cornucopia of delights.
(see my review on pp.26-32.
As for physicists going weird on climate science, see 2009 APS Petition, which proved that a bunch of physicists, of whom at least some were quite distinguished, managed to ignore basic physics when they didn't like the results. Of course, their petition only got less than 0.5% of the membership. :-)
"However as we mentioned earlier on the subject of biological growth populations, this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology."
Esper et al 2003
Lol.
This is similar to the sort of crap published in Journals like 'Nature', which has had a moratorium on solar studies from non-team members for years anyway.
> This is similar to the sort of crap published in Journals like 'Nature', which has had a moratorium on solar studies from non-team members for years anyway
No wonder you're not taken seriously. Really: take the advice of others upthread. Try attending some of your university#s courses.
Only if you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist, or your business is to whip up the aforementioned P.C.T.s.
As we've already established you're no scientist Rog, think of it as how say, a screenwriter may reduce two thousand words of a novel down to a set and two double-spaced pages of a script, whilst retaining and conveying the spirit and meaning of the original. Of course, you have to have the skills and know what you're doing to not end up with a travesty.
Perhaps that's the bit you guys just don't get before you start reaching for the tinfoil.
The main things that have been established here is that your mind is so narrow that your intellectual dishonesty has trouble squeezing through it, and that the height of your horse is matched only by the depths to which you stoop.
You are a zit on the face of reasonable debate. ;-)
He cheers me up no end, with his combined self-importance and incoherence, reminding me that what we're really up against is equal parts reactionary politics and self-delusion.
Browse his website sometime. He's very serious about this whole 'publishing' thing. It's just brimming with 'sciencey' goodness. DIY erudition, mutual-back-patting, climastrology, and lashings of self-congratulation... (I know, just like Watts, only more so!)
So, do tell us; how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin, Rog?
you need to work out the relative contributions of steric changes and runoff vs evaporation
when we know it's easy to look up the research that already does this but even that is not necessary, all we have to do is deduce from your statement:
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
that you're hypothesizing that net runoff suddenly and permanently increased in 2003, at the EXACT SAME TIME as the drop in solar activity and by just the right amount to make the rate of increase of sea level the same as it was before 2003.
Of course, such amazing coincidences are absolutely laughable but your ;-) lets us know you're not completely deadpan.
Besides, the pictures appear to represent the many faces of Jeff Harvey after I asked him to explain the climate change he witnessed first hand on his Algonquin trip...
After years of falsely saying that global temperature data sets do not account for the urban heat island effect, now a denier website seems to be arguing that the UHI doesn't exist at all.
Dr Maharosey has pointed to a 'calculation' by mining academic Dr Beamish that to her demonstrates the UHI is a fallacy in relation to the western suburbs of Sydney. The article relies on nonsensical data comparisons, but I thought it strange they'd even be arguing the point.
Weird, huh!
I've posted a comment on the article asking for an explanation but it's still in moderation so will have to wait a bit to see if there's an explanation for this turnaround.
I don't provide links to denialist websites, sorry. The article is currently the second most recent on the blog in question.
Rog is right. Science shouldn't be published in "journals" with their "standards". Science should be decided by whose blog gets the most hits. Then the angry mob can lock that lying James Hansen and fraudulent Michael Mann away in the Tower Of London (note: this suggestion was once seriously made at Watts). Perhaps to shut them up forever they can even be burned alive at the stake.
Rog slags off Nature now, but in reality he would kill to be published there. Deniers crave the legitimacy and prestige of of real scientific journals.
Craig Loehle on the dendroclimatologist's cherrypicking of treemometers which give the 'right answer':
The process of analyzing tree ring data has been compared here and elsewhere to iterative experimental studies. Letâs say one is trying to synthesize some compound. In this process, mistakes can be made, experiments can be contaminated, etc. One keeps trying things until either the compound is synthesized or one gives up and concludes that maybe it isnât possible. But what in the world does it mean to tinker with dendro data? Where is one justified in rejecting any of the data (except in the case of stripbark trees which are clearly physically damaged, but which they wonât throw out)? The only sign of a mistake or problem is that you donât get the answer you like!! I have read lots of this stuff and never have seen an objective reason given for keeping or rejecting any set of trees. How about: âIâm rejecting this set of patients because they did not respond properly to the medicineâ? I hope no one thinks that is ok.
I always find it funny that Craig Loehle, with a BS in Forest Science and an MS in Forest Management, published a 2000 year temp reconstruction based on non-treering proxies.
I wonder if he's staying on as a 'climate expert' with the Heartland selfimmolators?
Notice how scientists on the fringe or else journals with bottom-feeding impact factors are cited without hesitation by the deniers if what they say supports their wafer-thin arguments; on the other hand, note how the deniers routinely smear some of the most esteemed scientists and top-ranking journals when they publish significantly larger volumes of articles supporting AGW.
Its all part of their game. They aren't interested in science, but in promoting a pre-determined world view with a decidedly right wing political agenda. Science just so happens to get in the way, so they are forced to distort it so that it supports their views. As has been shown many times, most AGW deniers also deny a range of other negative human impacts on the biosphere. That is why you commonly find amongst their ranks people who, in addition to GW, downplay high estimates of extinction rates, other forms of pollution, habitat destruction and its effects, ozone depletion, acid rain and other anthropogenic stressors.
Craig Loehle, Ph.D. â Enhanced Crop, Forest, and Ecosystem Health in a Warmer World
Other 'highlights' include;
Craig Idso, Ph.D. â Global Warming and Ocean Acidification
Don Easterbrook, Ph.D. â Are Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible?
Patrick Michaels, Ph.D. â The Role of Public Choice in Climate Science
Willie Soon, Ph.D. â Almighty CO2, Giant Boa Snake, and the Sun (What controls the equator-to-pole temperature distribution of the Earthâs surface?)
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. â CO2 and Climate Change: The Evidence Doesnât Add Up
William Gray, Ph.D. â Why Computer Models Overestimate Global Warming
Christopher Horner, J.D. â The Incredible Disappearing âClimateâ Agenda and its True Costs
Jay Lehr, Ph.D. âTeaching Climate Change to the Public
Bob Carter, Ph.D. â The Misrepresentation of Science in the Public Domain
[ Is anybody else's Irony Meter really playing up after the last couple? ;-) ]
The eponymous group discussion on 'the NASA Letter Writers' should be a hoot, too!...
PS: 'Almighty CO2, Giant Boa Snake, and the Sun' sounds like an album by The Flaming Lips!
Hey, since it's all an online popularity contest with Rog, I just went round to his place and checked his comment nos. for May.
This looks like it should come in as comment 523 on the single item for May here at Deltoid, and Rog's total is now 625. From 17 posts.
But when you allow for the fact that Rog is nothing if not prolific in his own comment threads, and for the additional fact that I'm going to semi-arbitrarily decide (rather conveniently for my own argument - in accordance with standard Denialist practice, mind you!) that he actually contributes about, oh, 1 comment in 6, he's actually only got 521!
"A poster naming himself Rashit Hantemirov comments at CA :- Steve, Iâm horrified by your slipshod work. You did not define what you compare, what dataset used in each case, how data were processed, and what was the reason for that, what limitation there are, what kind of additional information you need to know. Why didnât you ask me for all the details? You even arenât ashamed of using information from stolen letters. Do (sic) carelessness, grubbiness, dishonourableness are the necessary concomitants of your job? With disrespectâ¦
Of course on the internet nobody knows youâre a dog so these may or may not be the words of the distinguished dendrochronolgist. But it is not entirely implausibleâ¦".
Well, McIntyre's effort does seem to follow CRUs up until around 1960 - [could there be a reason](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem)? Also, is it really necessary to cut down trees to establish temperature post-1960?
Steve's Comment May 16th, 10.54 am "He has to coexist with Briffa, Schmidt and those guys. I suspect that heâs received criticism for providing me with data. I didnât do anything complicated in the calculation, so Iâm not sure what his specific problem is."
Gavin's reply to 'dhogaza' question dated May 16th, 11.36am,
Conspiracy theory again, on McIâs part:
"[Response: For the record, I have never met or corresponded with Hantemirov about this or any other topic. - gavin]"
Thus, reinforcing the total incompetence of both Rog Smallbloke and Steve McIntyre, about the subject we call global warming!
Watt McIntyre and Rog Smallbloke know about climate change and the subject of global warming, can be written on the head of a pin, with blackboard chalk.
We took it down immediately and admitted that it was in poor taste and a mistake, but they continue to promote madmen on the other side of the issue including Michael Mann and Bill McKibben, and hypocritically pound on us for our âethical lapse.â [my emphasis]
Having blasted away both feet and kneecaps Bast now takes aim at his left elbow...
But Rog - if you've not scampered off back to your blog trying to boost your hit count (therefore 'science') - you don't see a problem here, right?
And this - combined with your being, um, wrong - is why we'll beat you eventually, you know.
You and your risible cronies have already caused untold damage via the delay to action you've gleefully helped to foster, of course, and your life is likely to become a very uncomfortable one when those particular chickens come home to roost...
More wince-inducing moments, from the same source as above:
Regarding tactics, since the âFakegateâ scandal, Greenpeace has contacted the employers of every scientist who works for us, demanding that they be fired for having the temerity to question the official dogma of global warming. [emphasis mine]
Just checked HI's global warming "experts" (and I use that very, very, loosely) and anyone who might have once been considered respectable has gone bye-bye. But then I thought this effort was spearheaded by BigCityLib, a Canadian blogger out of Toronto. Or maybe all the letters and responses at his site are forgeries created by Peter Glieck?
I just ran through the roster of those who remain as listed HI 'experts' who are relevant to AGW (I may have missed a name or two if I'm unfamiliar with them. Some may also have been ring-ins if I'm unfamiliar with them but their listed position seems appropriate), and got a total of 64.
This includes the following familiar names:
David Archibald
Sallie Baliunas
Timothy Ball
Joseph Bast
E. Calvin Beisner [Cornwall Alliance]
David Bellamy ['No, Bellamy, noooo!' to quote The Goodies!]
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Robert M. Carter
John Christy
Richard Courtney
Joseph D'Aleo
Chris de Freitas
Freeman Dyson
Myron Ebell
Vincent Gray
William Gray
Tom Harris
Craig Idso [apparently so good he's listed twice!]
William Kininmonth
Václav Klaus
David Legates
Jay Lehr
Richard Lindzen
Craig Loehle
Bjorn Lomborg
Anthony R. Lupo
Ross McKitrick
Owen McShane
Patrick Michaels
Steven Milloy
Lord Christopher Monckton [Top ho!]
Marc Morano
Ian Plimer
Harrison Schmitt
Nir Shaviv
S. Fred Singer
Lawrence Solomon
Willie Soon
Roy Spencer
James M. Taylor, J.D.
Anthony Watts
Even without going in to the question of the relevance of some qualifications, I'm not quite getting the 'most scientists... do not believe man-made global warming is a problem' vibe here. Particularly when compared to the 2500 scientists involved in the IPCC alone, or when you look at the lists of new research papers that are pasted each week over at SkS...
Yes, expertise and rationality in one domain does not necessarily confer it elsewhere.
True, but not my point and it doesn't really apply to Barr ... he has the relevant expertise to write a book on religion and faith, but like all religious apologetics is rests on ideology rather than intellectual honesty. And the same is very much on display in his extraordinarily biased piece on "Scientists Behaving Badly". Expertise is not what he lacks ... he's no Roger Tattersall and would quickly reject the nonsense of such ignorant, science-illiterate deniers if he actually bothered to examine it. (Though if he did and came to the inevitable conclusion, he would be viewed as traitor by his co-ideologues.)
Despite the venue of that discussion, it was too good to pass up because: ...
"Greenpeace has contacted the employers of every scientist who works for us"
Well
a) if they know the content of the missive, where is it?
b) how about the witchhunts of Mann and Jones? Apparently it's fine to contact the employers of every scientist who dares to accept the scientific consensus on AGW.
Which just demonstrates how spectacularly ill-informed, illogical and irrational Heartland are. Or maybe they are just liars.
I used to think that HI were essentially paid liars, but perhaps not. They may be being paid to be sincere. Or at least, they were being paid, until recent events overtook them.
In neither case does it matter. The public response to the billboards is what counts. And how very... heartening that has been.
Greenpeace has contacted the employers of every scientist who works for us, demanding that they be fired for having the temerity to question the official dogma of global warming.
@538
s/a book on religion and faith/a book on physics and faith/
Heartland's justification for claiming the Unabomber was motivated by a concern over AGW is:
a passage from Kaczynskiâs manifesto that says the Industrial Revolution has âinflicted severe damage on the natural world.â
HI equating AGW with the Industrial Revolution is quite an own goal.
Accumulated Cyclone Energy, and How it Explains the Climate
Well we know the first one is going to be a lemon and as for that second, Heartland should call in James Dyson as he would put a better handle on cyclone technology.
To his credit, Landsea reacted promptly and directly ...
but oddly, there had been 2 separate pages for him.
HI removed the first quickly, but missed the second, although it is now gone, just this AM.
user-illusion.myid.net:
To be clear, I wasn't commenting on religion, but on his comments on climate, in which expertise and rationality were not on display.
"Remind me again - how many people Ted Kaczynski injure or kill?"
Twenty two injured, three killed.
"How many people will global warming harm, or lead to death?"
Apparently you don't know. So far, as a direct result of climate change...Zero.
However, we do know that "Approximately 600,000 deaths occurred world-wide as a result of weather-related natural disasters in the 1990s". Of course, this is from the WHO, so to fit the bill they have to emphasize that these were mostly poor people. http://www.climate.org/topics/health.html
"If Kaczynski's were "terrible crimes", what does this imply about inaction on mitigating the effects of climate change?"
Well, we just confirmed that weather creates "terrible crimes", so that must mean inaction on mitigating the potential effects of climate change has the potential to turn climate change into a terrible criminal.
Perhaps we should have a poster showing Nerdard as one of the many catalysts that potentially turns climate change into a potentially terrible criminal. It would show him in front of his plugged in computer, while in the backgound the poor people without computers suffer from the consequences of his fossil fuel sucking luxury...
""How many people will global warming harm, or lead to death?"
Apparently you don't know. So far, as a direct result of climate change...Zero."
We know it's going to be millions. At least 150,000 deaths were statistically brought about by climate change in the last decade, and we haven't even started yet.
his comments on climate, in which expertise and rationality were not on display
I offered it as an example of being irrational. And again, it's not expertise he lacks, but intellectual honesty ... one needs no expertise beyond what he has to recognize the flaws in that piece. And his book that argues that physics is more in line with the Bible than with secular materialism is another example of the power of ideology to override rationality.
re: 551
I don't think we disagree, except perhaps in use of words.
a) Expertise in some area of physics
b) Expertise in physics of climate
Anybody with deep expertise in a) could pick up enough of b) in a very short time to understand the basic issues, although it is the case that even some very good physicists (who accept AGW) *think* they understand b), but don't, because they haven't studied it enough.
The study of the 2009 APS petition enumerated many cases where it was clear that ideology (or intellectual dishonesty, if you prefer) simply overpowered any hope of b).
Barr might fit that ... and given that, I'm slighlty surprised he wasn't on the APS petition. A useful essay is that of physicist Arthur P. Smith, The Arrogance of Physicists.
