Matt Ridley’s first response to my post about his failed prediction was denial:
I did not write for the Globe and Mail in 1993 let alone about climate!
Then he moved onto stage 3, bargaining:
global av temp (ignoring pinatubo drop) is about 0.2C above 1991 level after 22 yrs - so I was spot on so far!
As you can see, the graph he cites shows 0.5 degrees of warming since he made his prediction, so it seems that he is applying a 0.3 degree correction for Pinatubo. Which brings us to Ridley’s next column, published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 Jan 1994 (one month after his column with the failed prediction):
The satellites, however, tell a very different story about the 1980s (their data do not go further back). Orbiting the planet from north to south as the Earth turns beneath them, they take the temperature of the lower atmosphere using microwave sensors. By the end of 1993 the temperature was trending downwards by 0.04 of a degree per decade.
The satellite’s masters explain away this awkward fact by subtracting two volcanic eruptions (Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and El Chichon in 1982) and four El Ninos (sudden changes in the circulation of the water in the Pacific). Since they assume that all these would have cooled the atmosphere, they conclude that the 1980s did see a gradual warming of the air by 0.09 degrees: still less than a third of that recorded by the old method.
Even with this sleight of hand (and when I was a scientist I was trained not to correct my data according my preconceptions of the result), the startling truth remains that the best measure yet taken of the atmosphere has found virtually no evidence of global warming.
So according to Matt Ridley in 1994, Matt Ridley in 2013 used a “sleight of hand”, something that he was trained not to do. If we hold Matt Ridley to the standard he declared at the time of his prediction there has been 0.5 degrees of warming since he predicted that there would be just one degree by 2100.
But if we do want to know what the long term warming trend is, it is not a “sleight of hand” to remove the short term effects of volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina. It is, however, a sleight of hand for Ridley to just correct for Pinatubo and not El Nino/La Nina. Here is the graph from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) that shows what temperature records look like if the short term effects are removed:
Using Ridley’s preferred UAH data set we see that there has been 0.4 degrees of warming since he made his prediction.
Any way you slice it, there has been much more warming that Ridley predicted. I hope this information will help him reach stage 5, acceptance.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Way to miss the point and dodge the question.
But then that's your M.O.
@lotharsson
'Way to miss the point and dodge the question'
Don't think so, unless you can explain which point it is I've missed and which question I'm dodging.
The relevant question to me is
'Has it been adequately demonstrated by observation that the 'ocean acidification' is actually occurring?'
by analogy with
'Has it been adequately demonstrated by observation that 'global warming' has actually occurred'?
You'll have to explain in detail if you believe we are concerned with a different question. Because I'm not.
"Don’t think"
Fixed that for you.
"I’m not going to reply to your style of just writing disjointed sentences punctuated by a few random insults."
Hmmm.
For someone so distraught by the perception of that happening, you seem strangely quiet about mike.
Who'dathunkit.
No, lattie, the reason why you won't answer is because you daren't answer.
Indeed I have answered it for you.
You don't have any reason to "discuss" what you do because you have no desire to resolve anything.
You're a contrarian denialist arsehole.
mike, tell your mom/sister/granny (hints of banjo plucking abound in your tripe) to tell you to get off that damn computer and get a real life.
@wow
If Mike addresses any comments to me, then I'll consider replying. But I see no reason to intervene in your private squabble.
The other remarks you make are not worthy of notice, let alone reply.
Yeah, so you only care about insults if they go to you.
Right.
You know what they call that?
Narcisissm. Disdain for anyone other than yourself.
Hence your "We MUST discuss, never resolve whatever *I* insist must be discussed. NO DISCUSSION!!!".
You're just a simpleton pissing on people far far more intelligent than yourself out of spite and anger.
If you can't bring yourself up (hell, that would require improving yourself, and you KNOW you are perfect), then you have to bring everyone else down.
"The other remarks you make are not worthy of notice, let alone reply."
ROFMAO!
Well, guys, you know how to deal with this turdbucket now.
@wow
Wise man Entwistle says
'Sometimes better to keep schtumm and be thought a fool rather than open mouth and prove it'.
Sound advice. Think on't.
What is it with denialists and their complete lack of self-awareness?
Because that self awareness would have them be aware of their faults.
AND THEY HAVE NONE!!!!!
And if you point any out, it's an own goal and irrelevant. Or not "real". Or it doesn't count because they are smarter than you anyway. Or...
Ah, whatever.
I'm actually curious what Mike's bleating looked like before disemvowelment.
Like bile-infested crap, Stu.
Or it's YOUR fault. Or it's YOUR problem.
ANYTHING that means "it's not me".
Which is entirely why they deny AGW. "It can't be *me*!".
Interesting that Keyes should confirm a statement I made about him:
Here is what he accuses me of saying:
Here is what I actually said:
Only in the twisted and dishonest mind of an AGW denier are these two statements even closely related. Of course, if I had used "we" rather then the indefinite "some one" it could have been construed as a "threat" but I didn't and it can't be.
However, I hope Keyes and Latimer keep up their screeds of dishonest junk, poor Matt Ridley must be really pleased to see the intellectual ability of these people who have decided to support him by obeying Watts' dog whistle and come over here.
Brad Keyes:
That wasn't a threat to contact his alma mater (not that that should be threatening anyway). This guy is just dumb.
L. Alder:
Pity you didn't take it.
So Brad, you're saying that Latte is scared of his ex university not liking how he turned out?
Wow
January 21, 2013
mike, tell your mom/sister/granny (hints of banjo plucking abound in your tripe) to tell you to get off that damn computer and get a real life.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha...
This from the douchebag who seems to spend virtually every waking moment of his "life" posting his unique style of blather here? Oh the irony.
Do keep it up though. The entertainment is endless.
Vince W wrote the following (sorry back at page 3 - I have been away with a right hand immobilised by gout, and I don't drink alcoholic beverages, and shingles, aka Herpes zoster - which latter lingers lingers still, phew HAVE the floodgates opened here in the interim) :
in response to a long endorsement of the greater width of blog postings found at WUWT and other well known sites of obfuscation presented as supposed logical argument.
Which of course betrays Latimer's own shortage in the critical thinking skills. How does the whole print run of The Daily Mail since its inception (1896) stack up against Feynman's three volume 'Lectures on Physics', for example? Using Latimer's logic The Mail must win.
However an internet search will reveal the leanings of young Alder (seeing as it is ONLY thirty years since you were at university) with this as but one example Latimer tilts at windmills and wishes to join the Scottish Sceptic Association.
His colours are clear.
I'm glad you liked the humrous put down, Bitty.
BPW being, of course, a sort of denialist seagull.
@lionel a
'How does the whole print run of The Daily Mail since its inception (1896) stack up against Feynman’s three volume ‘Lectures on Physics’, for example?'
They don't 'stack up'. They talk about different things. It is a false equivalence...like asking a dog why it isn't more like a cat.
And strangely enough, after some time here I was looking at an old BBC interview with Feynman only yesterday. Reminding myself of his famous remark that 'science is the belief in the ignorance of experts'
As to the rest, I'm happy to stand by my remarks. Why is this either of interest or a problem to you? Is this a blog where only those of the One True Faith may post? If so, please lay out the Credo that posters must adhere to.
And I guess that your remarks about me as an individual show that you've nothing constructive to add about the science we've been discussing.
"It is a false equivalence…like asking a dog why it isn’t more like a cat. "
Or why isn't Ridley more like a climate scientist.
@wow
'So Brad, you’re saying that Latte is scared of his ex university not liking how he turned out?'
Delighted to say that I met two of my old professors/tutors at the RI a little while back, and they showed no signs of being other than very pleased to see me. And me them.
It was great to catch up after a few years and we had a very convivial evening. It was also very good to be able to see Michael Faraday's lab and apparatus as he has long been a bit of a hero of mine.
Well, why not?
It's not as if your idiocy is any skin off THEIR nose, is it.
But apparently Brad thinks that you're scared of this.
Don't blame me for it, I didn't make him conclude you were a scared little hobo.
Latimer,
in case it wasn't clear, I wasn't suggesting that; those are words the inveterate ventriloquist Wow put into my mouth. Nice of Wow to use my first name at least, unlike Forrester.
"Latimer,
in case it wasn’t clear, I wasn’t suggesting that"
So how could Latte be frightened?
You DO know what "threat" means, right?
Any way, you deniers have to have words put in your mouth since you never manage to say anything. Despite taking reams of screen real-estate to do so.
The literal interpretation of that one phrase is assumed by every crank to be a license for their crankery.
It's unlikely the author had that in mind as he then goes on to say "It should not be "science has shown" but "this experiment, this effect, has shown." And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments--but be patient and listen to all the evidence--to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at".
So it's clear he's promoting proper scepticism in the service of arriving at "a sensible conclusion", which is in stark contrast to the fake scepticism of the deniosphere which seeks to arrive at a predetermined and paid for conclusion.
Latimer,
what you're doing here is heroic, and it's a thing of beauty to watch one stand against many and kick ass—Crom is taking note in Valhalla—but seriously man, why waste any further time on these psychotic liars? See you back in the real world sometime!
@chek
' And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments–but be patient and listen to all the evidence–to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at”.
Sure. And if you follow through this thread about the evidence for 'ocean acidification' you'll see that is exactly what I have tried to do.
Or, if you disagree, please point out where you think I have failed to live up to Feynman's ideal. Mere abuse and name-calling or personal remarks will not suffice.
Latimer says:
Well, guess what?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596239/
(Measurements from the Southern Ocean - the same ones I incidentally already provided a link to).
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3058/
http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/ocean-acidification/arcticcruise2012/
Measurements from the Arctic Ocean.
No doubt the entirety of Latimer's assertion is wrong.
I've said this before - what a duufus.
Long rambling posts that contain no information but false assertions.
Did Brad say something about "liars"?
@brad keyes
'why waste any further time on these psychotic liars?'
Not sure I'd agree with your characterisation, but the short answer is - its a lot of fun! After a few years of playing with the big boys elsewhere, this is relaxation :-).
And there's just the faint hope that somebody will start to use their brain rather than just wallowing in their tribal instinct...which is pretty much all that is on display among the long-time posters here.
It's a bit like being the sole Everton fan on the Kop...... or the Pompey fan at Southampton...but that too is part of the fun.
Latimer
Asking for long-series ocean pH data which don't exist is a childish trick. It reminds me of the same silly game played elsewhere by people insisting on observational evidence of increasing DLW from CO2. There are no such observations.
Neither chemistry nor radiative physics is in the slightest bit affected by this. If you think you are making a point of some kind you are mistaken.
@vince whirlwind
Thank you for the post.
But just a reminder that 'acidification' is a process. You cannot demonstrate acidification from a snapshot. You need a time series of measurements.
Example: If today I measure the pH of my local sea as 7.5, this tells us exactly that - what the pH is today. It tells us nothing about what it was in the past. So it is not possible from that one measurement alone to deduce anything at all about the process of acidification (or alkalinaton).
But if I were to return after a period to the same place and make a measurement once again - this time if 7.55 and then after a similar period of 7.6 then 7.65 and so on - then it is possible to begin to draw some sensible conclusions about the process(es) that may be going on.
This is how the 'global warmign' was demonstrated. They didn't just come to one measurement station and say 'the temperature is 288.5 K therefore global warming'. They observed (roughly) the same stations over a period of many years to see if there was a general change.
I hope that this has illustrated why - to demonstrate the existence of a process affecting a variable - you need a time series. not just individual measurements. And the longer the series - and the more measurements you get, the better.
Unless I have missed it (if so please show where) there is inly one pH measurement for the Southern Ocean paper. The thrust of the paper is to construct and test a model of aragonite .. a worthy piece of work no doubt, but not hugely 'au point' to the topic of 'ocean acidification' .
Similarly the Arctic ocean observations are an attempt to provide a comprehensive snapshot of the state of the ocean as it is today.....but sadly, has no information to help us look at processes. Maybe - if continued for another ten or twenty or thirty years this initiative will be able to do so. But not today.
Here is the extract from their Q&A
'Q: For how many years have you been doing this?
A: We have been studying Ocean Acidification in the Arctic Ocean since the summer of 2010.'
So thanks again for taking the time to do the research.
Cheers
Latimer
@BBD
How are you me old pal, me old beauty?...Our paths haven't crossed for quite a while.
'Asking for long-series ocean pH data which don’t exist is a childish trick'
Nothing childish about it. Nor a trick. Just trying to get confirmation of the theory.
How else do you plan to experimentally/observationally demonstrate that 'ocean acidifcation' is actually occurring out there in the wild blue yonder if you don't get some measurements and see how they vary over time?
Do tell...because an awful of of people wasted an awful lot of time and money doing the same for temperature measurements and 'global warming' if you have a better method.
Still busy saying nothing, latte?
‘why waste any further time on these psychotic liars?’
Yes, many of us wonder this every single day you idiots whine up here.
Latimer Alder quoted (more context required - another cherry):
Are you sure it wasn't from another faux-sceptic.
It is the company that you keep that gives your game away and as for the science under discussion - well there isn't much of that just comments about the antics of the company that you keep. For a science writer to resort to WUWT to answer Tim's riposte then shame on him and shame on you for not understanding what this thread is really all about which is
the distortion of science by those who run the blogs that you appear to inhabit and thus go along with..
Look to other threads where the nitty-gritty of science has been well dissected.
Looking at some of the recent visitors here it seems like a three line whip has been sent around for the likes of you and Jay Cadbury phd (of Rabett fame, or more latterly as lumpusspookeytoothphd) to pitch in here creating noise.
Yeah! Right! That really clears things up. You enjoy being a troll. Shame about Scotland's rugby team, perhaps they should have you as fly-half, you sure are 'fly'.
Latimer
I doubt that. You will be aware as I am that ocean pH monitoring is in its infancy. Hence the tactic of asking to see evidence you know does not yet exist in sufficient quantities to 'satisfy' your criterion of evidence.
It's the same game you were playing at JCs. As I said, it doesn't affect the chemistry one bit. What this sort of thing does do is illustrate how thin your playbook actually is.
Now, you've been outed. You will need to come up with something else. And not another tired iteration of the 'can't get no satisfaction' trick. Something different.
@BBD
'You will be aware as I am that ocean pH monitoring is in its infancy'.
Sure. And the consequence of that is that we do not have enough data to demonstrate whether or not 'ocean acidification' is actually occurring, The observational proof is not there. Maybe one day it will be...maybe it won't. But right now we just don't know.
Unless of course, you come up with another way ....on which so far, you are strangely silent.
Well Latimer, you have the forbearance of a saint, for which I suppose I have to admire you...
Latimer says:
...which is exactly what I gave you, dickhead.
@BBD
Forgot to add
'It doesn't affect the chemistry one bit'
How do you know what the chemistry is apart from by making observations and doing experiments?
Do you have another way?
If so, please let us all know and we can shut down all the labs around the world as redundant archaisms.
Perhaps you can do it in the same post explaing how to show 'ocean acidification' is actually occurring without making time series measurements?
If you can pull those two off, I see a Nobel beckoning.....
@lionel a
Gosh.
Just a few posts from me here and there is quite a fluttering in the dovecotes. Didn't realise that you were all so terrified of alternative views and of simple questions. Wonder why that should be? Especially as you probably consider yourself to be 'radicals'.
You say that this thread is about
'the distortion of science by those who run the blogs that you appear to inhabit and thus go along with..'
I guess you have never heard of a forum or been to the pub for a discussion with people you disagree with. Keep to your own kind no doubt - a bit like some of the more extreme religious sects.
Your choice...you may keep your spiritual purity, but you're not going to be very good at arguing your corner in the big wide world. Which probably explains why I have never come across any of you (bar BBD) in any other place.
I wrote earlier that you should all get out more. Sitting around like nodding dogs agreeing that you should Kill all Deniers - or whatever the rallying cry 'du jour' is today - may be nice and cosy and unchallenging..but doesn't get you very far.