A shrot excerpt is:
'But sometimes that arrogance and self-assurance and collection of intuitions lead us, or at least a few of us, astray. We forget that there are other smart people in the world, who have been thinking about their limited problem for a lot longer and perhaps have a deeper understanding than we give them credit for. We jump in with our simplified models and ideas and then wonder why they don't find them helpful. Or we too deeply trust the intuition of a colleague who has been often right before or who we trust for other reasons, but in a particular instance has not put in the effort to properly understand the problem, and ends up only embarrassing themselves, and us by association.'
Are any of you ever going to grasp the distinction between weather and climate? The warmest recorded April in the northern hemisphere just passed, and the warmest recorded 12 month period for the US just passed. Therefore - and significantly trumping your own 'logic' - AGW.
It's not just The Stupid that's the problem, the longer we go on the more it's apparent it's the stupid.
"Hey dad, it's cold in here, could you please pour more heat into the oceans and raise the planet's average surface temperature by a few degrees? Thanks!"
I should also point out that "global warming is a scam because it's cold where I live!" is the only consistent argument Brent has ever maintained, despite previously admitting that weather isn't climate.
Brent also previously argued that the CET was a good proxy for world temperatures for those keeping score of Brent's stupid and inconsistent arguments.
>>"Remind me again - how many people Ted Kaczynski injure or kill?"
>Twenty two injured, three killed.
>>"How many people will global warming harm, or lead to death?"
>Apparently you don't know. So far, as a direct result of climate change...Zero.
>However, we do know that "Approximately 600,000 deaths occurred world-wide as a result of weather-related natural disasters in the 1990s". Of course, this is from the WHO, so to fit the bill they have to emphasize that these were mostly poor people. http://www.climate.org/topics/health.html
>"If Kaczynski's were "terrible crimes", what does this imply about inaction on mitigating the effects of climate change?"
Kaczynski injured or killed people through the agency of the bombs that he constructed. Fossil fuel-using societies are harming and/or killing people today, and people not yet born, through the agency of refusing to remediate the climate-altering circumstances that they have constructed.
There's no substantive difference. Except that human-caused global warming will end up killing many millions more than Kaczynski did.
Oh, and you haven't said anything about how climate dictates weather...
>Well, we just confirmed that weather creates "terrible crimes"...
No, you just confabulated weather with climate.
>...so that must mean inaction on mitigating the potential effects of climate change has the potential to turn climate change into a terrible criminal.
You don't do logic at all well, do you?
>Perhaps we should have a poster showing Nerdard as one of the many catalysts that potentially turns climate change into a potentially terrible criminal.
If you're talking about human-caused global warming, I'll happily sign up for that.
>It would show him in front of his plugged in computer, while in the backgound the poor people without computers suffer from the consequences of his fossil fuel sucking luxury...
Betula, you obviously have not read my posts from a number of years ago. I live a very frugal life, with no services connected to my property. My water comes from the roof, my poo is composted, my electricity is renewable. By your standards I would live in poverty, but I grow a lot of my own fruits and vegetables, and next year I'll be self-sufficient in any animal protien that my family will require.
Your image of me might warm the cockles of your denying heart, but it's wrong.
Brenty also believes his sub-tallquackian, think for yourself, loudly and proudly proclaimed ignorance means [this ain't really happening](http://barentsobserver.com/en/topics/nasa-thickest-parts-arctic-ice-cap…). It's just those scientists and their dodgy interpolated models making it up.
So the fossil fuel burning ambulances, police cars, firetrucks, helicopters, hospitals, cat scans, x-rays, radiation treatments, defibulators, furnaces and air conditioning units etc never saved anyone. Okay, you win, I get it...
"Nope, if aborted, they don't become people. After being born, THEN they are people. And in the future, people will be born."
Nerdard stated that fossil fuel societies are "harming or killing people not born yet". If we go by your definition they aren't people yet, because they aren't born. So your definition proves Nerdards comment to be incorrect. Thanks.
"Has, will."
What, when.
"That's all you've been doing, Betty. And insist that you have the RIGHT to fling poo."
Are you saying we should take away the freedom to fling? Nerdards would be the first door they knock on (wearing Hazmat suits of course).
Let Freedom Fling!
"Yes. Plenty of evidence. Your standards are negative"
If predicting doom and gloom, catastrophic, storm killing, famine creating, zone shifting, hybrid offspring producing, flood generating, insect and disease spreading, millions of people dying, end of the world scenarios is positive, then yes, I'm negative.
'Unsustainable' is not a word that Brenda and his ilk will ever understand, even as their pensions dry up and the young renege on the social contract the Brendas thought they had sewn up to contain them in providing their continued privilege.
Without mentioning trolls by name, it's exactly because I am not a misanthrope, because I care about and for people and non-humans who don't have a voice with which to defend themselves, that I am concerned that rich Westerners can't find the wherewithall to wean themselves off the carbon tit.
Especially when there'll be no choice in the end, and running the tab until that time would be Western societal suicide.
The troll's is a good example though of how denialists turn reality on its head.
Birch-'brain', you're descending into purility. If you don't know the difference between composting poop and flinging it, it's no wonder that you don't have the quorum of functioning neurones required to understand the physics of global warming, or the ecology of ecosystem degradation.
And that you think that the subject of fæces is a humourous one simply indicates that you have no appreciation of its significant in trophic webs.
Grow up.
Note too that inappropriately fixating on potty humour generally characterises the 'preoperational' stage of Paigetan cognitive development - this would concord with the level of intellectual rigour with which you approach the physics of global warming. Petards, and all that...
"I am concerned that rich Westerners can't find the wherewithall to wean themselves off the carbon tit."
There it is. The rich vs. the poor. That's what this is all about isn't it? The recurring "rich" western theme, the reason for all the exaggerated, always negative to the extreme outcomes. We instill fear to get people to react and create policies that take from the rich and distribute to the poor.
The rich are to blame, the poor suffer so the rich must pay. It's about economic inequality and social justice. All the "if", "could", "might", "maybe", "possibly" and "may" catastrophic scenarios are really about getting those evil westerners to pay up.... western misanthropy.
Shocking!
I wonder if the U.N. and their Millenium Goals to eliminate poverty could have anything to do with this? 2015 was suppose to be the big year, now it's been changed to 2025:
"the poorest countries will still require ongoing support equal to 10â20 percent of their GDP to -graduate from external assistance sometime after 2015âlikely by 2025"
Really? But isn't it true that rather than creating wealth to reduce poverty, the U.N. wants to redistribute it?
"Despite the UN's acknowledgment of the power of wealth creation, it continues to focus on encouraging cash transfers from rich to poor countries."
"The report added that such an investment level would need to be reached within the next few years, and that "one half of the required investments would have to be realized in developing countries." That's where the transfer comes in â some $38 trillion would flow mainly from rich countries to the developing world in the next four decades, if the UN were to get its way."
Bertard, wouldn't you agree that this is the "climate debt" owed by the tit sucking westerners?
"This report is a reflection of the notion of "climate debt" that many of the climate change doomsayers discuss."
"Climate debt is shorthand for the trillions these people say the rich industrialized countries owe to the developing world for having "expropriated" the world's resources, starting at the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century."
Conspiracy again! No actually, they admit it:
"That the UN is behind the idea â and has linked it to a bid to redistribute wealth from rich to poor countries â was confirmed by Ottmar Edenhofer, German co-chair of one of the working groups of the UN's data-assessing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."
Shorter Betty: AGW is a hoax, it's all a conspiracy to take my money. I got it all figured out, just like Brenty - the two smartest guys in the room. Oh yus, you can't fool me. Etc. et tedious cetra.
"Shorter Betty: AGW is a hoax, it's all a conspiracy to take my money"
The effects are exaggerated to spread the wealth, yes. Or are you calling Ottmar Edenhofer a liar?
O. Edenhofer currently holds the professorship of Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin; the co-chair of working group III Mitigation of Climate Change at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); is deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK); director of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change[1]; fellow of the Academy of Sciences in Hamburg, Germany and Member of the Workgroup Climate, Energy and Environment within the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, Germany.
Basically itâs a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet â and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 â there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
"That the UN is behind the idea â and has linked it to a bid to redistribute wealth from rich to poor countries â was confirmed by Ottmar Edenhofer, German co-chair of one of the working groups of the UN's data-assessing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."
Lying Betula quotes lying sources. Edenhofer's quoted statement (the second item) in no way says what the source claims (the first item). Betula's source counts on its readers, like Betula, to be too stupid and dishonest to examine the mined quote in context or to even consider what "de facto" means here, or what the interviewer's comment that prompted it means:
De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
Betula, good to see you hurl off the last vestiges of integrity and dive deep into the murky underworld of Agenda 21 conspiracies. That'll give you credibility. Yeah, people will really start to take you seriously now.
Crazy old Brent,
>But the backlash against the Green Meanies and their AGW scam has begun.
This is the third year running you've claimed this. Not really working out for you, is it? But go on. I mean, there are so many angry old men shouting in comments threads that something is definitely going to happen soon. Right? The scam will collapse any moment now.
You're probably right. I suspect the scam will collapse right around the time of the impending ice age you naively predicted.
Brent, you're such a hateful bitter old man. Cheer up there loner. It's gonna be okay. The "mean Greenies" of your imagination aren't going to steal your little Fiat. You're going to be alright. In the meantime I suggest you go to anger management before your "fury" leads you to do something silly.
>But the glory days of Global Warmery are drawing to a close.
Ah, Brent, humour me again... your last attempt at evading me has been binned.
Rephrasing it in order to get an explicit answer from you, what probability would you place on the mean annual GISS January-December land-and-sea global temperature anomaly for the next-to-occur WMO-defined El Niño year being greater than 0.6 celcius?
It can't happen and it can't be done Brenty, not because of Tim but because you're a fanatic.
When it comes down to it, you prefer to believe pie-in-the-sky such as unknown solar mechanisms or similar tosh, rather than actual data that defines rational discussion.
>you doubtless think 'it's for their own good', as extremists always do when visiting evil upon others in the name of some obnoxious ideal
That's called projection, when an AGW denier puts the world's poor in harm's way due to his extremist ideological agenda, an agenga that he has failed so often to support with scientific facts he's given up arguing the science and taken to weak emotionally-based arguments free of logic.
Don't pretend you care a flying fig about the world's poor. This is about your irrational fear that the government will take your precious property rights away. This is about you, you, you.
>But the glory days of Global Warmery are drawing to a close.
lol
Did you read what you linked to? If the document is genuine, it shows that the shift to green energy has been *so successful* it is now comercially viable and can stand on its own! This was entirely the point of giving green energy a leg up all along!
Kind of puts a gun to the head of your alarmist conspiracies, Brenty boy, that it's all about sucking up government money.
Can't you get anything right? It's like talking to a child.
>In this photo you'd never know that the Anractic Peninsula existed
I'm not sure the "Anractic Peninsula" does exist.
>Bernard, I'm trying to answer your question.
That made me snort.
>I'm well aware that I'm supposed to say, 'Zero percent probability' to which you respond 'Hah! Gotcha! It ALREADY HAS exceeded...'
I'm glad you're already aware that you'll be wrong. We know too.
>Come the day that a polar expedition walks all the way from South Georgia to the Pole, will you Warmists even then concede that there's no such sodding thing as Global Warming? (A yes or a no would do...)
Yes. You got me Brent, with all your tricky wording. If we can walk all the way from South Georgia to the pole we'll admit we were wrong all along. Are you happy?
I would set a tricky trap for you, but you already set one for yourself when you claimed you would admit you were wrong if the temperature anomaly exceeded +0.75 in the next five years, which it did the very year you said that. Strangely enough you never followed through! I wonder why that is?
But look, it's okay. I know I'm not dealing with an honest person. I know I'm dealiing with an ideological zealot who can't make a consistent, rational argument backed up by scientific evidence. I'm dealing with a liar who should be ashamed of himself for coming here and knowingly telling lies in pursuit of his political cause, and at the expense of his own integrity.
Can't you get anything right? It's like talking to a child.
I agree. It's literally pitiful.
And he's not alone.
Since Brent and Betty are doubtlessly stridently Tea Partyish in their politics, if either of you is older than 14 I suggest you immediately refund any public monies that were wasted in any futile attempt to 'educate' you...
I claim pantiesizeZ's 'panic' as yet another iteration of 'final nail in the coffin' for this week's sweepstake purposes.
It's very popular among the more stupid deniers with no arguments (like Jonarse the Vacuous for example), but I do have to admit that ol' pantiesizeZ here exhibits all the signs of an IQ and comprehension so low, it likely makes his arse squeak when he walks. Or is that too down to Jonarse?
>Call me pedantic, but only a warming globe can convince me of global warming.
Which is excellent, as he has previously been forced to admit:
>I concede a rising temperature trend since 1860, and even since the 1998 peak.
It is a lie for Brent to argue that he'll accept warming if it reaches an artitrary point as he's been entirely unable to explain what natural mechanisms have caused nearly one degree of the current warming we have already experienced, and especially the warming since 1970.
I know how Brent will react. The same way he reacts whenever science throws up a result he doesn't like - he'll shriek "fraud!"
Folks, the only signs of this "Brent" person are in your own comments. You're defeating the purpose of banning the troll by quoting him (or even responding to him).
Ah, another one who brings up "the null hypothesis". Tell me, Brent, what IS that null hypothesis, and why should we take that as THE null hypothesis?
It is my experience that people who proclaim that we should start with "the null hypothesis" have absolutely no idea what the concept of the "null hypothesis" really is and how it should be applied. For them, it just ABC (anything but CO2).
I see Marco beat me to it. Brent: most people who introduce the term 'null hypothesis' on blogs use it incorrectly. All you have done is to demonstrate that your understanding of statistics is no better than your undestanding of physics.
As expected, Brent has an overly simplistic idea of "the null hypothesis". In all fairness, it is a common mistake, in part because medical science almost always has the "no effect/difference" as its null hypothesis.
In reality, however, the "null hypothesis" does not necessarily mean "no effect/difference", but rather it refers to the current 'dogma'. For example, in the old, old days the null hypothesis was "the earth is flat". The current null hypothesis is that the earth is a oblate spheroid (within acceptable bounds). Somewhere in-between we went through a phase where the null hypothesis referred to the earth as a sphere.
Similarly, the current null hypothesis is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that further accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Our best estimates put that warming at 2-4 degrees per doubling. The alternative hypotheses that this warming is smaller or larger are the one's that mostly fail the statistical tests.
We already have statistical evidence that the global temperature today is much different from that a century ago (as in "statistically significantly different"). We also have evidence that this 'small' difference is highly relevant, with melting glaciers, arctic sea ice, and Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. In medical science your null hypothesis would already be rejected, and the warming effect of CO2 and major consequences already accepted as the new null hypothesis!
No, knucklehead you keep breaking the terms of your permissions on his blog - which is to stay confined to your own eponymous thread that you earned - because, as far as I can see, your anti-science drivellings are the same old dull, boring, denier piffle as they ever were.
You learn absolutely nothing, nor do you try to, nor even think that you should. You can't even post a simple link in the correct format.
Take it elsewhere Brenty. There's a whole wide internet out there and somewhere where they'll bask in your fatuous ignorance and possibly be impressed by your pitiable blogscience. But I'm reasonably sure any residual amusement here has worn off.