@vince whirlwind
'
Latimer says:
You cannot demonstrate acidification from a snapshot. You need a time series of measurements.
…which is exactly what I gave you, dickhead.
Forgive me if I missed it, but I'd be grateful if you'd point the exact place in each paper where such timeseries may be found. I didn't see them on a quick skim. but clearly you have studied the papers in greater detail than me and no doubt can quickly remember where to point me to.
Thanks again.
@lionel a
'the distortion of science by those who run the blogs that you appear to inhabit and thus go along with..'
Don't be ridiculous. My presence here doesn't mean that I 'go along' with Tim Lambert. Until I was banned for some unfathomable sin I was a regular commentator at the Guardian CiF. Didn't mean that I agreed with everything they said. Any more than my comments at Judith Curry's mean that I hang on her every word agreeing with everything she writes.
You really must grow up from this tribal view of the world.
Latimer is giving you good advice deltoids,
You need to get out more.
Some of you have convinced yourselves that there is a scary tribe of deluded people called denialists who are intent on taking the world to the brink of destruction.
Apparently anyone who dares to question assertions made by deltoids immediately means they MUST be a member of the deniers.
Some of these assertions are made from the 4th floor of govt office buildings.
The world, the politics and the research is moving on deltoids.
Hiding here and pretending that's not happening will not do anything to save the world.
Despite all your petty name calling, people do care about the future of the world and the human race.
Whoever you believe this mysterious and dangerous 'deniers' are, they're probably not your enemy.
And Lotharsson,
forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious, but JeffH was talking about 'theories' in particular his view of the 'climate change deniers' conspiracy theory.
I pointed out that the UN, the theory of global governance and the funding therof by govt grants are not 'conspiracies' they are well known and accessible.
The only missing organisation is 'climate change deniers'.
So which one smacks of 'conspiracy theory'?
Are you denying there is a such a thing as a theory and/or/policy platforms for global governance and/or deliberative global governance that are studied via government funding?
It's all perfectly official and googleable.
Yup, as I expected, Latimer is denying the science.
What a pity.
@guthrie
' Latimer is denying the science'
Please explain what you think I am 'denying' and why.
Thanks
You really do have a persecution fantasy thing going on, don't you, Sprucey? You'll drop it immediately of course, but it really is quite an insight into the febrile and reactionary world view that lurks beneath the cultivatedly urbane exterior.
Have you conceded that you are simply not competent to make an assessment of the OA issue - despite your claimed, mysteriously-vague-in-the-detail, qualifications - and that you're just behaving like a bog-standard wrecker (read Oreskes and Conway some day) of the work of the people who really are both competent and active? Using tactscs straight out of the tobacco-lobby playbook?
You, sir, are a reactionary indeed!
Oh, and now we see that you were a regular troll at CiF: and yet your first act here was to turn up and make false claims about Monbiot! What an honourable gentleman you aren't...
Oh dear, how original. "You guys seem awfully upset over me asking just a few questions", herpaderpaderp.
BILL???????
"Have you conceded that you are simply not competent to make an assessment of the OA issue – despite your claimed, mysteriously-vague-in-the-detail, qualifications – and that you’re just behaving like a bog-standard wrecker (read Oreskes and Conway some day) of the work of the people who really are both competent and active? Using tactscs straight out of the tobacco-lobby playbook?"
You REEEAAAAALLLLLYYYY need to follow Latimer's advice and get out more!
Good grief!
This comment makes it look like you're suffering from some type of combination of bi polar disorder and agoraphobia.
You are being startled by imaginary shadows Bill.
Or to put it simply Bill.
You have seriously, very seriously lost the plot!
The world and the people in it who don't necessarily have the same perspective as you are not that scary Bill.
Honestly they're not!
They're not funded by the tobacco lobby or anyone else and they are not trying to wreck anything.
They're quite happy for you to join them in this fascinating but imperfect rough and tumble life out here.
WB Lionel., hope you're feeling a bit better now. Those shingles can take the wind out of your sails for a few weeks.
Ploughing through your recommendations all weekend (809 Sqn is a cracking read (but the occasional 892 bits are the best to a phanatic)).
Oh dear, we have a truly dumb one here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
But, but, but Stu?
That's the "Heartland Institute" !
I'm not a secret member or a subscriber and as far as I know neither are lots and lots and lots of other people who don't necessarily hold your political views.
As far as I know, they don't recieve any 'secret or suspicious' funding.
Do they receive Govt funding of any description?
If they receive funding from the Australian tax payer then I guess I could be a member????
They're not called 'climate change deniers' they are an organisation called 'The Heartland Institute" and their sources of funding is not a secret or a conspiracy.
You do know don't you that the tobacco industry also pays substantial amounts of money to other causes?
Including Govt organisations as well as other NGOs?
It's all perfectly legitimate and googleable.
Do you have some sort of issue with industry, including the tobacco industry, funding research and charities?
I agree that smoking tobacco is not good for you, but that would be conflating the issue here wouldn't it?
They aren't funding the Heartland Institute" or many other forms of research and charities because they're trying to make you take up smoking!
In fact, they may not even know you exist considering you tend to hide out here in terror of all these awfully scary people you call 'climate change deniers'.
Red herring, strawman, red herring, red herring, strawman, red herring, strawman, red herring. All with a light concern troll sauce.
Content: 2/5. Being inconspicuous: 0/5. Need better trolls. Next!
Latimer.
Scientists don't necessarily need to measure a phenomena to make sound predictions. Global warming was predicted well before the measurements confirmed the theory. OA predictions are based on years of careful ocean and atmospheric carbon chemistry measurements as well as valid proxy measurements which are all the foundations of these predictions. The pH measurements cited confirm the prediction. (Naturally more measurements are better, funding is always a struggle for these projects). Our understanding of the saturation state of aragonite predicts problems for high latitude aragonite caclifiers. Recent observations are sadly confirming this prediction.
Pfft.
Content holding steady at 0 out of 5.
"And the consequence of that is that we do not have enough data to demonstrate whether or not ‘ocean acidification’ is actually occurring"
Nope, we do have enough data to do that.
However, you will merely state a goalpost shift to avoid having to concede the point.
"Do you have some sort of issue with industry, including the tobacco industry, funding"
PR lies.
FTFY, chubby.
Wow, don't you know? Only public monies are bad.
No seriously folks!
They do not call themselves the 'climate change deniers'!
They are called the 'Heartland Institute'.
It is in fact YOU PEOPLE who call them and anyone else who questions your political views 'climate change deniers' or "Denilaists".
And Anthony David,
Theoretically you are correct but we need more than theory before we start interfering in the ph levels of the ocean.
Latimer is correct that there is not enough evidence or work in OA to proclaim such confidence as has been claimed here.
We could theoretically do more damage to the oceans by interfering in ph levels if we don't know enough about how it actually works.
It appears from the very few studies that have been done so far that CO2 especially from Anthropogenic sources is not a key driver of changes in the ph of oceans.
In fact we don't really have a 'global benchmark' for what we could theorise is a 'satisfactory' or 'acceptable' ph level of oceans.
All we really know is it isn't unusual for it to change or vary from natural causes.
"They do not call themselves the ‘climate change deniers’!"
Nobody said they called themselves that.
Do you make up EVERYTHING you see or hear, chubby?
"and anyone else who questions your political views "
More fantasy from chubby.
Apparently facts are, to this idiot, "political views".
And denying they exist is "questioning" them.
Sheesh. Ask your daddy to buy you a bloody dictionary, you daft bint!
SHOUTY Chebbie, have you noticed that I don't care what you think? It's hard to imagine anyone with opinions more inconsequential than yours.
Chameleon
We are already interfering with the pH of the oceans and it is all one way. Our benchmark is the pH of the ocean, measured and inferred, over millions of years. The changes are locked in and BAU means more changes down the line. The only way to rectify it is to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at the extraordinary rate we are doing and the surface ocean pH should be restored in some hundreds of years at a minimum.