HI and the rest of the Denialati would do well to remember that the meek will inherit the Earth, no matter the state that self-indulgent ideologies and corporate interests leave it in after the limited interval of time that they thieved it from posterity.
The thing is, during the handing-over the Denialati will find themselves as weak, or weaker, than the inheriting meek. Damascus will be behind them by then, though, and the meek are likely to have very long and clear memories...
@ Bernard re Gleick: that's 'good' news, in the sense that his assertions (that he hadn't forged ducments) were correct all along.
Knowing what sticklers they are for discovering the truth through sceptical enquiry, I fully expect people such as Curry and Watts to publish these findings at least as prominently as they did when the whole thing blew up, and to issue full apologies for any defamatory comment or suggestions as to his character.
No, that was wrong of me to say that. Heartland does have one friend left in the whole wide world:
>Other speakers were not concerned with civility, however. Britain's leading climate contrarian Christopher Monckton got a standing ovation for telling a series of "birther" jokes.
Right now the new changes appear to be a major regression. (WTF were they thinking?)
I'm *betting* that [markdown syntax](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax) **won't work**, there's no preview option so I can't check - and my Typepad account is apparently no longer useful.
Roy Spencer is going to have to invent a new entertaining polynomial fit for his unfolding UAH temperature curve...
Nah, all he has to do is keep fitting a cubic, and due to the rising trend it will continue to point down at the end. That should be enough to bamboozle the rubes...
I think the new idea of un-numbered comments is brilliant - referencing upthread by new comment should be a breeze as will scanning long threads in general by position. Also appreciate the time-saving feature of hiding the comment count inside each post.
Bringing back the old authentication methods or some other form of federated authentication would be handy - it means a somewhat increased level of assurance that commenter(s) posting with the same password-authenticated identity at different times and places really is the same person (or are a collective deliberately attempting to give that impression ;-)
Mildly interesting, in light of the frequent troll meme here along the lines of "warmists are increasingly desperate and isolated" - speaking of the current Heartland conference:
But this year's event had a sense of desperation. Speakers spoke about being "victimised" by "warmists" and "alarmists" – scientists and politicians who accept that carbon dioxide emissions from industry are a main driver of climate change.
Alas, Lotharson, 'The Graun', one feels, is not exactly, or even slightly, neutral.
I only wrote that somewhat feeble comment to see how this new system works. And by the way, who's this Lambert person who has suddenly appeared . . . ?
However, as all cynics would say, one should not crow too
soon, for the hydra of denialati have many more heads to be removed , before we can put that sky dragon to rest in the grave yard of denial.
One head may be down, due to Heartland Institute scoring their own goal and yet there is another one hundred more to go.
The only clear concise and logical choice now, if we want a sustainable future for those who will be living in 2100, is to abandon the addiction of fossil fuel energy and follow the Germans lead ASAP.
Truth may have one this skirmish, since the other side literally shot itself in the foot, the heart and the head, with the billboard of shame. The truth is, it will be a very long hard road to victory, of banishing the denialati of ignorance and ridding our addiction of burning fossil fuel for cheap energy.
Winston Churchill : "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."
"Meanwhile, the House should prepare itself for hard and heavy tidings. I have only to add that nothing which may happen in this battle can in any way relieve us of our duty to defend the world cause to which we have vowed ourselves; nor should it destroy our confidence in our power to make our way, as on former occasions in our history, through disaster and through grief to the ultimate defeat of our enemies."
Let's not let the Duffer forget that whatever he may think as to his imagined compromises that the UK's Guardian reports may contain, he prefers to get his versionof events from someone to whom Heartland pays almost $90 grand for $40 'web services'.
Of course to someone with all the limited know-how epitomised by the Duffer, 'web services' is the equivalent of 'zero gravity brain surgery assisted by faeries', so no problem whatsoever is perceived in Dufferworld.
Given that your feelings on certain topics have been repeatedly and devastatingly shown to be inconsistent with reality, your feelings are probably not particularly useful data points.
Really Mr./Dr. Lambert? Do tell, what did I write to deserve you deleting? The truth? Fucking hilarious. And please spare me explanation if the reason is I was "abusive".
You have my email address, I would love to hear the reason.
Funny thing is, I am not a "denier". Just despise arrogance and, especially, hypocrisy regardless of position. I am a centrist. But there seems to be much more on one side--yours--than there is on the other. Though, to be fair, both have there share.
Anyway, sad you find it necessary to delete me. Tells me something(s).
(BTW chose the wrong name for the wrong blog FYI. Used Lurker in a debate with Franky Swifthacker at the Bunny-Boy place. Just thought I would come clean on that. Bad form you know... My real name is Bill Walsh. Like the coach.)
I reckon the revamp is Scienceblogs wide, Daryl, and I'd be surprised if Tim is much in control of it.
For whoever is handling the new format, I'm still concerned about the apparent lack of 'permalinks' available for the comments, which also means links in existing comments referring to previous comments are now defunct.
And I really don't like the lack of a preview option.
Any idea, Tim, of whether our new eminent host - National Geographic - is likely to become a bit more concerned about, um, tone? ( In the circumstances it may prove to have been a good move for Pharyngula to have (largely) left Sciblogs, for instance.)
Going to Heartland conferences was always a bit like entering the portal to an alternative universe. Speakers and audience are almost entirely male, white and getting on in years.
... and far right politically.
Britain's leading climate contrarian Christopher Monckton got a standing ovation for telling a series of "birther" jokes.
This following is a classic. You could not make this stuff up.
John Dunn, a Heartland policy adviser, sees his role as fighting "enviro-fascist madness". In his speech, he sought to ridicule recorded evidence of growing drought and heatwaves due to climate change. "Warm is good for people, and it's particularly good for people as they get older," said Dunn. "The people that warm spells kill are already moribund." He went on to say that only extreme cold caused extra deaths.
The next speaker called for the return of the insecticide DDT, long banned in the US. "It's cheap, it's effective and it's perfectly safe for humans and for all wildlife."
The reporter did not say if Monckton drank some on stage.
But this year's event had a sense of desperation. Speakers spoke about being "victimised" by "warmists" and "alarmists"
"The next speaker called for the return of the insecticide DDT ... “It’s cheap, it’s effective and it’s perfectly safe for humans and for all wildlife.” "
Apart from insects, right?
PS it's not banned, never been banned and only misuse of DDT is banned.
"what did I write to deserve you deleting? The truth?"
Hmm. You didn't write the truth, so it couldn't have been that.
"Funny thing is, I am not a “denier”."
Yes, all deniers deny that too.
"I am a centrist."
Oddly enough, those people most out of whack are the most likely to believe themselves "centrist".
"Though, to be fair, both have there share."
And this is the reason why: they can then diss EVERYONE ELSE, because "I'm not on one side, *I'M a centrist!". Oddly enough, they'll only complain about "both sides being just as bad" to the people who don't believe in a Great Conspiracy to push AGW.
You know what's funny Wow, you are such an arrogant idiot that you actually think your post makes sense. Since every one of the previous was deleted, it's rich that you even comment. Shall we go back and discuss your ridiculous assertions about Gleick being found innocent by a court? No? Didn't think so. I am on board with AGW being real. Not that it matters. What I despise is arrogant assholes like you and Dr. Harvey and your laughable hypocrisy.
Our host has a funny way of maintaining his house. I will choose not to participate when only part of the discussion is allowed through.
Oh, to be clear, that post was meant for Tim only since I had assumed he would simply delete it as he had all the rest. Not that I care that you read it, but the sentiments were directed at him, not you. Out of context to say the least. But have your fun Wow. You're still a laughable zealot.
Cut the poor victim me crap TypLurk/BPW.
Scienceblogs is in the process of a format changeover and many posts on many fora have gone missing, not just yours here.
You may deny being a denier, but that same typical aggressive, paranoid, victim nonsense cap sure is a snug fit.
As one of the owners of a 'shiny avatar' I wish to report that I have no idea how it got there - random accounts of mine just appear sometimes in the oddest places (WUWT!).
Is the new format based on a WordPress template, perhaps?
The good news / frustrating thing is that comment numbers are all there in the html - chek's above is 'comment-57313' for example.
'Typical Lurker' - Yes, it's all about you, isn't it?
On another note: Gareth's place also doesn't have a preview function - by far the best option, surely - but it does allow for the tweaking of comments for a few minutes after posting (provided no-one else has!)
Also, if you're asking for a wish list, nesting comments in sub-threads is a great way to let various dialogues run their course.
Still, it's probably still less 'aaargh' than commenting at Eli's! ;-)
Hey, I've decided to be a centrist too!
From now on, I only half believe in gravity, so when my doctor next tells me I should lose weight I'll tell him to stop being a medico-fascist alarmist..
If only. You're dumber than a sack of rocks, Bill, and no one cares about what you have to say, it being utterly worthless.
[From WordPress: "You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down." Uh, but I didn't post previously. This changeover is abominable and I hope NatGeo fires whoever is responsible and finds someone competent.]
Um, Ianam, that was the Typical Lurker, who apparently believes all these recent glitches are specifically aimed at him...
I've also had a post disallowed for posting 'too many comments' when I'd put one on one thread and had just attempted to put another on a different thread. that's pretty common behaviour in these parts!...
BTW all: Has the masthead for the site proper always said 'Deltoid - Just another site?'
So hard not to engage with such amusing responses...
Chek,
Bullshit. Even after the format change I had comments in moderation deleted by our host. So, you can try that approach, but I know it holds no water.
Ianam, you are in fact a complete moron. You prove that on a regular basis with your intellectually bankrupt rhetorical approach of calling anyone you don't agree with stupid. Automatic fail. As far as my comment being worthless? In response to the laughable assertion presented by Bernard, that Gleick has somehow been "cleared", I think my pointing out, accurately and with proof, that he--Gleick--is both a liar and a criminal, is worthwhile to the discussion. You just don't like it. Neither did Jeff Harvey who thinks he is a hero. Smells like hypocrisy is cooking in his kitchen on a regular basis.
Gaz, not that you care, by centrist I mean that I am neither left nor right. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Unlike so many here, I see the world in shades of grey, not black and white. Hard to understand, I know. So your snark is nothing but that and yet another worthless response.
Since nothing I wrote pertained to AGW--other than I believe in the physics of it--the term denier is useless in this context. But that doesn't matter, does it? If one disagrees with any aspect of the Deltoid version of the world, that person must be a D-K afflicted, denying, stupid idiot.
You guys are funny. Keep it up. I love the entertainment.
TypLurk/BPW @ 08.57 "I think my pointing out, accurately and with proof, that he–Gleick–is both a liar and a criminal, is worthwhile to the discussion."
As things stand, your opinion and personally awarded "conviction" mean nothing except frothing hot air.
No charges and hence no 'conviction' have ever been laid. End of story.
In the meantime, the public interest can heartily thank Dr.Gleick for exposing a plan by right wing nutters to subvert the body politic by indoctrinating schoolchildren with their anti-scientific and insupportable propaganda.
And btw, comments of mine are also 'missing' here and elsewhere. The difference is I accept it's due to a technical glitch. You, being you, seem to prefer to choose to interpret it as suppressing your worthless hyperbolic opinions. As with most deniers in my experience, I tend to think it panders to therir persecution complex as if such uninformed manufactured views carry any additional weight due to their being suppressed
Fortunately, most sane people grow out of believing they're living in a James Bond novel by the time they're fourteen.
Atypical lurker had a tanty about being "deleted".
If he had read about the merger with NG, he'd have known that there were warnings that comments would be lost in the process - Greg Laden even posted about this beforehand. I had posts several innocuous deleted from Deltoid; I haven't spat the dummy and succumbed to paranoia - BPW should grow up and grow a brain.
You guys are funny. Keep it up. I love the entertainment.
Hang on; don't we know this guy? Didn't he try out the same schtick a while back with an acronym that we were supposed to discern meant something along the lines of 'You Are all Funny as Hell' which was apparently meant to be devastating?
The routine hasn't got any better. Belligerent Concern / Tone Trolling 101. Next.
He committed a crime. Period. Not in dispute. He hasn't been charged, but it is not in doubt. Should you want, I will document it for you. I already have. I will again.
Gleick exposed nothing that wasn't already known. Heartland is a right wing think tank. So what? We knew that. As for no charges, you are right, but that does not change the fact that he committed a crime. Period. Like it or not.
If the comments missing were typical, why didn't Tim just tell me that? You can see I asked. I think that particular string was deleted for other reasons. I could be wrong.
Bernard...grow up etc? I don't read what you are referencing. But if that was the case, I specifically asked Tim. No response but to post one of my questions to him out of context. As I stated, he deleted several in moderation unless that was part of the glitch. If so, fine. Just say that.
I laugh because I don't remotely fit into your comfortable position off "denier", primarily because I am not. To the contrary, I care about the planet. I have kids. But I'm not over the top. I just respect the environment and think many of you have the opposite effect you are looking for and I wish you could see that. I really do.
Gleick wasn't cleared of identity theft, he was cleared of creating the strategy document as per Heartland's ficticious claims. BPW's argument is a strawman, and sadly I don't see him accusing Hearland of criminal defamation and lying. Touche!
Gleick's actions, while ethically questionable, exposed Heartland as the vile corporatist thinktank we expected them to be. It goes much deeper than "Heartland is a right wing think tank". It exposed their payment of cretins like Bob Carter (exposing his lie that he receives no payment from special interest organisations) and their plans to brainwash children with ideologically driven dogma.
If this realease was so harmless, why did Heartland feel the need to lie about the source of the strategy document? I seriously doubt there are many deniers who really believe in their hearts that Gleick faked it. The attacks on Gleick are a seriously desperate distraction tactics.
Now we are in the delightful position of watching Heartland destroy themselves from within with their own bitter hatred. Deniers are really getting desperate at the moment.
Addendum: For the record I class myself as centrist too, which is why I find BPW's lashing out at Peter Gleick and commenters on this website most bemusing. Or maybe that should read amusing.
For the record, BPW, we've had tone trolls and concern trolls before and I can spot them at one hundred paces. The cries of "I'm a believer!" and "you're not doing our cause any good!". The bitter attacks on people like Gleick while ignoring much more serious criminal activity such as the CRU email theft.
For some ghastly reason I can't find any record of dear BPW lecturing the Watts-ites about their abuse of scientists or support of criminal activity.
Of course, what really gives BPW away is the same besieged, victimised mentality all deniers possess. I'm sure we've all had commenting issues - I know I have - but the only people complaining they are being supressed are Tim Curtain and BPW. Go Figure.
I mostly read science blogs and the comments on news stories, and I wondered if the sense of entitlement I get off of many commenters in those venues is unique to science controversies - reading another blog I noticed it isn't.
Lurk: "Gaz, not that you care, by centrist I mean that I am neither left nor right."
So what did you mean by this: "Funny thing is, I am not a “denier”. Just despise arrogance and, especially, hypocrisy regardless of position. I am a centrist. But there seems to be much more on one side–yours–than there is on the other. Though, to be fair, both have there share."
Seems to me, Lurk, that you were referring to AGW, hence your reference to "denier" and "one side" and "the other".
If you weren't talking about climate science, then what the heck were you talking about?
Back in the Dark Ages, when the Catholic Church ruled the world, no-one dared question their wisdom when they said: "Do pennance! The world will end before the year 1000!"
which was followed, after some anti-science, by a long religious diatribe.
No! This isn't your planet! Jesus created it. He controls its climate - not mankind.
Global warming experts pray to Ixchel [?!?*] and Gaia for guidance.
England still exists. Ask any Muslim.
...and then there's the creepy sub-Viz comics graphics. Oh, and, good grief - they've even pixellated the 'naughty bits' on the Willendorf Venus. What can you say?...
I always find these things to be a profoundly disturbing insight into some very sick minds indeed that have latched onto religion as a means of normalising their paranoiac persecution fantasies.
*I'd lay $20 that most 'global warming experts' have never heard of Ixchel!
I just challenged a Senior Warmist to state his falsifiability criteria for AGW. Would anybody like to join in her at the Deltoid Faith Forum?
You will declare AGW to be false in the event that:
(i) Snowball Earth returns.
(ii) The southern icecap once extends to South Georgia
(iii) The Greenland Strait is once iced over
(iv) The Thames freezes once at Tower Bridge
(v) The monthly UAH-MSU LT anomaly stays below 0.8C from 2013 to 2023
(vii) The UAH-MSU LT 13-month running average stays below 0.5C from 2013 to 2023.
Or you may choose the faith-based option:
(viii) Under no circumstances whatsoever.
You called?
Tim L says:
“The Canberra Times was correct to report that there had been death threats at ANU as Media Watch confirmed by talking to Will Steffen!”
Australian National University former chancellor Ian Chubb has gone on record in the Australian today saying:
“For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story.”
I see all my previous comment to this thread were lost in the "technical Glitch" - I'm glad I saved the old page before Deltoid merged with another warmblog.
It shouldn't be too hard to work out the pattern in the 'glitch'. It might even be worth a post at the Talkshop.
Bill says:
"You and your risible cronies have already caused untold damage via the delay to action you’ve gleefully helped to foster, of course, and your life is likely to become a very uncomfortable one when those particular chickens come home to roost…"
If I was in ANU's climatology dept that would probably count as a death threat. Lol.
I see all my previous comment to this thread were lost in the “technical Glitch” – I’m glad I saved the old page before Deltoid merged with another warmblog.
It shouldn’t be too hard to work out the pattern in the ‘glitch’. It might even be worth a post at the Talkshop.
Let's remember: this was the man who arrived with -
Has John Coochey’s comment regarding alleged ‘death threats’ against Australian climate scientists been deleted? It was here yesterday.
How do I know this? Because the quote above comes from the first of all your comments on this thread that are still all there. Try clicking page 4.
Again, all you're demonstrating is that you routinely make claims without evidence, and that you're then likely to compound your error by accusing others of malfeasance.
We went over this before. Again, little man, 30+ scientists from all over Australia. We've got the bloody emiails an even the video.
For the record, I managed to track down the original Canberra Times story (no longer on their website at the original link), as well as provided a walk-through of Media Watch's clear refutation of The Australian's 'it's all about the ANU' combined nit-and-cherry-pick here.
I see all my previous comment to this thread were lost in the “technical Glitch” – I’m glad I saved the old page before Deltoid merged with another warmblog.
It shouldn’t be too hard to work out the pattern in the ‘glitch’. It might even be worth a post at the Talkshop.
(Screenshot taken)
This is tea-through-the-nose-worthy.
One really should adjust one's tinfoil cap, look past the tip of one's ideological nose, and engage one's brain (such as it is) before opening one's mouth to change one's feet.
Do consider blogging about it though - it would be great to have your paranoia and its subsequent excusing preserved in the carbonite of the Interweb.
Given that climate change denial entirely rests on one or a variety of conspiracy theories (depending on the needs of the practitioner), Tallquack should be encouraged to blog away to his heart's content and catalogue all his delusions for posterity.
It's not like the real world or the natural world gives a fcuk.
Billy Bob Hall: Yes, Bernard J. – May 21, 11:25 am
Fullfilling Bernard J. – May 21, 11:30 am
Let’s kill them all. Just like the 10:10 doctrine demands.
Except that, of course, it doesn't. That 10:10 ad was foolish, ill-advised, in bad taste, showed atrocious bad judgment ... and was not a statement of policy doctrine, as everyone, especially dishonest swine like you, well knows. Nor, of course, did Bernard J. state any such policy doctrine ... he did not recommend that stupidity should be a crime or that anyone should be put to death for it; you know that, I know that, everyone know sthat. OTOH, plenty of deniers have called for criminal penalties, death, etc. for climate scientists, and they mean it.
Some of you people are just too much.
As opposed to all of you. But regardless of who is "too much", AGW is a scientifically established fact.
When the world has shown nearly one degree of warming in 130 years (and most of that in the last forty with the warmest year in 2010) it is pointless in pretending, Brent, that there will ever be a time you will accept the scientific reality. Set all the hypothetical falsibility targets you want. When the inevitable happens you'll blame the sun or accuse scientists of faking the data or move the goalposts to 1.0+ by 2020 on CET or claim it's all "natual variability" or conject yourself a new theory you don't really believe etc etc ad infinitum.
Why would anyone accept the bet of someone who openly believes in scientific fraud? With someone who bases their scientific views on their political fears and their irrational belief that Al Gore wants to take their property away?
Anyway, I'm sure that global cooling you gloatingly predicted about is about to start any day now.
I should also point out that high-profile believers in AGW include Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, John Christy, Roy Spencer and Christopher Monckton, in that they all accept that adding Co2 to the atmosphere will cause some warming.
No, but you certainly are. AGW is an established scientific fact. And just the other day I read a comment by a so-called "skeptic" ... wait ... here it is Canman at http://www.desmogblog.com/us-and-them-psychology-behind-heartland-insti… saying that "very few climate skeptics deny" AGW, it's only "CAGW" they don't accept. You folks should get your stories straight. But you can't, because you are all a bunch of stupid ideologues with no concern with what is actually true; what a tangled web you collectively weave.
Meanwhile, of course, my point about Billy Bob's transparent dishonesty about 10:10 and what Bernard J. said about the hypothetical consequences of stupidity being considered a crime goes unrefuted. As does my assertion that AGW is a scientifically established fact. It is, whether ignorant imbeciles like Billy Bob are aware of it or not, just as is evolution, the common descent of humans and modern monkeys from a common ancestor, a 14 billion year old universe, vaccines not being the cause of autism, lack of effectiveness of prayer, and numerous other things that ignorant people refuse to believe.
I don't disagree with that entirely (especially in the more virulent USA) but probably not as much as we may imagine through this sort of forum were we take an interest in such things.
By way of illustration, many friends and acquaintances had heard of the Earth Day promotion to turn of their lights for an hour back in March. Schools and colleges in my local authority area had runners carrying a rechargeable torch from school to school to raise awareness. Hopefully, the very thought of it will have given Montford and his cretinous minions at least a few apoplectic aneurisms.
By way of contrast, the flat-earthers of denial's counter campaign, Human Progress Day's campaign to turn on as many lights as possible was a gigantic, embarrassing flop.
In other news....
"You (sic) ‘no’ means that you consider AGW is unfalsifiable.
Your abysmal comprehension skills are quite likely a root cause of your lack of understanding of AGW, but your inability to read is your own problem. Don't compound it by putting your own dumb, ill-educated words in other peoples' mouths.
Yes, Bernard J. – May 21, 11:25 am
Let’s kill them all. Just like the 10:10 doctrine demands. Some of you people are just too much.
Ianam has already addressed the point, but I'll reiterate - I simply said that if stupidity was a crime, the trolls on this thread would be guilty of the extreme presentation of such crime, to the extent that the severity would warrant the harshest penalties that crimes can attract.
It's to say that you're about as stupid as one can be.
This is different to saying that I believe that the trolls should be knocked off. If Billy Bob has been sequestered in the backwoods for so long that he can't discern the difference, then the problem is his, not mine.
Of course, being one of the Stupid crowd himself, BBH is simply proving that he isn't capable of understanding the difference.
The one who trusts the overwhelming evidence of relevant peer reviewed science, the considered judgement of every National Academy of Science of every advanced nation, and their relevant scientific and professional organisations.
The other is of course a loony who prefers to take his cue from tired old reactionary comedy writers and whacko conspiracy theorists and bought and paid for ex-TV weathermen. That's you, that is.
By way of contrast, the flat-earthers of denial’s counter campaign, Human Progress Day’s campaign to turn on as many lights as possible was a gigantic, embarrassing flop.
Yes, of course, but the campaign to retard needed policy change has not been a flop ... again, especially in the U.S.
Chek and John (again), it's best to pretend that the forbidden troll's posts don't exist; when they are eventually removed, the only sign of them will be in your own posts.
Speaking of spots on the sun, be sure to book some time on 4 June to watch the partial lunar eclipse (yeah, I know), and more importantly, book 6 June to catch the transit of Venus - it'll be the last chance to see for over a century.
" However, whereas glaciers that spill into the ocean retreated rapidly in the 2000s, it was land-terminating glaciers that underwent the fastest regression 80 years ago." reads the final sentence of Karen's link.
Did you think that no-one would actually check your link?
Just to be clear. Glaciers melting or moving into the ocean are displaying different responses to different impacts from those where only land terminating glaciers show melting or retreating.
Poor old Christopher Monckton. Running away from his debate with Peter Hadfield, being instructed not to call himself a member of the House Of Lords and now this:
His theories are so unorthodox that the American DJ interviewing him thought he must be an eccentric “fake Lord” who had simply bought his title and had been “smoking crack”. But Lord Monckton is indeed a real peer – and he really does believe that Barack Obama faked his birth certificate to become US President.
There is every chance that Monckton is simply playing to the birther audience for attention (it worked for Trump, after all), but I'm not going to argue against Monckton making an ass of himself. We'll just file it away in the memory bank for the next time a fake skeptic comes in here taking Monckton seriously.
John, I'd recommend sending anyone sufficiently foolish enough to do so on a short mosey over to the Trails' End Store to see Deputy Monckton - in full dude mode - demonstrating that he's all hat and no cattle...
Arpaio 'considered' and 'unpolitical'? Then going on the scrounge for the cause?
Oh, and the problems with the birth-certificate PDF - they are actually there - are easily explained as scanning artifacts. One wonders how just how much donated cash may have disappeared into the 'posse's' 'research'.
Let us hope to see similar for corporations operating outside of that reports remit. Perhaps 'The Australian' could help, after all they should have all 'the juice' to hand.
[Chek-mate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…).
re: 482
Yes, expertise and rationality in one domain does not necessarily confer it elsewhere. Despite the venue of that discussion, it was too good to pass up because:
1) It was such a fine example of intense D-K behavior in the face of clear expertise (note Clifford Will also showed up), where the expert stayed with it amazingly long.
2) It was so consistent with Bethell's other writing. as in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, a cornucopia of delights.
(see my review on pp.26-32.
As for physicists going weird on climate science, see 2009 APS Petition, which proved that a bunch of physicists, of whom at least some were quite distinguished, managed to ignore basic physics when they didn't like the results. Of course, their petition only got less than 0.5% of the membership. :-)
Cherrypicking, team style.
"However as we mentioned earlier on the subject of biological growth populations, this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology."
Esper et al 2003
Lol.
This is similar to the sort of crap published in Journals like 'Nature', which has had a moratorium on solar studies from non-team members for years anyway.
> This is similar to the sort of crap published in Journals like 'Nature', which has had a moratorium on solar studies from non-team members for years anyway
No wonder you're not taken seriously. Really: take the advice of others upthread. Try attending some of your university#s courses.
Only if you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist, or your business is to whip up the aforementioned P.C.T.s.
As we've already established you're no scientist Rog, think of it as how say, a screenwriter may reduce two thousand words of a novel down to a set and two double-spaced pages of a script, whilst retaining and conveying the spirit and meaning of the original. Of course, you have to have the skills and know what you're doing to not end up with a travesty.
Perhaps that's the bit you guys just don't get before you start reaching for the tinfoil.
500 Chek:"As we've already established"
The main things that have been established here is that your mind is so narrow that your intellectual dishonesty has trouble squeezing through it, and that the height of your horse is matched only by the depths to which you stoop.
You are a zit on the face of reasonable debate. ;-)
Well, I guess [that's the culmination](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…) of Tallquack's konspirasy outreach program.
Congratulations Rog, you scored Brenda. No loss here.
502 - RTB's projection of his own shortcomings is perverse. The arrogance is mind-numbing....
I thinks he's funny. Can we keep him?
He cheers me up no end, with his combined self-importance and incoherence, reminding me that what we're really up against is equal parts reactionary politics and self-delusion.
Browse his website sometime. He's very serious about this whole 'publishing' thing. It's just brimming with 'sciencey' goodness. DIY erudition, mutual-back-patting, climastrology, and lashings of self-congratulation... (I know, just like Watts, only more so!)
So, do tell us; how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin, Rog?
Talltales:
For a minute there, I thought you were serious. But it was pretty obviously a joke when you said things like:
when we already know that is being done and
when we know it's easy to look up the research that already does this but even that is not necessary, all we have to do is deduce from your statement:
that you're hypothesizing that net runoff suddenly and permanently increased in 2003, at the EXACT SAME TIME as the drop in solar activity and by just the right amount to make the rate of increase of sea level the same as it was before 2003.
Of course, such amazing coincidences are absolutely laughable but your ;-) lets us know you're not completely deadpan.
I know there was some discussion about Darwin earlier on the thread so I thought some would find this interesting...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2144732/Cambridge-Uni-co…
Besides, the pictures appear to represent the many faces of Jeff Harvey after I asked him to explain the climate change he witnessed first hand on his Algonquin trip...
Daily Mail = Instant Fail.
After years of falsely saying that global temperature data sets do not account for the urban heat island effect, now a denier website seems to be arguing that the UHI doesn't exist at all.
Dr Maharosey has pointed to a 'calculation' by mining academic Dr Beamish that to her demonstrates the UHI is a fallacy in relation to the western suburbs of Sydney. The article relies on nonsensical data comparisons, but I thought it strange they'd even be arguing the point.
Weird, huh!
I've posted a comment on the article asking for an explanation but it's still in moderation so will have to wait a bit to see if there's an explanation for this turnaround.
I don't provide links to denialist websites, sorry. The article is currently the second most recent on the blog in question.
The primary source is the recent booklet released from the Climate Commission, which can be found [here](http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/climate-impacts-and-opportunitie…)
Rog is right. Science shouldn't be published in "journals" with their "standards". Science should be decided by whose blog gets the most hits. Then the angry mob can lock that lying James Hansen and fraudulent Michael Mann away in the Tower Of London (note: this suggestion was once seriously made at Watts). Perhaps to shut them up forever they can even be burned alive at the stake.
Rog slags off Nature now, but in reality he would kill to be published there. Deniers crave the legitimacy and prestige of of real scientific journals.
>No wonder you're not taken seriously. Really: take the advice of others upthread. Try attending some of your university#s courses.
Why should he? Their blogs probably don't get as many hits as his, if they have blogs at all.
Hmmm, out of stoopid curiosity in a thread of 508, those few denialati or other who scored own goal, with pure unadulterated bunkum, are as follows :-
Troll 14
Betula 23
Duff 33
RTB mononeuron 34
[Epic Face Palm](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-_sABor77E)
Correction to my previous post: Dr Maharosey should read Dr Marohasy.