Latimer:
Don't be such a retard. This act of yours might wash amongst the mental incompetents that infest the crank blogs you recommend, but you're not going to get very far anywhere else.
Ah, just noted that mike the psycho - 'reasonable', 'moderate' Sprucey's best mate (how about Tucci78, we wonder?) - has been disemvowelled!
Truly well deserved.
In all honesty, if you are indeed a US citizen and do have a gun cabinet, mike, your neighbours would be well-advised to get your name straight onto any 'red-flag' list that Obama might manage to set up (despite the best efforts of NRA hysterics - a strongly overlapping set with AGW Deniers, I might add.)
I noticed Mike had been disemvowelled, but I can't see I noticed too much difference before and after.
Funny how the frothing-mouthed lunatics, the liars like Latimer, the delusional like Spangly, and the lobotomites like Chameleon are all on the science-denial bandwagon.
Maybe Lewandwosky should do IQ tests on them all and reveal to the world how objectively dim they are.
Oh my fucking word! That has to be the most unintentionally hilarious thing on the Intertoobz for months! Either that, or Brad has a peculiar private definition of "heroic" and "kicking ass", in which case it's merely kinda sad. (What is it with this phenomenon of tag-team denialists showing up effusively praising one another for their alleged bravery and alleged perspicacity?)
Mind you, this:
...runs second, albeit a distant second, in the unintentional humour stakes. (Plus it breaks another irony meter.) Well over 90% of what Latimer has posted at this site has been quickly shown to comprise fallacious logic but he simply declares it to be sound - indeed, sounder than the rebuttals! - and moves on to the next claim.
As demonstrated by his deflecting non-response to my question last night, Latimer apparently can't even grok the question about what the science says, how confidently it says it and why it says it, let alone answer it. And goodness gracious, produce his own best inference from all the evidence? Not on your life!
Until he answers the question he is in denial of the important findings in the current scientific understanding, and of the evidence that it assessed in order to come to that understanding.
Latimer, for example, opines that "It is not at all obvious that the weak carbonic acid like carbonic will overwhelm the buffering effect of the solution and surrounding rocks" but then refuses to ask "have scientists considered that question" - let alone "and if so, what did they find out"? When prompted to go find out - visiting a researcher who knows something about it, for example, if he couldn't be bothered trying to do some kind of literature search - then he would rather not, thank you very much, presumably because that might uncover inconvenient evidence. He's got one and only one method in mind which will allow him to graciously grant that a certain conclusion is indeed reasonable, and no other fancy schmancy scientific methods are gonna change his mind on that front, bucko!
What it comes down to - as it almost always does - is that his "argument" is largely an argument from personal ignorance - and it's quite determined personal ignorance - and an outright refusal to draw the best inference from all the evidence.
I made this comment on the Open Thread a few days ago, but it seems to have been missed. I'll shorten it and broaden the audience it's directed at.
Essentially no Creationists can give a brief summary of the Theory of Evolution. I suspect the same applies to people who can’t accept the reality of climate change,
So, to those of you here who do not think that anthropogenic climate change is taking place (including those who compulsively avoid making any kind of clear statement): In the late 60s, when I was an undergraduate student, our crop physiology lecturer told us that global temperatures were likely to increase as a result of human production of CO2. He gave the reasons and we all agreed it seemed plausible. What do you think was the explanation and evidence that he gave us?
My prediction: no serious attempt will be made to provide an answer.
Lotharsson: the only remaining step he has to make on the cognitive dissonance scale is the "real science" qualifier the truly insane like the J-man use all the time.
Latimer also claims it was necessary to have a gazillion temperature records to confirm global warming. (Well, no - as various people have pointed out one can draw sound conclusions that warming must occur prior from other evidence including experimentally confirmed theory without having a gazillion temperature readings. Asking how analogous this is to ocean acidification is a useful question, so of course Latimer refuses to ask it. Nevertheless, entering the small subset of "what constitutes acceptable science to Latimer" for the moment, we proceed...)
Latimer might like to try some of the simple temperature reconstruction code produced (IIRC) by caerbannog and available in various locations on the Interwebz. It allows one to select a subset of temperature stations and uses a very simple method to produce a gridded reconstruction. The interesting thing about doing this is how robust the warming signal is - in other words, how few stations one needs to incorporate to see a surface warming signal. (IIRC the analysis of Watts' SurfaceStations data produced a similar result.)
This was one reason why I pointed out Latimer's assertion that a gazillion readings were necessary was false - the other being the experimentally confirmed theory that also says warming must occur.
And if one does not need a gazillion records even for the surface temperature warming signal, there goes another plank in Latimer's house of denial.
Yep. That is well worth repeating.
And it's precisely what I've been trying to demonstrate re: Latimer's "understanding" of ocean acidification by asking him to specify what he understands the science says and why it says it.
Alas, I fear it would be imprudent to bet against that proposition.
Well, Brad thinks it is heroic and chameleon praises it - so there is already some evidence in favour of the proposition...
It's amazing how dense you are once you've decided on a "fact". Jeff did not discuss any organisation of climate change deniers in that comment. This has already been pointed out to you in several different ways. It's like your claim that Delingpole's article quoted Flannery. You decided it did, and nothing - not even the plain facts which you can access by carefully re-reading the article - will dissuade you.
Your bleeding obvious is (again) confused."Theories" does not mean the same thing as "conspiracy theories". Until you stop conflating the two you are going to continue misinterpreting things.
Yes, you did. We know. We saw. We understood.
And we understood that you had (once more) misinterpreted what was said.
Here's what Jeff actually said when talking about conspiracy theories put forth by climate change deniers:
Do you see the bits in single quotes? Those are the examples of conspiracy theories that Jeff gave. Your comments don't address those examples. You seem to think they do - but as I've tried to point out you err by conflating "global governance" with "global government" - which is exactly the falsehood that most conspiracy theories that it's all a hoax intended to establish a world government under the auspices of the UN rely upon. In other words at first glance it sounds like you're buying into one of the classes of conspiracy theory Jeff gave as an example.
No-one here is denying the existence of the UN or proposals from various bodies for global governance of various issues. The conspiracy theories takes those facts and distort them into something they most clearly are not. Like you seem to be doing.
Oh, good grief. Chameleon is trying to issue psychological assessments, so predictably they seem to bear no relation to the comments they are made in response to.
And:
Er, yes the did and they do. That's exactly why tobacco companies have funded The Heartland Institute - to make it easier for them to get citizens to take up smoking.
The recent social engineering of internal Heartland Institute documents confirms they are still taking tobacco industry money, and one can easily find out that tobacco lobbying was a bit part of their work in the past.
Bill points out that Latimer is using tactics "straight out of the tobacco-lobby playbook". The perennially confused one somehow turns this into a claim by Bill that The Heartland Institute is a tobacco lobbyist - which she then enthusiastically (and falsely) denies.
My head is already spinning. One imagines that some sort of cognitive deficiency is necessary to turn tactics used by a class of entities into is one of a class of entities. But in response to the ensuing rebuttal she then she gets even more confused and opines:
Why, yes they are. And they are paid to promote climate change denial - all perfectly googleable - which makes them 'climate change deniers'. The hypothetical cognitive defect seems like a good explanation for turning an observation about what some entity does into a strawman about what said entity calls itself.
I'll also be fascinated to find out what evidence she thinks supports:
Especially since this is pretty much going against Latimer's faux "awwww, shucks, we don't really know if it's acidifying" line.
But given the major problems with comprehension noted above I'm not sure she sees the contradiction.
Uh-oh, somebody better tell my local football team they they aren't a football team, seeing as they call themselves, "The Sea Eagles".
Hey, we've been getting the North Koreans all wrong! Aren't they called the Democratic Republic of Korea?
And Heartland is the Tobacco Lobby. Along with its mates, of course,who also just happen to deny / have denied AGW, the CFCs and ozone link, acid rain, etc..
The playbook is always identical. The likes of Chebbie and Sprucey Boy are just small suckers on the tip of one of these tentacles!