Roger Talltales starts with:
"75000 people view my site every month Jeff..."
...and concludes with...
"The proof of the pudding will be in the accuracy of the predictions, not the approval of groupthinking consensoids."
Quite so, Roger. Quite so.
BTW Roger, several *million* people a month view Star Trek fanfic websites...therefore...Spock!
Craig Loehle on the dendroclimatologist's cherrypicking of treemometers which give the 'right answer':
The process of analyzing tree ring data has been compared here and elsewhere to iterative experimental studies. Letâs say one is trying to synthesize some compound. In this process, mistakes can be made, experiments can be contaminated, etc. One keeps trying things until either the compound is synthesized or one gives up and concludes that maybe it isnât possible. But what in the world does it mean to tinker with dendro data? Where is one justified in rejecting any of the data (except in the case of stripbark trees which are clearly physically damaged, but which they wonât throw out)? The only sign of a mistake or problem is that you donât get the answer you like!! I have read lots of this stuff and never have seen an objective reason given for keeping or rejecting any set of trees. How about: âIâm rejecting this set of patients because they did not respond properly to the medicineâ? I hope no one thinks that is ok.
via talltales:
We must never forget to reject the stripbarks, mustn't we? Our denialist forefathers would never forgive us.
@ 504 "reactionary politics" says hammer and sickle head Bill.
75000 views/month for Rog likely means he has about 100 obsessives with itchy fingers..
I always find it funny that Craig Loehle, with a BS in Forest Science and an MS in Forest Management, published a 2000 year temp reconstruction based on non-treering proxies.
I wonder if he's staying on as a 'climate expert' with the Heartland selfimmolators?
To be more accurate Crispy, he's also credited with [a Ph.D. in range management (mathematical ecology) from Colorado State University.](http://www.climatewiki.org/wiki/Dr._Craig_Loehle)
But basically he's [yet another denier konspiracy whiner with a grudge](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/04/craig_loehle_is_sad.php) having a past temperature reconstruction that made it into E&E and was subsequently [ripped to shreds years ago.](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructi…)
Just Rogs type of "authority", all in all.
@516 I can also construct comprehensible English sentences, 'Mack'... ;-)
Notice how scientists on the fringe or else journals with bottom-feeding impact factors are cited without hesitation by the deniers if what they say supports their wafer-thin arguments; on the other hand, note how the deniers routinely smear some of the most esteemed scientists and top-ranking journals when they publish significantly larger volumes of articles supporting AGW.
Its all part of their game. They aren't interested in science, but in promoting a pre-determined world view with a decidedly right wing political agenda. Science just so happens to get in the way, so they are forced to distort it so that it supports their views. As has been shown many times, most AGW deniers also deny a range of other negative human impacts on the biosphere. That is why you commonly find amongst their ranks people who, in addition to GW, downplay high estimates of extinction rates, other forms of pollution, habitat destruction and its effects, ozone depletion, acid rain and other anthropogenic stressors.
Cripsy @518
From the ICCC-7 conference schedule:
Other 'highlights' include;
[ Is anybody else's Irony Meter really playing up after the last couple? ;-) ]
The eponymous group discussion on 'the NASA Letter Writers' should be a hoot, too!...
PS: 'Almighty CO2, Giant Boa Snake, and the Sun' sounds like an album by The Flaming Lips!
Hey, since it's all an online popularity contest with Rog, I just went round to his place and checked his comment nos. for May.
This looks like it should come in as comment 523 on the single item for May here at Deltoid, and Rog's total is now 625. From 17 posts.
But when you allow for the fact that Rog is nothing if not prolific in his own comment threads, and for the additional fact that I'm going to semi-arbitrarily decide (rather conveniently for my own argument - in accordance with standard Denialist practice, mind you!) that he actually contributes about, oh, 1 comment in 6, he's actually only got 521!
So Tim doesn't even need to turn up to whip him!
And as for average popularity per post...
Science for the win!
This just in...
It's becoming more and more apparent that Mann may have been using data from Bamboozle plants collected by the Bambuseae tribe.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/mcintyre-gets-some-new-yamal-data…
Khắc nháºp, khắc xuất
Wait a minute - I thought McIntyre's original contention was that you could only get hockey sticks. But suddenly, now there are none?
I hadn't realised McIntyre is even more incompetent than was first thought.
This just in....
Betula is an idiot.
OK, OK, that's not just in. Its been known for quite some time. I stand corrected.
Clearly the 'sceptics' will never let the Mannean hockey stick go. As if any of that mattered.
Excessive partiality to an irrelevant argument is a sure sign of weakness. Perhaps they should no longer be indulged.
Ask them counter-questions instead. Like how known paleoclimate variability squares with an insensitive climate system as hypothesised by eg Lindzen.
H/T to Phil Clarke at [Real Climate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/yamalian-yawns/co…)
"A poster naming himself Rashit Hantemirov comments at CA :- Steve, Iâm horrified by your slipshod work. You did not define what you compare, what dataset used in each case, how data were processed, and what was the reason for that, what limitation there are, what kind of additional information you need to know. Why didnât you ask me for all the details? You even arenât ashamed of using information from stolen letters. Do (sic) carelessness, grubbiness, dishonourableness are the necessary concomitants of your job? With disrespectâ¦
Of course on the internet nobody knows youâre a dog so these may or may not be the words of the distinguished dendrochronolgist. But it is not entirely implausibleâ¦".
Well, McIntyre's effort does seem to follow CRUs up until around 1960 - [could there be a reason](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem)? Also, is it really necessary to cut down trees to establish temperature post-1960?
It's a pity you can't ask them in person. If they behaved the way they normally do, they would just look somewhere else and start walking away.
chek #528
It seems they are the words Hantemirov. From McIntyre's response to a comment directed at Hantemirov:
How embarrassing.
Say Chek #528, watt a good find.
Steve's Comment May 16th, 10.54 am "He has to coexist with Briffa, Schmidt and those guys. I suspect that heâs received criticism for providing me with data. I didnât do anything complicated in the calculation, so Iâm not sure what his specific problem is."
Gavin's reply to 'dhogaza' question dated May 16th, 11.36am,
Conspiracy theory again, on McIâs part:
"[Response: For the record, I have never met or corresponded with Hantemirov about this or any other topic. - gavin]"
Thus, reinforcing the total incompetence of both Rog Smallbloke and Steve McIntyre, about the subject we call global warming!
Watt McIntyre and Rog Smallbloke know about climate change and the subject of global warming, can be written on the head of a pin, with blackboard chalk.
Many Thanks, you truly made my day! :)
Chris O'Neill @ 530
Either walk away, or start prating loudly about conspiracies ;-)
The man just cannot stop himself -
Having blasted away both feet and kneecaps Bast now takes aim at his left elbow...
But Rog - if you've not scampered off back to your blog trying to boost your hit count (therefore 'science') - you don't see a problem here, right?
And this - combined with your being, um, wrong - is why we'll beat you eventually, you know.
You and your risible cronies have already caused untold damage via the delay to action you've gleefully helped to foster, of course, and your life is likely to become a very uncomfortable one when those particular chickens come home to roost...
More wince-inducing moments, from the same source as above:
Just checked HI's global warming "experts" (and I use that very, very, loosely) and anyone who might have once been considered respectable has gone bye-bye. But then I thought this effort was spearheaded by BigCityLib, a Canadian blogger out of Toronto. Or maybe all the letters and responses at his site are forgeries created by Peter Glieck?
I just ran through the roster of those who remain as listed HI 'experts' who are relevant to AGW (I may have missed a name or two if I'm unfamiliar with them. Some may also have been ring-ins if I'm unfamiliar with them but their listed position seems appropriate), and got a total of 64.
This includes the following familiar names:
Notably Christopher Landsea is still there, despite the WaPo reporting his request to be de-listed.
Even without going in to the question of the relevance of some qualifications, I'm not quite getting the 'most scientists... do not believe man-made global warming is a problem' vibe here. Particularly when compared to the 2500 scientists involved in the IPCC alone, or when you look at the lists of new research papers that are pasted each week over at SkS...
@John Mashey
True, but not my point and it doesn't really apply to Barr ... he has the relevant expertise to write a book on religion and faith, but like all religious apologetics is rests on ideology rather than intellectual honesty. And the same is very much on display in his extraordinarily biased piece on "Scientists Behaving Badly". Expertise is not what he lacks ... he's no Roger Tattersall and would quickly reject the nonsense of such ignorant, science-illiterate deniers if he actually bothered to examine it. (Though if he did and came to the inevitable conclusion, he would be viewed as traitor by his co-ideologues.)
Yes, definitely.
Joe Bast [#534](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…) also states:
I don't know a huge amount about the Unabomber, but I know enough to recognise this is a lie.
>Our billboard was factual: The Unabomber was motivated by concern over man-made global warming to do the terrible crimes he committed.
Interesting.
Remind me again - how many people Ted Kaczynski injure or kill?
How many people will global warming harm, or lead to death?
If Kaczynski's were "terrible crimes", what does this imply about inaction on mitigating the effects of climate change?
"Greenpeace has contacted the employers of every scientist who works for us"
Well
a) if they know the content of the missive, where is it?
b) how about the witchhunts of Mann and Jones? Apparently it's fine to contact the employers of every scientist who dares to accept the scientific consensus on AGW.
Worth reading Climate Progress on Bastâs letter:
[Heartland CEO Joe Bast Calls Bill McKibben and Michael Mann âMadmenâ](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/16/485531/heartland-ceo-joe-ba…)
Heartland's justification for claiming the Unabomber was motivated by a concern over AGW is:
Which just demonstrates how spectacularly ill-informed, illogical and irrational Heartland are. Or maybe they are just liars.
lord_sidcup @ 542
I used to think that HI were essentially paid liars, but perhaps not. They may be being paid to be sincere. Or at least, they were being paid, until recent events overtook them.
In neither case does it matter. The public response to the billboards is what counts. And how very... heartening that has been.
As I said above, I counted 64 still-listed 'experts' relating to HI's AGW campaigns (so far as I can discern, but probably an understimate.)
Here are the details of Greenpeace's letter writing campaign. I count 10 letters.
Here's an example of a Greenpeace letter - to Harvard re Willie Soon.
Now, have fun trying to fit the claim -
@538
s/a book on religion and faith/a book on physics and faith/
HI equating AGW with the Industrial Revolution is quite an own goal.
Following on from Bill's list of Heartland 'experts' here is their 2007 conference schedule.
Note this:
Well we know the first one is going to be a lemon and as for that second, Heartland should call in James Dyson as he would put a better handle on cyclone technology.
To his credit, Landsea reacted promptly and directly ...
but oddly, there had been 2 separate pages for him.
HI removed the first quickly, but missed the second, although it is now gone, just this AM.
user-illusion.myid.net:
To be clear, I wasn't commenting on religion, but on his comments on climate, in which expertise and rationality were not on display.
Nerdard...
"Remind me again - how many people Ted Kaczynski injure or kill?"
Twenty two injured, three killed.
"How many people will global warming harm, or lead to death?"
Apparently you don't know. So far, as a direct result of climate change...Zero.
However, we do know that "Approximately 600,000 deaths occurred world-wide as a result of weather-related natural disasters in the 1990s". Of course, this is from the WHO, so to fit the bill they have to emphasize that these were mostly poor people.
http://www.climate.org/topics/health.html
"If Kaczynski's were "terrible crimes", what does this imply about inaction on mitigating the effects of climate change?"
Well, we just confirmed that weather creates "terrible crimes", so that must mean inaction on mitigating the potential effects of climate change has the potential to turn climate change into a terrible criminal.
Perhaps we should have a poster showing Nerdard as one of the many catalysts that potentially turns climate change into a potentially terrible criminal. It would show him in front of his plugged in computer, while in the backgound the poor people without computers suffer from the consequences of his fossil fuel sucking luxury...
""How many people will global warming harm, or lead to death?"
Apparently you don't know. So far, as a direct result of climate change...Zero."
We know it's going to be millions. At least 150,000 deaths were statistically brought about by climate change in the last decade, and we haven't even started yet.
Apparently, you THINK you know.
Problem is, you're wrong, Betty.
I offered it as an example of being irrational. And again, it's not expertise he lacks, but intellectual honesty ... one needs no expertise beyond what he has to recognize the flaws in that piece. And his book that argues that physics is more in line with the Bible than with secular materialism is another example of the power of ideology to override rationality.
re: 551
I don't think we disagree, except perhaps in use of words.
a) Expertise in some area of physics
b) Expertise in physics of climate
Anybody with deep expertise in a) could pick up enough of b) in a very short time to understand the basic issues, although it is the case that even some very good physicists (who accept AGW) *think* they understand b), but don't, because they haven't studied it enough.
The study of the 2009 APS petition enumerated many cases where it was clear that ideology (or intellectual dishonesty, if you prefer) simply overpowered any hope of b).
Barr might fit that ... and given that, I'm slighlty surprised he wasn't on the APS petition. A useful essay is that of physicist Arthur P. Smith, The Arrogance of Physicists.
A shrot excerpt is:
'But sometimes that arrogance and self-assurance and collection of intuitions lead us, or at least a few of us, astray. We forget that there are other smart people in the world, who have been thinking about their limited problem for a lot longer and perhaps have a deeper understanding than we give them credit for. We jump in with our simplified models and ideas and then wonder why they don't find them helpful. Or we too deeply trust the intuition of a colleague who has been often right before or who we trust for other reasons, but in a particular instance has not put in the effort to properly understand the problem, and ends up only embarrassing themselves, and us by association.'
The evidence supports that.
Looking forward to 'Brent infestation removed'.
Are any of you ever going to grasp the distinction between weather and climate? The warmest recorded April in the northern hemisphere just passed, and the warmest recorded 12 month period for the US just passed. Therefore - and significantly trumping your own 'logic' - AGW.
It's not just The Stupid that's the problem, the longer we go on the more it's apparent it's the stupid.
"Hey dad, it's cold in here, could you please pour more heat into the oceans and raise the planet's average surface temperature by a few degrees? Thanks!"
Brent - you've obviously never heard the old Yorkshire saying - Ne'er cast a clout 'til May be out.
@556 Bad, point-missing argument that hands easy fodder to the trolls.
Brent believes the world's climate is just like England's. He is dum.
I should also point out that "global warming is a scam because it's cold where I live!" is the only consistent argument Brent has ever maintained, despite previously admitting that weather isn't climate.
Brent also previously argued that the CET was a good proxy for world temperatures for those keeping score of Brent's stupid and inconsistent arguments.
When I was young, if you were cold, you put another jumper on.
When I was older, if you were cold (and rich), you retired to warmer climes.
Nowadays, the sense of self entitlement people like Bent display has it that the entire world has to change to make them comfortably warm.
[Betula](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#commen…) said:
>Nerdard...
>>"Remind me again - how many people Ted Kaczynski injure or kill?"
>Twenty two injured, three killed.
>>"How many people will global warming harm, or lead to death?"
>Apparently you don't know. So far, as a direct result of climate change...Zero.
>However, we do know that "Approximately 600,000 deaths occurred world-wide as a result of weather-related natural disasters in the 1990s". Of course, this is from the WHO, so to fit the bill they have to emphasize that these were mostly poor people. http://www.climate.org/topics/health.html
>"If Kaczynski's were "terrible crimes", what does this imply about inaction on mitigating the effects of climate change?"
Kaczynski injured or killed people through the agency of the bombs that he constructed. Fossil fuel-using societies are harming and/or killing people today, and people not yet born, through the agency of refusing to remediate the climate-altering circumstances that they have constructed.
There's no substantive difference. Except that human-caused global warming will end up killing many millions more than Kaczynski did.
Oh, and you haven't said anything about how climate dictates weather...
>Well, we just confirmed that weather creates "terrible crimes"...
No, you just confabulated weather with climate.
>...so that must mean inaction on mitigating the potential effects of climate change has the potential to turn climate change into a terrible criminal.
You don't do logic at all well, do you?
>Perhaps we should have a poster showing Nerdard as one of the many catalysts that potentially turns climate change into a potentially terrible criminal.
If you're talking about human-caused global warming, I'll happily sign up for that.
>It would show him in front of his plugged in computer, while in the backgound the poor people without computers suffer from the consequences of his fossil fuel sucking luxury...
Betula, you obviously have not read my posts from a number of years ago. I live a very frugal life, with no services connected to my property. My water comes from the roof, my poo is composted, my electricity is renewable. By your standards I would live in poverty, but I grow a lot of my own fruits and vegetables, and next year I'll be self-sufficient in any animal protien that my family will require.
Your image of me might warm the cockles of your denying heart, but it's wrong.
As is so much else that you spout.
Brenty also believes his sub-tallquackian, think for yourself, loudly and proudly proclaimed ignorance means [this ain't really happening](http://barentsobserver.com/en/topics/nasa-thickest-parts-arctic-ice-cap…). It's just those scientists and their dodgy interpolated models making it up.
Good show Bererd, Big Al would be proud of you.
Sorry about the spelling Bernard.
Nerdard...
"Fossil fuel-using societies are harming and/or killing people today"
How many? And how many have they saved?
"and people not yet born"
That's called abortion.
"Except that human-caused global warming will end up killing many millions more than Kaczynski did."
If could, potentially may might.
"My water comes from the roof, my poo is composted, my electricity is renewable."
So because you fling your poo, we should all fling ours?
"By your standards I would live in poverty"
You presume to know my standards? Other than not flinging my poo, please share.
"How many?"
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/25/local/me-smog-25
"And how many have they saved?"
0.
"That's called abortion."
Nope, if aborted, they don't become people. After being born, THEN they are people. And in the future, people will be born.
Who'd've thought it?
"If could, potentially may might."
Has, will.
"So because you fling your poo, we should all fling ours?"
That's all you've been doing, Betty. And insist that you have the RIGHT to fling poo.
"You presume to know my standards?"
Yes. Plenty of evidence. Your standards are negative.
"Good show Bererd, Big Al would be proud of you."
Mack, did you just call Al Gore fat?
Wow @564...
And how many have they saved?" "0"
So the fossil fuel burning ambulances, police cars, firetrucks, helicopters, hospitals, cat scans, x-rays, radiation treatments, defibulators, furnaces and air conditioning units etc never saved anyone. Okay, you win, I get it...
"Nope, if aborted, they don't become people. After being born, THEN they are people. And in the future, people will be born."
Nerdard stated that fossil fuel societies are "harming or killing people not born yet". If we go by your definition they aren't people yet, because they aren't born. So your definition proves Nerdards comment to be incorrect. Thanks.
"Has, will."
What, when.
"That's all you've been doing, Betty. And insist that you have the RIGHT to fling poo."
Are you saying we should take away the freedom to fling? Nerdards would be the first door they knock on (wearing Hazmat suits of course).
Let Freedom Fling!
"Yes. Plenty of evidence. Your standards are negative"
If predicting doom and gloom, catastrophic, storm killing, famine creating, zone shifting, hybrid offspring producing, flood generating, insect and disease spreading, millions of people dying, end of the world scenarios is positive, then yes, I'm negative.
Tim will eventually delete Brent's latest comment just as he deleted all his previous comments, so let's not take the bait, folks.
'Unsustainable' is not a word that Brenda and his ilk will ever understand, even as their pensions dry up and the young renege on the social contract the Brendas thought they had sewn up to contain them in providing their continued privilege.
Without mentioning trolls by name, it's exactly because I am not a misanthrope, because I care about and for people and non-humans who don't have a voice with which to defend themselves, that I am concerned that rich Westerners can't find the wherewithall to wean themselves off the carbon tit.
Especially when there'll be no choice in the end, and running the tab until that time would be Western societal suicide.
The troll's is a good example though of how denialists turn reality on its head.
Birch-'brain', you're descending into purility. If you don't know the difference between composting poop and flinging it, it's no wonder that you don't have the quorum of functioning neurones required to understand the physics of global warming, or the ecology of ecosystem degradation.
And that you think that the subject of fæces is a humourous one simply indicates that you have no appreciation of its significant in trophic webs.
Grow up.
Note too that inappropriately fixating on potty humour generally characterises the 'preoperational' stage of Paigetan cognitive development - this would concord with the level of intellectual rigour with which you approach the physics of global warming. Petards, and all that...
Misanthropy: hatred of Mann.
(Brent's spelling is not always the best.)
Nice definition, Chris!
Betty, is there a point to you?
Betula has stated that his point is to troll.
Bertard...
"I am concerned that rich Westerners can't find the wherewithall to wean themselves off the carbon tit."
There it is. The rich vs. the poor. That's what this is all about isn't it? The recurring "rich" western theme, the reason for all the exaggerated, always negative to the extreme outcomes. We instill fear to get people to react and create policies that take from the rich and distribute to the poor.
The rich are to blame, the poor suffer so the rich must pay. It's about economic inequality and social justice. All the "if", "could", "might", "maybe", "possibly" and "may" catastrophic scenarios are really about getting those evil westerners to pay up.... western misanthropy.
Shocking!
I wonder if the U.N. and their Millenium Goals to eliminate poverty could have anything to do with this? 2015 was suppose to be the big year, now it's been changed to 2025:
"the poorest countries will still require ongoing support equal to 10â20 percent of their GDP to -graduate from external assistance sometime after 2015âlikely by 2025"
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/reports/costs_benefits3.htm
Conspiracy!
Really? But isn't it true that rather than creating wealth to reduce poverty, the U.N. wants to redistribute it?
"Despite the UN's acknowledgment of the power of wealth creation, it continues to focus on encouraging cash transfers from rich to poor countries."
"The report added that such an investment level would need to be reached within the next few years, and that "one half of the required investments would have to be realized in developing countries." That's where the transfer comes in â some $38 trillion would flow mainly from rich countries to the developing world in the next four decades, if the UN were to get its way."
Bertard, wouldn't you agree that this is the "climate debt" owed by the tit sucking westerners?
"This report is a reflection of the notion of "climate debt" that many of the climate change doomsayers discuss."
"Climate debt is shorthand for the trillions these people say the rich industrialized countries owe to the developing world for having "expropriated" the world's resources, starting at the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century."
Conspiracy again! No actually, they admit it:
"That the UN is behind the idea â and has linked it to a bid to redistribute wealth from rich to poor countries â was confirmed by Ottmar Edenhofer, German co-chair of one of the working groups of the UN's data-assessing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."
http://www.canada.com/business/grudginglâ¦
Bertard, do you disagree with those last statements?
Is that the same IPCC established by two United Nations organizations?
The cat's out of the bag Bertard, the "rich" westerners need to pay and you're just another concerned misanthropic waterboy for the cause...
Shorter Betty: AGW is a hoax, it's all a conspiracy to take my money. I got it all figured out, just like Brenty - the two smartest guys in the room. Oh yus, you can't fool me. Etc. et tedious cetra.
Here's shorter URL @575...
http://tinyurl.com/7pln6r9
chek...
"Shorter Betty: AGW is a hoax, it's all a conspiracy to take my money"
The effects are exaggerated to spread the wealth, yes. Or are you calling Ottmar Edenhofer a liar?
O. Edenhofer currently holds the professorship of Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin; the co-chair of working group III Mitigation of Climate Change at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); is deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK); director of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change[1]; fellow of the Academy of Sciences in Hamburg, Germany and Member of the Workgroup Climate, Energy and Environment within the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, Germany.
Chek...
"I got it all figured out, just like Brenty - the two smartest guys in the room"
Obviously I have you figured out...
Me @575..."Conspiracy!"
Me @575..."Conspiracy again!"
You @576..."Shorter Betty: AGW is a hoax, it's all a conspiracy to take my money"
With a 100% probability...
No, I'm calling
a lie.
No, he's not lying.
Edenhofer said nothing about exaggerating effects, you lying sack of crap, and you're too stupid to understand what he did say, moron.
Lying Betula quotes lying sources. Edenhofer's quoted statement (the second item) in no way says what the source claims (the first item). Betula's source counts on its readers, like Betula, to be too stupid and dishonest to examine the mined quote in context or to even consider what "de facto" means here, or what the interviewer's comment that prompted it means:
Betula, good to see you hurl off the last vestiges of integrity and dive deep into the murky underworld of Agenda 21 conspiracies. That'll give you credibility. Yeah, people will really start to take you seriously now.
Crazy old Brent,
>But the backlash against the Green Meanies and their AGW scam has begun.
This is the third year running you've claimed this. Not really working out for you, is it? But go on. I mean, there are so many angry old men shouting in comments threads that something is definitely going to happen soon. Right? The scam will collapse any moment now.
You're probably right. I suspect the scam will collapse right around the time of the impending ice age you naively predicted.
Brent, you're such a hateful bitter old man. Cheer up there loner. It's gonna be okay. The "mean Greenies" of your imagination aren't going to steal your little Fiat. You're going to be alright. In the meantime I suggest you go to anger management before your "fury" leads you to do something silly.
>But the glory days of Global Warmery are drawing to a close.
Ah, Brent, humour me again... your last attempt at evading me has been binned.
Rephrasing it in order to get an explicit answer from you, what probability would you place on the mean annual GISS January-December land-and-sea global temperature anomaly for the next-to-occur WMO-defined El Niño year being greater than 0.6 celcius?
It can't happen and it can't be done Brenty, not because of Tim but because you're a fanatic.
When it comes down to it, you prefer to believe pie-in-the-sky such as unknown solar mechanisms or similar tosh, rather than actual data that defines rational discussion.
It's that simple.
Brenty boy,
>you doubtless think 'it's for their own good', as extremists always do when visiting evil upon others in the name of some obnoxious ideal
That's called projection, when an AGW denier puts the world's poor in harm's way due to his extremist ideological agenda, an agenga that he has failed so often to support with scientific facts he's given up arguing the science and taken to weak emotionally-based arguments free of logic.
Don't pretend you care a flying fig about the world's poor. This is about your irrational fear that the government will take your precious property rights away. This is about you, you, you.
>But the glory days of Global Warmery are drawing to a close.
lol
Did you read what you linked to? If the document is genuine, it shows that the shift to green energy has been *so successful* it is now comercially viable and can stand on its own! This was entirely the point of giving green energy a leg up all along!
Kind of puts a gun to the head of your alarmist conspiracies, Brenty boy, that it's all about sucking up government money.
Can't you get anything right? It's like talking to a child.
>In this photo you'd never know that the Anractic Peninsula existed
I'm not sure the "Anractic Peninsula" does exist.
>Bernard, I'm trying to answer your question.
That made me snort.
>I'm well aware that I'm supposed to say, 'Zero percent probability' to which you respond 'Hah! Gotcha! It ALREADY HAS exceeded...'
I'm glad you're already aware that you'll be wrong. We know too.
>Come the day that a polar expedition walks all the way from South Georgia to the Pole, will you Warmists even then concede that there's no such sodding thing as Global Warming? (A yes or a no would do...)
Yes. You got me Brent, with all your tricky wording. If we can walk all the way from South Georgia to the pole we'll admit we were wrong all along. Are you happy?
I would set a tricky trap for you, but you already set one for yourself when you claimed you would admit you were wrong if the temperature anomaly exceeded +0.75 in the next five years, which it did the very year you said that. Strangely enough you never followed through! I wonder why that is?
But look, it's okay. I know I'm not dealing with an honest person. I know I'm dealiing with an ideological zealot who can't make a consistent, rational argument backed up by scientific evidence. I'm dealing with a liar who should be ashamed of himself for coming here and knowingly telling lies in pursuit of his political cause, and at the expense of his own integrity.
I agree. It's literally pitiful.
And he's not alone.
Since Brent and Betty are doubtlessly stridently Tea Partyish in their politics, if either of you is older than 14 I suggest you immediately refund any public monies that were wasted in any futile attempt to 'educate' you...
BTW. Mr Lambert, just curious but was one of your relations on the recently replayed Captain Cook doco?
Thought I saw someone (Andrew Lambert I think?) with your surname on that late the other night.
Brent says:
>Call me pedantic, but only a warming globe can convince me of global warming.
Which is excellent, as he has previously been forced to admit:
>I concede a rising temperature trend since 1860, and even since the 1998 peak.
>BTW. Mr Lambert, just curious but was one of your relations on the recently replayed Captain Cook doco?
No relation.
SteveR
That Andrew Lambert was probably this well known, to those of us interested in nautical matters, maritime historian .
I claim pantiesizeZ's 'panic' as yet another iteration of 'final nail in the coffin' for this week's sweepstake purposes.
It's very popular among the more stupid deniers with no arguments (like Jonarse the Vacuous for example), but I do have to admit that ol' pantiesizeZ here exhibits all the signs of an IQ and comprehension so low, it likely makes his arse squeak when he walks. Or is that too down to Jonarse?
Brent says:
>Call me pedantic, but only a warming globe can convince me of global warming.
Which is excellent, as he has previously been forced to admit:
>I concede a rising temperature trend since 1860, and even since the 1998 peak.
It is a lie for Brent to argue that he'll accept warming if it reaches an artitrary point as he's been entirely unable to explain what natural mechanisms have caused nearly one degree of the current warming we have already experienced, and especially the warming since 1970.
I know how Brent will react. The same way he reacts whenever science throws up a result he doesn't like - he'll shriek "fraud!"
Folks, the only signs of this "Brent" person are in your own comments. You're defeating the purpose of banning the troll by quoting him (or even responding to him).
Duly noted. I wasn't aware his comments were being removed from this thread.
Gee, you must be just about to win, bendax, because we're all laughing...
> as well as the died-in-the-wool AGW believer
Yeah, how can someone believe in the evidence of AGW when there is so much made up stuff against it?!?!
> getting the deltoids leave their comfort zone
Yeah, being uncomfortable with rabid lunatic raving is SOOO closed-minded.
Yawn.
When you've got something worth reading beyond the first five words, denier, come back and try then.
Ah, another one who brings up "the null hypothesis". Tell me, Brent, what IS that null hypothesis, and why should we take that as THE null hypothesis?
It is my experience that people who proclaim that we should start with "the null hypothesis" have absolutely no idea what the concept of the "null hypothesis" really is and how it should be applied. For them, it just ABC (anything but CO2).
I see Marco beat me to it. Brent: most people who introduce the term 'null hypothesis' on blogs use it incorrectly. All you have done is to demonstrate that your understanding of statistics is no better than your undestanding of physics.
If stupidity was a crime, these trolls would get life.
Or, in some jurisdictions, death.
Instead, they do their best to visit it on those who are unable to defend themselves.