@bill
If I ever come across anybody called 'Sprucey' or 'Sprucey Boy' I'll be sure to draw your remarks to his attention.
I spent about five years working with a slightly larger than life guy called Dennis Spruce, but I doubt that it's him you have in mind
@vince whirlwind
'
'Latimer:
Forgive me if I missed it, but I’d be grateful if you’d point the exact place in each paper where such timeseries may be found.
Don’t be such a retard. This act of yours might wash amongst the mental incompetents that infest the crank blogs you recommend, but you’re not going to get very far anywhere else.'
Thank you for your reply.
Just to check that I have understood.
I was looking for data to demonstrate that 'ocean acidification' is actually taking place. And after extensive searching by good folks here and by me we had found only five possible examples.
I opined that we had no data from the Southern Ocean or the Arctic.
With some fanfare - and a little ritual personal abuse about my search skills - you presented two papers that you claimed remedied these deficiencies. After a quick study, I could not track down the relevant data in those papers.
So I politely asked you to point out exactly where it could be found. Your reply is above.
Seems like the locations of the relevant data in either paper may have slipped your memory once again.
Please let me know if you do track it down, and I'll be happy to add two more examples (making seven) to the five we already have.
But it'll still be a long way to go to catch up on the approx. 3000 examples (measurement locations) that were needed to show that global warming had actually occurred.
Thanks for your time.
Vince, yes, I did say something about "liars." If you think I belong in that class, then by all means demonstrate where I've lied to you or to anyone else. You won't be able to, because I haven't lied. Meanwhile I stand by my general execration of liars.
@wow
I opined that we do not have enough data to demonstrate whether 'ocean acidification' is actually occurring.
You replied
'Nope We do have enough data to do that'
Really?
An absolute top whack amount of 113 location years spread across just 5 locations is enough to confirm that 'ocean acidification' is taking place?
Even though we have no measurements from the Southern Ocean, Arctic Ocean or Indian Ocean. None in the South Atlantic, nor the Southern Pacific. None around Europe, Asia or Australasia. None on the Eastern Seaboard of the US and none for Africa south of 25N?
Doesn't seem like 'ocean' acdification to me . Far too many oceans for which we don't have any data at all. And far too little length of data for any of those we do have.
The oceans cover 70%+ of the earth's surface. And yet you are content to call an 'oceanic' phenomenon based on just five sampling points over a maximum of twenty years observations?
'And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but be patient and listen to all the evidence) to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.” RP Feynman
It is my judgement that there is still a long long way to go and a lot of data to be collected from a lot more places before this theory can be considered 'an established scientific fact' as claimed by Guthrie
But I guess we'll just have to agree to differ.
@lotharsson
'And it’s precisely what I’ve been trying to demonstrate re: Latimer’s “understanding” of ocean acidification by asking him to specify what he understands the science says and why it says it'
Seems to me that 'the science' doesn't say anything. Experiments and observations are the things that tell us about nature. But allow me to let the far more eloquent Richard Feynman discuss exactly this point (and thank you for giving me this opportunity to bring it up)
'“When someone says, ‘Science teaches such and such,’ he is using the word incorrectly.
Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, ‘Science has shown such and such,’ you should ask, ‘How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?’ It should not be ‘science has shown.’
Exactly. Or to put it rather crudely
'Experiments and observations rule OK!'
So - to answer your question - my understanding is that there is a theory about 'ocean acidification' based on lab experiments.
But we are way short of enough real world observational data from different sites and over long enough times to demonstrate whether or not it actually scales from bench level to ocean level.
Until we do collect that data it is not 'an established scientific fact'. It is still an unconfirmed theory.
Maybe one day it will be so established. Maybe it won't. But until then, we just don't know and it is foolish to pretend that we do.
@lotharsson
'One can draw sound conclusions that warming must occur prior from other evidence including experimentally confirmed theory without having a gazillion temperature readings. Asking how analogous this is to ocean acidification is a useful question, so of course Latimer refuses to ask it.'
OK. I'll ask the question
'How analogous is this to ocean acidification'?
You have clearly given the matter some thought so I'd be very pleased to hear your answer.
Stop crapping on, Latimer - the Southern Ocean data quoted in the paper I linked to is the exact same data I linked to previously.
You may have engaged in "an extensive search for data", which , if we are to believe you, spanned many years and was fruitless, however the rest of us have demonstrated that 30 seconds on Google will throw up no end of data, including data you have falsely asserted does not exist.
What a tiresome little toad you are.
Having said that, it is a fact that CO2 in the atmosphere is taken up by any water exposed to it, until a point of equilibrium is reached. That uptake varies according to temperature and other factors.
It is another fact that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280ppm to 391ppm over the last 150-odd years.
In what alternate reality would you need measurements from all around the world to show you that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere translates to increased CO2 in the water?
You're being an idiot.
I suppose, a failed "atmospheric chemist" who doesn't know that temperature is the main driver for CO2 uptake (as per your mistaken assertion earlier on in this thread) who apparently doesn't know how to use Google, might be able to claim that he doesn't know what's going on.
Lucky others know what's going on.
@lotharsson
Re 'Caerbannog'
' The interesting thing about doing this is how robust the warming signal is – in other words, how few stations one needs to incorporate to see a surface warming signal. (IIRC the analysis of Watts’ SurfaceStations data produced a similar result.)
Fine. Perhaps you;d like to report on how many stations are in fact needed to produce a robust result in the temperature case. And then perhaps we can work on estimating how many stations will be needed to produce the same (or not) for 'ocean acidification'.
Though it is perhaps a little more complicated since you have opined elsewhere that you don't think the two circumstances are actually comparable........
You illustrate my point (and Richard Simons' point) beautifully. Thanks! Perhaps instead of trying to co-opt Feynman (for what chameleon would surely call "arguing meaningless semantics" if she weren't so busy applauding your performance) you should, you know, actually take his advice:
Very good questions.
And yet despite wrapping yourself in the Feynman flag, you still haven't applied them to ocean acidification, and accordingly still can't give an account of the current scientific understanding on ocean acidification. How curious! Is it any wonder that you're in no position to express faux-skepticism about the current scientific understanding? Your deliberately blinkered focus on how many modern data measurements - and your fallacy of the excluded middle between "unconfirmed theory" and "established scientific fact" - are NOT an account of the current understanding, no matter how hard you pretend they are.
I predict you won't give that account, because it would make it a lot harder to pretend that your position on the matter - complete with speculation relying on factors that may actually have been addressed by research - has little substance.
We've seen this particular act time and time again and thus far your version of pseudoskepticism hasn't provided anything new.
@anthony david
'Scientists don’t necessarily need to measure a phenomena to make sound predictions'
Really? How do they do it - telepathy? Receiving the astral influences? Invoking the spirit of Aristotle? Going to conferences?
Seems to me that if you had written
'People don’t necessarily need to measure a phenomena to make predictions',
then you'd be right. But you can't judge whether those predictions are 'sound' until you've done some measurements and checked whether the reality matches up with the predictions.
You also say
' OA predictions are based on years of careful ocean and atmospheric carbon chemistry measurements'
Umm...that is the whole point of this discussion.
We've been looking for the evidence of the 'years of careful ocean...measurements'. And it is in fact incredibly scanty...just five locations with data going back only a few years. And huge areas of the globe with no data at all.
And I'm glad you agree that
'More measurements are better'.
Though I think I'd rephrase it as
'a lot more measurements are essential before we know whether 'ocean acidification' is really occurring or not' .
As I said, it's the same "act" we've seen before. One generally holds out (implicitly or explicitly) either:
a) the concept that some effect that has been studied to date has some attribute or mode or impact or scale of operation in addition to what existing studies have found which makes all the difference, or
b) some other mysterious factor ("hypothetical cycle" being a particular favourite when this game is played with surface temperatures) has a large influence and is just waiting to be discovered as the real culprit.
Neither one gives credence to drawing the best inference from all the evidence.
In Latimer's case the ones he's been explicit about here are buffering and the effect of certain types of rocks, i.e. maybe they're a large enough effect to counter the extra CO2 that enters the oceans. One immediately notes that he doesn't appear to have even investigated what the current state of knowledge on these effects (especially their magnitude) is and he certainly hasn't cited any data on how large an effect they have in anything like current conditions.
One might be forgiven for speculating that finding out is not in his interest given that he's clearly far more invested in promoting his doubt rather than discussing the best understanding we currently have...
Let me try that again. I was attempting to opine that the two circumstances are quite comparable, BOTH in terms of number of stations needed being far less than you asserted AND because the best inference prior to large amounts of data coming in is that acidification/global warming will occur.
Shorter Latimer:
No-one could have soundly predicted that the apple I just dropped would fall to the floor. That can only be done after observing the apple hit the floor!
SLOTH TRANSLATION: I have no actual argument I can put, so I'm going to go for the pontifical, 'above the hoi polloi' strategy that is my stock in trade, while claiming to somehow be Feynman - if, that is, one assumes he was also a perverse contrarian who was actually saying, 'hey, you need never know anything at all if it doesn't suit you to'.
Allow me to demonstrate:
You still haven't told us about BEST. Do so.
You haven't because it will give the game away: you've rather shot yourself in the foot now, just as your monkey did, because you've highlighted immediately above just how much empirical AND theoretical evidence indicates GW (sorry 'global warming') AND the fact that it's AGW.
Does it follow you everywhere, incidentally?
"That can only be done after observing the apple hit the floor!"
And that would only be correlation not causation!!!
NEWTON WAS A FRAUD!!!!
INTELLIGENT FALLING FTW!!!
None of the time series we have so far give any hint that the mysterious and never documented "Latimer-Buffering-Effect" is real.
So, the first thing we know is: increased CO2 in the atmosphere results in increased CO2 in the Oceans.
The second thing we know is: The "Latimer-Buffering-Effect" has no empirical support and appears to exist only as an artificial construct in the pursuit of fraudulent science.
The third thing I am amazed to have learned today is this: Feynman says Occam is a crock.
However, I will remain sceptical of fact #3 until it is confirmed by somebody a little more trustworthy than a serial liar.
"I suppose, a failed “atmospheric chemist” who doesn’t know that temperature is the main driver for CO2 uptake "
Worse, doesn't even know how diffusion works!
Really.
Yes.
Even though we do have them, you think we don't.
Why then should your "opine" on whether we have enough data to determine ocean acidification is taking place? You don't even know how much data we have!
So all you have to go on are your "feelings"?
Or do you have any hard evidence for your assertion?
Remember, you already have it wrong about how much data we have. Has the knowledge we have much more than you assert changed your assumption?
Or are your assumptions not up for being changed?
Because that's not skepticism, that's denialism.
@bill
If I ever meet a guy called 'SLOTH', I'll be sure to draw your post to his attention.
So Latimer is Over The Hill.
@lotharsson
'In Latimer’s case the ones he’s been explicit about here are buffering and the effect of certain types of rocks, i.e. maybe they’re a large enough effect to counter the extra CO2 that enters the oceans. One immediately notes that he doesn’t appear to have even investigated what the current state of knowledge on these effects (especially their magnitude) is and he certainly hasn’t cited any data on how large an effect they have in anything like current conditions. '
The claim is that ocean pH is decreasing ('ocean acidification').
It s very simple to show this. Measure ocean pH and show that it is decreasing.
If and when this effect is established (or not) we can look at causes/reasons why (or why not) it is (or not) occurring.
So far it hasn't been established.
PS - you may have missed the last two days discussion where many good folks have been trying to find published data that shows whether the ocean pH is changing. And there ain't much. (5 locations worldwide and max 113 observation years - of which over half are proxies).
If you have a hidden secret stash of additional data, please share it with us.
@vince whirlwind
'the rest of us have demonstrated that 30 seconds on Google will throw up no end of data, including data you have falsely asserted does not exist.'
Indulge me. Show me again. Not just a vague handwave to 'no end of data', but actual page number references..or even just figure number references to actual collected data.
The rightness of your case will then be adequately demonstrated to everybody's satisfaction, and you can do it in 30 secs (less time than it probably took you to write the comment).
"Indulge me. Show me again."
No.
The results were posted by Vince twice to this thread.
You have ignored them both times.
This has been done.
Satisfied?
Already been done.
CO2 + H2O => Carbonic acid.
"So far it hasn’t been established."
So far we've not only established that, but that you are in denial of it too.
@lotharsson
' I was attempting to opine that the two circumstances are quite comparable, BOTH in terms of number of stations needed being far less than you asserted AND because the best inference prior to large amounts of data coming in is that acidification/global warming will occur.'
OK.
What is your best judgement about how many stations will be needed to show ocean acidification is real?
I cited about 3000 for 'global warming ' - and that's about the number the IPCC worked from. You are of the opinion from other work that far fewer are needed for 'OA'
1000?
500?
100?
50?
Please give some justification for your answer
' because the best inference prior to large amounts of data coming in is that acidification/global warming will occur.'
That's certainly a reasonable inference. But so is the one that says the buffering effect of the seawater will overwhelm the very slight CO2 effect.
Until we have the 'large quantities of data', the point is moot and we cannot state that OA is 'an established scientific fact' as we haven't done the work to show that it is.
I think we are pretty close to agreement :-)
.
re Apples etc
To all who have cited the apple (and by inference Isaac Newton) I thank you, since this is a very instructive example.
As you may know, the story of the apple is pretty much apocryphal. Newton came up with his Laws of Motion from trying to decode the set of observations of the motion of the planets that telescopy had just begun to make a reasonably exact science. In his case it was observations first - theories second.
And we rely on them today because they have been tested over and over and over again and never found wanting (*). Just within the lifetimes of people living today we have over 50 billion years of observations from all over the world. And we know also that we can use them to successfully predict the motions of heavenly bodies billions of light years away - and more parochially to navigate manned craft to the Moon and back and unmanned craft beyond our solar system.
They are a great predictive tool. And that is why we call them 'Newton's Laws'
Compare and contrast with the evidence presented for 'ocean acidification'. Only five locations. Only 113 years of observations (half of them proxies).
Maybe one day we will have enough data to come up with 'Wow's Law of Ocean Acidification' and give it the thorough going over that Newton's Laws do every day.
But we ain't there yet.
Oops. Forgot the footnote
(*) Einstein showed that Newton's Laws are in fact only a subset of the wider laws that he discovered. But for all practical purposes relevant to this discussion they are applicable. And certainly for apples falling off trees.
@vince whirlwind
' Feynman says Occam is a crock'
News to me. I don't think he gave any opinion on Ockham.
Please explain.
"But so is the one that says the buffering effect of the seawater will overwhelm the very slight CO2 effect"
Good grief, a doubling of atmospheric C02 in about 2 centuries is a 'very slight C02 effect' on ocean pH?
What planet are you on Latimer? Where do you dredge up this crap?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6103/27.summary
Game, set and match. The evidence is there. These kinds of changes generally take many thousands of years - not one or two hundred. And let's not forget that what we are seeing now is based on a temporal lag for such a deterministic system.
Latimer is not a 'scientce-based sceptic'. He is a bonafide denier on the basis of other pre-determined world views. Like most other deniers. Science is just a tool to be abused as necessary in support of alternative agendas.
"What planet are you on Latimer? Where do you dredge up this crap?"
Where else do you get crap from?
"But we ain’t there yet."
Well, as long as you get to decide unilaterally where "there" is and what constitutes "getting there" is, of course.
However, this is no more than your fevered ego running wild.
"What is your best judgement about how many stations will be needed to show ocean acidification is real?"
One would be enough.
You can manage with less than 1000.
And that would be required to prove the level of warming, not the existence of it.
"And certainly for apples falling off trees."
How do you know?
"In his case it was observations first – theories second."
And that just proves that the proofs laws of motion and therefore gravity are merely correlations, not causations.
Observations first, theories second, hmm?
@wow
“What is your best judgement about how many stations will be needed to show ocean acidification is real?”