[That should bring the crazy ants swarming out from their nest...]
As expected, Brent has an overly simplistic idea of "the null hypothesis". In all fairness, it is a common mistake, in part because medical science almost always has the "no effect/difference" as its null hypothesis.
In reality, however, the "null hypothesis" does not necessarily mean "no effect/difference", but rather it refers to the current 'dogma'. For example, in the old, old days the null hypothesis was "the earth is flat". The current null hypothesis is that the earth is a oblate spheroid (within acceptable bounds). Somewhere in-between we went through a phase where the null hypothesis referred to the earth as a sphere.
Similarly, the current null hypothesis is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that further accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Our best estimates put that warming at 2-4 degrees per doubling. The alternative hypotheses that this warming is smaller or larger are the one's that mostly fail the statistical tests.
We already have statistical evidence that the global temperature today is much different from that a century ago (as in "statistically significantly different"). We also have evidence that this 'small' difference is highly relevant, with melting glaciers, arctic sea ice, and Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. In medical science your null hypothesis would already be rejected, and the warming effect of CO2 and major consequences already accepted as the new null hypothesis!
The Null Hypothesis would be:
Is the assumption of CO2's effects as modelled wrong? I.e. could this be just a sampling issue.
And that has been tested.
To better than 5% the data PRECLUDES the null hypothesis.
No, knucklehead you keep breaking the terms of your permissions on his blog - which is to stay confined to your own eponymous thread that you earned - because, as far as I can see, your anti-science drivellings are the same old dull, boring, denier piffle as they ever were.
You learn absolutely nothing, nor do you try to, nor even think that you should. You can't even post a simple link in the correct format.
Take it elsewhere Brenty. There's a whole wide internet out there and somewhere where they'll bask in your fatuous ignorance and possibly be impressed by your pitiable blogscience. But I'm reasonably sure any residual amusement here has worn off.
[Paging](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/death_threat_denial.php) Rog Tallbloke. [Rog Tallbloke](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/death_threat_denial.php).
Actually, that thread was closed two years ago. Brent is banned here, period.
In other news [Peter Gleick has been cleared of forging the documents sent to him by Heartland](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/21/peter-gleick-cleared-…).
In hindsight, one wonders to what extent the unrightous umbrage that Heartland adopted after they leaked like a sieve, underpinned their bad judgement with the Unabomber billboard. If there is a link, then Gleick should have no regrets at all - Heartland has unravelled ever since his exposé, and continues to do so.
HI and the rest of the Denialati would do well to remember that the meek will inherit the Earth, no matter the state that self-indulgent ideologies and corporate interests leave it in after the limited interval of time that they thieved it from posterity.
The thing is, during the handing-over the Denialati will find themselves as weak, or weaker, than the inheriting meek. Damascus will be behind them by then, though, and the meek are likely to have very long and clear memories...
@ Bernard re Gleick: that's 'good' news, in the sense that his assertions (that he hadn't forged ducments) were correct all along.
Knowing what sticklers they are for discovering the truth through sceptical enquiry, I fully expect people such as Curry and Watts to publish these findings at least as prominently as they did when the whole thing blew up, and to issue full apologies for any defamatory comment or suggestions as to his character.
Must dash, time for my medication.
With ENSO going neutral , Roy Spencer is going to have to invent a new entertaining polynomial fit for his unfolding UAH temperature curve,. Any suggestions, besides the correct one?
PS not that sold on the new layout - links going awol, formatting haywire, but I guess the bugs will get ironed out over time.
Re new layout: no permalinks to comments? I hope that's not a permanent state of affairs.
Gee, and the Nat Geog yellow rectangle for a .ico file. This is all going to take a little getting used to...
In happy news, Heartland has no friends and no money.
No, that was wrong of me to say that. Heartland does have one friend left in the whole wide world:
>Other speakers were not concerned with civility, however. Britain's leading climate contrarian Christopher Monckton got a standing ovation for telling a series of "birther" jokes.
Never change, Monckton. Never change.
> ...no permalinks to comments?
(etc.)
Right now the new changes appear to be a major regression. (WTF were they thinking?)
I'm *betting* that [markdown syntax](http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax) **won't work**, there's no preview option so I can't check - and my Typepad account is apparently no longer useful.
Let's see if plain HTML syntax works:
Nah, all he has to do is keep fitting a cubic, and due to the rising trend it will continue to point down at the end. That should be enough to bamboozle the rubes...
I think the new idea of un-numbered comments is brilliant - referencing upthread by new comment should be a breeze as will scanning long threads in general by position. Also appreciate the time-saving feature of hiding the comment count inside each post.
So I'm asking for permalinks to comments, comment numbering and markdown. Anything else? Hey look! Shiny avatars!
Preview, preview, preview.
Even though I'm a slack-arse using it.
I'm old enough to remember when new and improved, surprisingly by current standards, actually meant better :)
Bringing back the old authentication methods or some other form of federated authentication would be handy - it means a somewhat increased level of assurance that commenter(s) posting with the same password-authenticated identity at different times and places really is the same person (or are a collective deliberately attempting to give that impression ;-)
Mildly interesting, in light of the frequent troll meme here along the lines of "warmists are increasingly desperate and isolated" - speaking of the current Heartland conference:
Mustn't overlook this gem from Heartland conference:
Nice.
Alas, Lotharson, 'The Graun', one feels, is not exactly, or even slightly, neutral.
I only wrote that somewhat feeble comment to see how this new system works. And by the way, who's this Lambert person who has suddenly appeared . . . ?
In other news today, "Desmogblog" Brendan DeMelle, has news of watt may be the last of Heartland Institute's last "Denial -a-polooza ICCC" conference in Chicago, Illinois.
ink:- http://www.desmogblog.com/joe-bast-announces-death-denial-palooza-final…
However, as all cynics would say, one should not crow too
soon, for the hydra of denialati have many more heads to be removed , before we can put that sky dragon to rest in the grave yard of denial.
One head may be down, due to Heartland Institute scoring their own goal and yet there is another one hundred more to go.
The only clear concise and logical choice now, if we want a sustainable future for those who will be living in 2100, is to abandon the addiction of fossil fuel energy and follow the Germans lead ASAP.
Truth may have one this skirmish, since the other side literally shot itself in the foot, the heart and the head, with the billboard of shame. The truth is, it will be a very long hard road to victory, of banishing the denialati of ignorance and ridding our addiction of burning fossil fuel for cheap energy.
Winston Churchill : "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."
"Meanwhile, the House should prepare itself for hard and heavy tidings. I have only to add that nothing which may happen in this battle can in any way relieve us of our duty to defend the world cause to which we have vowed ourselves; nor should it destroy our confidence in our power to make our way, as on former occasions in our history, through disaster and through grief to the ultimate defeat of our enemies."
Dumb:
The same person for whom a silly old duffer said:
Where has http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/monckton_and_the_mob.php gone?
Grima:
I think anyone who writes "PhD" on their blog graphs has an inferiority complex.
And by the way, HadCrut3 is no longer the most accurate global temperature anomaly estimate.
Let's not let the Duffer forget that whatever he may think as to his imagined compromises that the UK's Guardian reports may contain, he prefers to get his versionof events from someone to whom Heartland pays almost $90 grand for $40 'web services'.
Of course to someone with all the limited know-how epitomised by the Duffer, 'web services' is the equivalent of 'zero gravity brain surgery assisted by faeries', so no problem whatsoever is perceived in Dufferworld.
Given that your feelings on certain topics have been repeatedly and devastatingly shown to be inconsistent with reality, your feelings are probably not particularly useful data points.
Say Tim, I like the new look.
Question, is it possible to add a democratic troll, thumbs up/thumbs down voting system a la "The Conversation" ?
Really Mr./Dr. Lambert? Do tell, what did I write to deserve you deleting? The truth? Fucking hilarious. And please spare me explanation if the reason is I was "abusive".
You have my email address, I would love to hear the reason.
Funny thing is, I am not a "denier". Just despise arrogance and, especially, hypocrisy regardless of position. I am a centrist. But there seems to be much more on one side--yours--than there is on the other. Though, to be fair, both have there share.
Anyway, sad you find it necessary to delete me. Tells me something(s).
(BTW chose the wrong name for the wrong blog FYI. Used Lurker in a debate with Franky Swifthacker at the Bunny-Boy place. Just thought I would come clean on that. Bad form you know... My real name is Bill Walsh. Like the coach.)
I reckon the revamp is Scienceblogs wide, Daryl, and I'd be surprised if Tim is much in control of it.
For whoever is handling the new format, I'm still concerned about the apparent lack of 'permalinks' available for the comments, which also means links in existing comments referring to previous comments are now defunct.
And I really don't like the lack of a preview option.
Any idea, Tim, of whether our new eminent host - National Geographic - is likely to become a bit more concerned about, um, tone? ( In the circumstances it may prove to have been a good move for Pharyngula to have (largely) left Sciblogs, for instance.)
A Guardian report on the nutter's conference.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/22/heartland-beating-cli…
... and far right politically.
This following is a classic. You could not make this stuff up.
The reporter did not say if Monckton drank some on stage.
"The next speaker called for the return of the insecticide DDT ... “It’s cheap, it’s effective and it’s perfectly safe for humans and for all wildlife.” "
Apart from insects, right?
PS it's not banned, never been banned and only misuse of DDT is banned.
"what did I write to deserve you deleting? The truth?"
Hmm. You didn't write the truth, so it couldn't have been that.
"Funny thing is, I am not a “denier”."
Yes, all deniers deny that too.
"I am a centrist."
Oddly enough, those people most out of whack are the most likely to believe themselves "centrist".
"Though, to be fair, both have there share."
And this is the reason why: they can then diss EVERYONE ELSE, because "I'm not on one side, *I'M a centrist!". Oddly enough, they'll only complain about "both sides being just as bad" to the people who don't believe in a Great Conspiracy to push AGW.
After a long absence, Denial Depot is back! Joy!
PS Yes, I am over a month late to the party, but my point ("Joy!") stands.
You know what's funny Wow, you are such an arrogant idiot that you actually think your post makes sense. Since every one of the previous was deleted, it's rich that you even comment. Shall we go back and discuss your ridiculous assertions about Gleick being found innocent by a court? No? Didn't think so. I am on board with AGW being real. Not that it matters. What I despise is arrogant assholes like you and Dr. Harvey and your laughable hypocrisy.
Our host has a funny way of maintaining his house. I will choose not to participate when only part of the discussion is allowed through.
Oh, to be clear, that post was meant for Tim only since I had assumed he would simply delete it as he had all the rest. Not that I care that you read it, but the sentiments were directed at him, not you. Out of context to say the least. But have your fun Wow. You're still a laughable zealot.
Cut the poor victim me crap TypLurk/BPW.
Scienceblogs is in the process of a format changeover and many posts on many fora have gone missing, not just yours here.
You may deny being a denier, but that same typical aggressive, paranoid, victim nonsense cap sure is a snug fit.
As one of the owners of a 'shiny avatar' I wish to report that I have no idea how it got there - random accounts of mine just appear sometimes in the oddest places (WUWT!).
Is the new format based on a WordPress template, perhaps?
The good news / frustrating thing is that comment numbers are all there in the html - chek's above is 'comment-57313' for example.
'Typical Lurker' - Yes, it's all about you, isn't it?
On another note: Gareth's place also doesn't have a preview function - by far the best option, surely - but it does allow for the tweaking of comments for a few minutes after posting (provided no-one else has!)
Also, if you're asking for a wish list, nesting comments in sub-threads is a great way to let various dialogues run their course.
Still, it's probably still less 'aaargh' than commenting at Eli's! ;-)
To get an avatar use Gravatar.com
Hey, I've decided to be a centrist too!
From now on, I only half believe in gravity, so when my doctor next tells me I should lose weight I'll tell him to stop being a medico-fascist alarmist..
"I will choose not to participate"
If only. You're dumber than a sack of rocks, Bill, and no one cares about what you have to say, it being utterly worthless.
[From WordPress: "You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down." Uh, but I didn't post previously. This changeover is abominable and I hope NatGeo fires whoever is responsible and finds someone competent.]
Not sure if anyone will see this, but I thought Tim Lambert would be interested:
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/my_break_with_the_extreme_right/singlet…
Um, Ianam, that was the Typical Lurker, who apparently believes all these recent glitches are specifically aimed at him...
I've also had a post disallowed for posting 'too many comments' when I'd put one on one thread and had just attempted to put another on a different thread. that's pretty common behaviour in these parts!...
BTW all: Has the masthead for the site proper always said 'Deltoid - Just another site?'
So hard not to engage with such amusing responses...
Chek,
Bullshit. Even after the format change I had comments in moderation deleted by our host. So, you can try that approach, but I know it holds no water.
Ianam, you are in fact a complete moron. You prove that on a regular basis with your intellectually bankrupt rhetorical approach of calling anyone you don't agree with stupid. Automatic fail. As far as my comment being worthless? In response to the laughable assertion presented by Bernard, that Gleick has somehow been "cleared", I think my pointing out, accurately and with proof, that he--Gleick--is both a liar and a criminal, is worthwhile to the discussion. You just don't like it. Neither did Jeff Harvey who thinks he is a hero. Smells like hypocrisy is cooking in his kitchen on a regular basis.
Gaz, not that you care, by centrist I mean that I am neither left nor right. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Unlike so many here, I see the world in shades of grey, not black and white. Hard to understand, I know. So your snark is nothing but that and yet another worthless response.
Since nothing I wrote pertained to AGW--other than I believe in the physics of it--the term denier is useless in this context. But that doesn't matter, does it? If one disagrees with any aspect of the Deltoid version of the world, that person must be a D-K afflicted, denying, stupid idiot.
You guys are funny. Keep it up. I love the entertainment.
TypLurk/BPW @ 08.57 "I think my pointing out, accurately and with proof, that he–Gleick–is both a liar and a criminal, is worthwhile to the discussion."
As things stand, your opinion and personally awarded "conviction" mean nothing except frothing hot air.
No charges and hence no 'conviction' have ever been laid. End of story.
In the meantime, the public interest can heartily thank Dr.Gleick for exposing a plan by right wing nutters to subvert the body politic by indoctrinating schoolchildren with their anti-scientific and insupportable propaganda.
And btw, comments of mine are also 'missing' here and elsewhere. The difference is I accept it's due to a technical glitch. You, being you, seem to prefer to choose to interpret it as suppressing your worthless hyperbolic opinions. As with most deniers in my experience, I tend to think it panders to therir persecution complex as if such uninformed manufactured views carry any additional weight due to their being suppressed
Fortunately, most sane people grow out of believing they're living in a James Bond novel by the time they're fourteen.
Atypical lurker had a tanty about being "deleted".
If he had read about the merger with NG, he'd have known that there were warnings that comments would be lost in the process - Greg Laden even posted about this beforehand. I had posts several innocuous deleted from Deltoid; I haven't spat the dummy and succumbed to paranoia - BPW should grow up and grow a brain.
And is his a sock? The whining sounds familiar...
Hang on; don't we know this guy? Didn't he try out the same schtick a while back with an acronym that we were supposed to discern meant something along the lines of 'You Are all Funny as Hell' which was apparently meant to be devastating?
The routine hasn't got any better. Belligerent Concern / Tone Trolling 101. Next.