One would be enough'.
Really? Just one to cover the oceans?
If I could find you a weather station that showed a decrease in average temperature, would you take it as conclusive evidence that 'global cooling' is real?
If not, why not?
Dang. Did I forget to spell check the closing blockquote tag?
"Really? Just one to cover the oceans?"
Who said anything about covering the oceans?
You demanded:
@wow
'And that just proves that the proofs laws of motion and therefore gravity are merely correlations, not causations'
You're losing me on this one...please explain
If we only had one, yes.
Someone coming up with 10 that showed warming would win out because they have more data.
@wow
'Who said anything about covering the oceans?'
Ummm... I think that is what the word 'ocean' is trying to convey. Like 'global' in 'global warming'.
Do you have an alternative reading? If so. what is it?
OK, here it is:
You're thick.
No, really, that's the problem and why you're always left behind.
Stupendous Stupidity.
You don't even understand your own arguments!
You point to the warming trend and proclaim "That's correlation, not causation!".
Except that the movement of the planets correlating with the motion you would get from applying Newtonian Gravitation and the Laws of Motion is just as much correlation as the temperature record that shows the climate science as shown in the IPCC reports are correct.
But you're too stupid to understand even your own arguments.
So that's the reason why you're being left behind.
You're an idiot.
"Ummm… I think that is what the word ‘ocean’ is trying to convey. "
Nope. Incorrect again.
For reason: see last post.
@wow
Thank you for your link to a snippet about Tyndall.
Very interesting, but the point of it has passed me by.
Please explain
"Very interesting, but the point of it has passed me by."
And the reason again: you're an idiot.
You don't even understand your own arguments.
Measurement before theory you proclaimed as The One True Way to do science. Unless you don't like the science, in which case "I see nothing".
I guess that's why you never saw any links to data for the southern ocean, right?
It passed you by.
@wow
'You point to the warming trend and proclaim “That’s correlation, not causation!”.
I did? News to me. Where did I say this?
IIRC I have frequently stated on this blog that I have no problem with the idea that there have been periods of 'global warming' in the recent past.
Please explain your point.
@wow
'Measurement before theory you proclaimed as The One True Way to do science. Unless you don’t like the science, in which case “I see nothing”.
Where did make such a proclamation? Not a view I hold.
I fear that it may be late at night in your geography and that you are beginning to become a tad 'tired and emotional'. So perhaps it's best if I don't take your typamatic responses too seriously.
But if I am wrong, then please carefully read what I have actually written, not what you think some imagined 'Denier Stereotype' should have written.
@wow
'I guess that’s why you never saw any links to data for the southern ocean, right?'
I saw the links that VW posted. And as I always do I looked at the papers he cited. But I could not see where they contained relevant data. I asked him again if he could be more specific about the location of the data within those papers. He has not, so far, felt able to do so.
But if you can help him - and me - out by coming up with the goodies, I'm sure we'd both be very grateful.
"I did? News to me. Where did I say this?"
It probably passed you by like Vince's data for the oceans you insisted we had no data for
:-)
"IIRC"
Except we already know your recollection is never done correctly.
"I have no problem with the idea that there have been periods of ‘global warming’ in the recent past."
Please explain your point.
"I saw the links that VW posted."
Then why did you ask Vince to do it again?
Please explain your point.
"But I could not see where they contained relevant data."
Please explain your point.
@wow
'But I could not see where they contained relevant data'
To explain. To show that the process of 'acidification' has occurred you need a time series of data. The papers he cited did not contain such time series that I could find. This is a contrast to the other five papers that we've looked at that did contain such data. I asked him to clarify where exactly in the papers I should look to find them. As yet he has not felt able to do so.
I do not think I can make it much clearer than that.
Hey look, measurements of pH in the Antarctic and such:
http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1234
"In some of their study areas, they found that the decrease in seawater pH being caused by greenhouse gas emissions is still within the bounds of natural pH fluctuation. Some areas already experience daily acidity levels that scientists had expected would only be reached at the end of the 21st Century."
As you would expect, it's all complicated, nevertheless, because of the various chemical laws that Alder has already admitted exist, we can predict roughly how things will go over time.
@wow
You stated
‘You point to the warming trend and proclaim “That’s correlation, not causation!”.
which as far as I can remember is not a sentiment I have expressed. So I asked you where you believe I have done so.
"which as far as I can remember is not a sentiment I have expressed"
And your point is...?
OK, so that's TWO alternative recollections of what you ACTUALLY asked for.
"The papers he cited did not contain such time series that I could find."
Your point being..?
@guthrie
'As you would expect, it’s all complicated, nevertheless, because of the various chemical laws that Alder has already admitted exist, we can predict roughly how things will go over time.'
And when time has passed and those predictions have been shown to be true (or not), then I'll be happy to move to towards agreeing with your claim that it is 'an established scientific fact'. And it'd be even more convincing if the theory could advance from 'rough predictions' to something a little more precise.
But not until the work has been done.
Or in simple language
'Don't count your chickens before they're hatched'
'It ain't over till the Fat Lady sings'
(as Sir Ferguson found out in the last minute at Spurs on Sunday. Tee hee).
They have been.
Evidence indicates otherwise.
Latimer
Still can't get no satisfaction I see.
You mean the observational *confirmation* of long-established and unfalsified theoretical chemistry absolutely supported by all experimental testing.
Since you are being obtuse about this, I will repeat the point. Long-established and absolutely robust chemistry demonstrates that the rapid and substantial increase in the atmospheric fraction of CO2 will reduce ocean pH. How could it not? Why would the laws that govern chemical interactions *change*? Obviously, they would not. They never do.
Oh yes we do. See above.
Non sequitur. See above.
The experimental and theoretical chemistry is done. The physical (chemical) process is not remotely in dispute. The term 'robust' is hardly strong enough here. Your entire contention rests on the same rhetorical misdirection.
Non sequitur. See above.
We use theoritical and experimental chemistry. See above.
All this nonsense is classic (and tedious) fake-sceptical obfuscation. You find me a reputable chemist who will question this assertion:
Long-established and absolutely robust chemistry demonstrates that the rapid and substantial increase in the atmospheric fraction of CO2 will reduce ocean pH. How could it not? Why would the laws that govern chemical interactions *change*? Obviously, they would not. They never do.
We can argue about the potential impacts on marine ecosystems all day but we cannot dispute the above without abandoning scientifically supported reasoning and resorting to mere rhetoric. As you have done.
'Long-established and absolutely robust chemistry demonstrates that the rapid and substantial increase in the atmospheric fraction of CO2 will reduce ocean pH.'
H'mm
You've done the chemistry with all the different compositions of seawater that exist? Taking into account all the different starting pHs? And all the different local conditions? Under actual oceanic weather conditions and with all the oceanic currents and layering?
The only way that I know to do measurements on an 'oceanic' and so demonstrate 'ocean acidification' is to go and measure the oceans.
Until you've done that the best you have is an expectation that your theory is correct.
Please explain your point.
And the reason for that is..? (see above: you're an idiot).
Mind you, latte has managed to prove my theory that he'd merely move goalposts if anyone answered his petulant demands.
So, Latimer, what is that you imagine you're achieving?
You have to hide from AGW, particularly after you've inadvertently given us a long exposition on why it has to be correct - irrefutable theory + lots and lots of empirical fact - and you've got nothing but your pearl of willful ignorance to polish on OA.
Frankly, given a choice between the word of an ageing hysteric who was such a fine 'atmospheric chemist' that he ended up in IT (and, let's face it, we all know there's something rather, um, squishy at the core of that claim anyway) and, say, Professor Keith Hunter and Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, to name a couple of the key people from our neck of the woods, not to mention their respective teams; well, no sane person could possibly imagine that you're more credible, could they?
See, you'll whine about arguing from authority, but that's what you've tried to do - present yourself, unconvincingly, as some sort of authority - but you have to come to a 'backwater' like Deltoid to play the game, don't you, because the genuinely adept and competent in that specific field would just laugh at you, wouldn't they?