Bernerd, As Clint Eastwood would say...."adapt, modify, overcome." :)
Chek,
Nope, not my opinion. Truth.
He committed a crime. Period. Not in dispute. He hasn't been charged, but it is not in doubt. Should you want, I will document it for you. I already have. I will again.
Gleick exposed nothing that wasn't already known. Heartland is a right wing think tank. So what? We knew that. As for no charges, you are right, but that does not change the fact that he committed a crime. Period. Like it or not.
If the comments missing were typical, why didn't Tim just tell me that? You can see I asked. I think that particular string was deleted for other reasons. I could be wrong.
Bernard...grow up etc? I don't read what you are referencing. But if that was the case, I specifically asked Tim. No response but to post one of my questions to him out of context. As I stated, he deleted several in moderation unless that was part of the glitch. If so, fine. Just say that.
I laugh because I don't remotely fit into your comfortable position off "denier", primarily because I am not. To the contrary, I care about the planet. I have kids. But I'm not over the top. I just respect the environment and think many of you have the opposite effect you are looking for and I wish you could see that. I really do.
bill, you got me.
bill,
It wasn't " funny as hell".
And, bill, it was actually directed at one person, not all.
bill, just saw your comment about it being "all about me". Really? None of this is about me. ZERO. What the fukkkkk?
bill, just saw your comment about it being "all about me". Really? None of this is about me. ZERO. What the fukkkkk?
I do the best I can. But I have to live.
Gleick wasn't cleared of identity theft, he was cleared of creating the strategy document as per Heartland's ficticious claims. BPW's argument is a strawman, and sadly I don't see him accusing Hearland of criminal defamation and lying. Touche!
Gleick's actions, while ethically questionable, exposed Heartland as the vile corporatist thinktank we expected them to be. It goes much deeper than "Heartland is a right wing think tank". It exposed their payment of cretins like Bob Carter (exposing his lie that he receives no payment from special interest organisations) and their plans to brainwash children with ideologically driven dogma.
If this realease was so harmless, why did Heartland feel the need to lie about the source of the strategy document? I seriously doubt there are many deniers who really believe in their hearts that Gleick faked it. The attacks on Gleick are a seriously desperate distraction tactics.
Now we are in the delightful position of watching Heartland destroy themselves from within with their own bitter hatred. Deniers are really getting desperate at the moment.
Addendum: For the record I class myself as centrist too, which is why I find BPW's lashing out at Peter Gleick and commenters on this website most bemusing. Or maybe that should read amusing.
For the record, BPW, we've had tone trolls and concern trolls before and I can spot them at one hundred paces. The cries of "I'm a believer!" and "you're not doing our cause any good!". The bitter attacks on people like Gleick while ignoring much more serious criminal activity such as the CRU email theft.
For some ghastly reason I can't find any record of dear BPW lecturing the Watts-ites about their abuse of scientists or support of criminal activity.
What a lying hypocrite!
Of course, what really gives BPW away is the same besieged, victimised mentality all deniers possess. I'm sure we've all had commenting issues - I know I have - but the only people complaining they are being supressed are Tim Curtain and BPW. Go Figure.
I mostly read science blogs and the comments on news stories, and I wondered if the sense of entitlement I get off of many commenters in those venues is unique to science controversies - reading another blog I noticed it isn't.
Our merry band of deniers have received the help of some high-profile support in their campaign to suppress science that clashes with their faith.
Still not as funny as Monckton, though.
@Tim
please check your spam bucket, I've sent you an e-mail that could easily end up there (unknown author + attachments).
@John
That Chick Tract even features fat Al Gore ... saying "None of us believe your Bible" (but the real Al Gore does).
Lurk: "Gaz, not that you care, by centrist I mean that I am neither left nor right."
So what did you mean by this: "Funny thing is, I am not a “denier”. Just despise arrogance and, especially, hypocrisy regardless of position. I am a centrist. But there seems to be much more on one side–yours–than there is on the other. Though, to be fair, both have there share."
Seems to me, Lurk, that you were referring to AGW, hence your reference to "denier" and "one side" and "the other".
If you weren't talking about climate science, then what the heck were you talking about?
...and then there's the creepy sub-Viz comics graphics. Oh, and, good grief - they've even pixellated the 'naughty bits' on the Willendorf Venus. What can you say?...
I always find these things to be a profoundly disturbing insight into some very sick minds indeed that have latched onto religion as a means of normalising their paranoiac persecution fantasies.
*I'd lay $20 that most 'global warming experts' have never heard of Ixchel!
This Chick tract parody is better than any of the real ones.
I just challenged a Senior Warmist to state his falsifiability criteria for AGW. Would anybody like to join in her at the Deltoid Faith Forum?
You will declare AGW to be false in the event that:
(i) Snowball Earth returns.
(ii) The southern icecap once extends to South Georgia
(iii) The Greenland Strait is once iced over
(iv) The Thames freezes once at Tower Bridge
(v) The monthly UAH-MSU LT anomaly stays below 0.8C from 2013 to 2023
(vii) The UAH-MSU LT 13-month running average stays below 0.5C from 2013 to 2023.
Or you may choose the faith-based option:
(viii) Under no circumstances whatsoever.
Any takers?
What a surprise. The Australian found to be lying about wind turbines again.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/growing…
Sorry Tim. This time you have been beaten to the punch. Their lies were quickly rebutted by Climate Spectator who did some fact checking.
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/queensland-health-rebukes…
Seen on a T-shirt. "Is that true or did you read it in The Australian"
Mike H: well spotted x 2.
I'd buy one of those T Shirts.
The Australian is now little more than a printed far-Right blog run by a cadre of zealots
Bernard J:
[Paging](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/death_threat_denial.php) Rog Tallbloke. [Rog Tallbloke](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/death_threat_denial.php).
You called?
Tim L says:
“The Canberra Times was correct to report that there had been death threats at ANU as Media Watch confirmed by talking to Will Steffen!”
Australian National University former chancellor Ian Chubb has gone on record in the Australian today saying:
“For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story.”
I see all my previous comment to this thread were lost in the "technical Glitch" - I'm glad I saved the old page before Deltoid merged with another warmblog.
It shouldn't be too hard to work out the pattern in the 'glitch'. It might even be worth a post at the Talkshop.
(Screenshot taken)
Good stufff, I missed the pagination on the new format. That's be why my inpage search didn't find my previous comments.
Pity the comments aren't numbered any more - a feature I'd like on wordpress too.
Bill says:
"You and your risible cronies have already caused untold damage via the delay to action you’ve gleefully helped to foster, of course, and your life is likely to become a very uncomfortable one when those particular chickens come home to roost…"
If I was in ANU's climatology dept that would probably count as a death threat. Lol.
First complete error.
Let's remember: this was the man who arrived with -
How do I know this? Because the quote above comes from the first of all your comments on this thread that are still all there. Try clicking page 4.
Again, all you're demonstrating is that you routinely make claims without evidence, and that you're then likely to compound your error by accusing others of malfeasance.
We went over this before. Again, little man, 30+ scientists from all over Australia. We've got the bloody emiails an even the video.
Twit.
For the record, I managed to track down the original Canberra Times story (no longer on their website at the original link), as well as provided a walk-through of Media Watch's clear refutation of The Australian's 'it's all about the ANU' combined nit-and-cherry-pick here.
Oh, and there's this.
Some people might seriously benefit from actually reading sources before making claims.
Your quote appears to admit that there were alleged death threats.
Or were you (earlier) arguing merely about the timing?
This is tea-through-the-nose-worthy.
One really should adjust one's tinfoil cap, look past the tip of one's ideological nose, and engage one's brain (such as it is) before opening one's mouth to change one's feet.
Do consider blogging about it though - it would be great to have your paranoia and its subsequent excusing preserved in the carbonite of the Interweb.
Given that climate change denial entirely rests on one or a variety of conspiracy theories (depending on the needs of the practitioner), Tallquack should be encouraged to blog away to his heart's content and catalogue all his delusions for posterity.
It's not like the real world or the natural world gives a fcuk.
Ah, Rog Tallbloke: He came. He saw. He scarpered.
National Geographic is a "warmblog"? And Deltoid "merged with" it? This falls into the category of "not even wrong".
Where they practice cargo cult science.
And yet the deniers have an effect. To paraphrase Einstein:
Fullfilling Bernard J. – May 21, 11:30 am
Except that, of course, it doesn't. That 10:10 ad was foolish, ill-advised, in bad taste, showed atrocious bad judgment ... and was not a statement of policy doctrine, as everyone, especially dishonest swine like you, well knows. Nor, of course, did Bernard J. state any such policy doctrine ... he did not recommend that stupidity should be a crime or that anyone should be put to death for it; you know that, I know that, everyone know sthat. OTOH, plenty of deniers have called for criminal penalties, death, etc. for climate scientists, and they mean it.
As opposed to all of you. But regardless of who is "too much", AGW is a scientifically established fact.
Here is some intelligent discussion of that ad ... the opposite of what one can expect from folks like Billy Bob.
No.
When the world has shown nearly one degree of warming in 130 years (and most of that in the last forty with the warmest year in 2010) it is pointless in pretending, Brent, that there will ever be a time you will accept the scientific reality. Set all the hypothetical falsibility targets you want. When the inevitable happens you'll blame the sun or accuse scientists of faking the data or move the goalposts to 1.0+ by 2020 on CET or claim it's all "natual variability" or conject yourself a new theory you don't really believe etc etc ad infinitum.
Why would anyone accept the bet of someone who openly believes in scientific fraud? With someone who bases their scientific views on their political fears and their irrational belief that Al Gore wants to take their property away?
Anyway, I'm sure that global cooling you gloatingly predicted about is about to start any day now.
Go on. What is the one widely accepted theory that disproves AGW?
I should also point out that high-profile believers in AGW include Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, John Christy, Roy Spencer and Christopher Monckton, in that they all accept that adding Co2 to the atmosphere will cause some warming.
No, but you certainly are. AGW is an established scientific fact. And just the other day I read a comment by a so-called "skeptic" ... wait ... here it is Canman at http://www.desmogblog.com/us-and-them-psychology-behind-heartland-insti… saying that "very few climate skeptics deny" AGW, it's only "CAGW" they don't accept. You folks should get your stories straight. But you can't, because you are all a bunch of stupid ideologues with no concern with what is actually true; what a tangled web you collectively weave.
Meanwhile, of course, my point about Billy Bob's transparent dishonesty about 10:10 and what Bernard J. said about the hypothetical consequences of stupidity being considered a crime goes unrefuted. As does my assertion that AGW is a scientifically established fact. It is, whether ignorant imbeciles like Billy Bob are aware of it or not, just as is evolution, the common descent of humans and modern monkeys from a common ancestor, a 14 billion year old universe, vaccines not being the cause of autism, lack of effectiveness of prayer, and numerous other things that ignorant people refuse to believe.
And yet the deniers have an effect.
I don't disagree with that entirely (especially in the more virulent USA) but probably not as much as we may imagine through this sort of forum were we take an interest in such things.
By way of illustration, many friends and acquaintances had heard of the Earth Day promotion to turn of their lights for an hour back in March. Schools and colleges in my local authority area had runners carrying a rechargeable torch from school to school to raise awareness. Hopefully, the very thought of it will have given Montford and his cretinous minions at least a few apoplectic aneurisms.
By way of contrast, the flat-earthers of denial's counter campaign, Human Progress Day's campaign to turn on as many lights as possible was a gigantic, embarrassing flop.
In other news....
"You (sic) ‘no’ means that you consider AGW is unfalsifiable.
Your abysmal comprehension skills are quite likely a root cause of your lack of understanding of AGW, but your inability to read is your own problem. Don't compound it by putting your own dumb, ill-educated words in other peoples' mouths.
Ianam has already addressed the point, but I'll reiterate - I simply said that if stupidity was a crime, the trolls on this thread would be guilty of the extreme presentation of such crime, to the extent that the severity would warrant the harshest penalties that crimes can attract.
It's to say that you're about as stupid as one can be.
This is different to saying that I believe that the trolls should be knocked off. If Billy Bob has been sequestered in the backwoods for so long that he can't discern the difference, then the problem is his, not mine.
Of course, being one of the Stupid crowd himself, BBH is simply proving that he isn't capable of understanding the difference.
I wonder which of us is rational.
The one who trusts the overwhelming evidence of relevant peer reviewed science, the considered judgement of every National Academy of Science of every advanced nation, and their relevant scientific and professional organisations.
The other is of course a loony who prefers to take his cue from tired old reactionary comedy writers and whacko conspiracy theorists and bought and paid for ex-TV weathermen. That's you, that is.
Where I live and the effect is very pronounced.
Yes, of course, but the campaign to retard needed policy change has not been a flop ... again, especially in the U.S.
Chek and John (again), it's best to pretend that the forbidden troll's posts don't exist; when they are eventually removed, the only sign of them will be in your own posts.
I didn't think this blog could get any worse ?
But it has.
Rediscovered photos reveal Greenland's glacier history
Ice retreat was as drastic in the 1930s as it is today.
http://www.nature.com/news/rediscovered-photos-reveal-greenland-s-glaci…
Yes that is exactly what I said. Clap clap.
Ah... Deltoid's heading to a solar minimum!
;-)
Speaking of spots on the sun, be sure to book some time on 4 June to watch the partial lunar eclipse (yeah, I know), and more importantly, book 6 June to catch the transit of Venus - it'll be the last chance to see for over a century.
" However, whereas glaciers that spill into the ocean retreated rapidly in the 2000s, it was land-terminating glaciers that underwent the fastest regression 80 years ago." reads the final sentence of Karen's link.
Did you think that no-one would actually check your link?
Just to be clear. Glaciers melting or moving into the ocean are displaying different responses to different impacts from those where only land terminating glaciers show melting or retreating.
So Karenmackspot admits there has been "drastic" glacier loss in Greenland recently. I wonder what has caused this glacier loss.
Poor old Christopher Monckton. Running away from his debate with Peter Hadfield, being instructed not to call himself a member of the House Of Lords and now this:
There is every chance that Monckton is simply playing to the birther audience for attention (it worked for Trump, after all), but I'm not going to argue against Monckton making an ass of himself. We'll just file it away in the memory bank for the next time a fake skeptic comes in here taking Monckton seriously.
John, I'd recommend sending anyone sufficiently foolish enough to do so on a short mosey over to the Trails' End Store to see Deputy Monckton - in full dude mode - demonstrating that he's all hat and no cattle...
Arpaio 'considered' and 'unpolitical'? Then going on the scrounge for the cause?
Oh, and the problems with the birth-certificate PDF - they are actually there - are easily explained as scanning artifacts. One wonders how just how much donated cash may have disappeared into the 'posse's' 'research'.
Should have left this for June but WTH.
Over in the US the Union of Concerned Scientists has produced a report A Climate of Corporate Control: How Corporations Have Influenced the U.S. Dialogue on Climate Science and Policy which may be of interest.
Let us hope to see similar for corporations operating outside of that reports remit. Perhaps 'The Australian' could help, after all they should have all 'the juice' to hand.
OOps! This lack of preview can be a devil:
A Climate of Corporate Control: How Corporations Have Influenced the U.S. Dialogue on Climate Science and Policy
Climate pattern of the 20th century!
http://bit.ly/HRvReF
What do you think?
Climate pattern of the 20th century!
http://bit.ly/HRvReF
What do you think?