Or just snort and move on, pausing only to note that it's sad what happens to people...
And it's not just them, is it? And it's not just OA, it's AGW, and probably a host of other issues where reality's famous liberal bias and the clear evidence that your emotional attachments have you backing the wrong horses time and time again has you seething with resentment, isn't it?
Damon Runyon said it beautifully -
It sure is. A rabble of far-Right malcontents and bona-fide lunatics vs. the CSIRO, the BoM, the NAS, NASA, NOAA, all the world's Academies of Science - who do you think you are kidding, you singularly pathetic old man?
So now you're a troll. Brighter than most, perhaps, but no better, and with no better case, than the fanatics and fools who are cheering you on, because they're too thick to realise your verbosity and pretentious arrogance doesn't make up for your lack of a case.
You are wasting your time. And, since you're here, now, doing this, you've wasted your life.
FIFY.
FIFY as well.
And speaking of reasonable inferences:
FIFY as well.
FIFY too.
And hell, why isn't chubby chammie here demanding Latte here give up his idea that water stays in one place and doesn't move???
Latte's ideas are antithetical to spanking donkey's BPT "theory".
@lotharsson
'There’s only one way I that I deem acceptable to show this and I refuse to find out why the scientists say it is happening.'
If you know of another way of showing that pH is decreasing other than by measuring pH and showing it is decreasing then please tell us all.
And it is not what I 'deem to be acceptable'. It is what the scientifc method deems to be acceptable. Simply put
'Observations and Experiments rule OK'
If this idea is still troubling you, please watch the first 60 seconds of this little clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
'And 16995 papers I haven’t read, some of which probably contain relevant data and methodologies that I haven’t yet imagined existing – along with oodles of well-established theory that the predictions are based upon, as BBD points out.'
I think we've done a pretty good job of crowdsourcing a literature search here for relevant data that speaks to the process of acidification. That Google returns 16995 hits to 'ocean acdification' doesn't tell you very much at all about those with relevant data. I get 2.1 million hits on 'cold fusion' but that doesn't mean that I need read all 2.1 million looking for confirmatory data (or not).
It may be that one or two others are hidden lurkers, but all the learned review papers keep focussing back on just three of the five we've found. And if there are some there that you know we've missed, then please draw them to our attention.
Maybe next week there'll be a whole slew of other stuff that changes the game. But until that is published, the best you have is an expectation that 'ocean acidification' is taking place.
And if I may say so, you are all getting far too worked up about this - as if I have committed blasphemy or something just by asking to see the observational data that confirms 'ocean acidification'. And found there to be only a little.
In another life we called it the 'Show Me' test. It's not hard or difficult or complicated. It is very straightforward.
But for the last time before lunch here we go:
To demonstrate that 'ocean acidification' is occurring you need to show - by measurement - that 'oceans' are acidifying. Not just coastal waters off Hawaii or Bermuda or the Canaries or Tatoosh Island. But oceans.
And you can have all the theories and eminent professors and learned journals that you want all supporting the idea that 'it must be', 'we expect it to be' 'it should be'.
But you won't actually know until you've made the observations. Until then its just a theory.
The nearest analogy I can come up with is aircraft design (and I acknowledge that it's not perfect). You can have the best designers and the most eminent advisers and the best wind tunnel and the superest computers all working on producing the finest bit of kit the world has ever seen.
But until it actually flies, it's just a heap of metal and stuff. You only truly know that it's an aeroplane when it flies.
Check out what Latimer tried to do again:
Latimer:
Wow:
Latimer:
Wow:
Latimer:
Either he's confused or he's stupid.
That's the point, Latimer - you are invoking a mysterious and never-observed phenomenon we can call the "Latimer-Buffering-Effect" to underpin your denial of the known and observed chemistry of water and CO2, while at the same time trying to pretend you have the foggiest what Feynman wants us to believe.
Ocean acidification is a process that is well-understood, observed, and observed over time in the oceans, including every single one of the oceans for which you erroneously denied there exists such data.
Nobody says it better than BBD has, and this advice goes for everything denialists have trouble with, from immunology to evolution, plate tectonics to the greenhouse effect:
Colour shifter dribbled:
Only to somebody unaware of the tactics and cast of characters involved in not only denial of the dangers of smoking but acid rain, CFCs v ozone and GW/climate change amongst other topics of industrial-political-mercenary shame.
Copies of, amongst other titles, 'Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming' and 'Merchants of Doubt' will fill in some of the gaps.
But they are funding the Heartland Institute” or many other forms of research and charities because they’re not trying to make you not take up smoking!
You should look up the work of John Mashey reported on e.g. here and here .
Also 'Golden Holocaust
Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition' by Robert Proctor would be a revelation to you, it seems.
Note to Latimer:
You should also take some of your own advice and get out more and chase up some of the above (and much, much more) before spouting off inferring the narrowness of experience of others, on the flimsiest of absence of evidence.
We've measured decreasing pH. AND it lines up very well with theory, theory which includes the concept of "buffering".
Oh, wait, you discard those measurements for spurious reasons - you're a denier of the best inference from all the evidence.
Saying it (yet again) does not make it so. You claim you're just insisting on observations and experiments, but you're denying any methodology other than your one method, and you're denying the best inference from the experimental data we do have.
(Why do you think you refuse to find out what scientists say about the magnitude of the buffering effects you speculate about compared to the CO2 inputs? You can't allow yourself to lose one of your denial crutches, perhaps?)
Good grief, we haven't come close to "a pretty good job of relevant data"! We've merely had a small attempt at pointing you to the data that you stamp your feet and insist upon, not all the relevant data. (Why exactly do you think I keep asking you why you refuse to find out what scientists say about certain things and why they say it?)
Nope.
Even if we restrict ourselves to the small set of papers you are willing to consider, the best inference is that ocean acidification - no scare quotes needed - is taking place.
You may quibble about the uncertainty intervals on the trends and magnitudes and what not and you'll find a lot less disagreement - but the data that has been presented here goes against your claim. The ONLY way you can "support" your claim is by refusing to draw the best inference from all the data.
You have a chemistry Masters, and you apparently don't understand the concept of drawing inferences from testing samples? Sheesh.
So I repeat - it's a lie to say that we haven't demonstrated it at all. What hasn't been demonstrated is acidification with small enough confidence intervals for your liking.
Inconvenient analogy. They train pilots and test fly new planes in simulators these days. They apparently have no problem drawing strong inferences about flight dynamics of designs that haven't physically flown from those simulations.
Hear, hear!
And for anyone still playing along at home, here are some FAQs for public consumption, created and vetted by a number of ocean research scientists.
I'm sure Latimer will set them all straight because his arguments show they're wrong on several points - starting with the very first FAQ on why it's actually called "acidification".
Please let us know what they say in response to your corrections, Latimer.
Who says we'd do something other than measure the pH?
Nobody.
‘Observations and Experiments rule OK’
And indeed we have observations and experiments.
Except you deny their existence.
Since you haven;t been claiming that there are no papers on cold fusion, but HAVE claimed there is nothing about ocean acidification in many parts of the ocean, what is your point?
Latimer dropped:
Well you could try studying the effect on various oceanic organisms, such as Coccolithophores, that rely upon carbonates for structure. Of course you do too and I am sure deleterious effects will be presenting themselves in humans ere long.
Here is an outdoor path for you to find out more although I could recommend some texts on e.g. oceanography too, Coccolithophore and take the offered path therein to 'Ocean acidification'. Noticeable deteriorations in the formation of coccolithophore structures due to changing ocean pH have been reported on.
I leave the follow up on that to you as an exercise in 'getting out more'.
Since you've been GIVEN the observational data that confirms ocean acidification, what's your point?
That the outrage against your denial of the data having been given to you is about "your blasphemy"?
Your insistence on thinking yourself a persecuted Galileo is indicative of the deep mental problems you have.
Your assertion that the outrage against your denial is outrage against what you CLAIM it is about, in contravention of all evidence, is more evidence of your psychosis.
Latimer
Yes, we've discussed this. Now let's return to chemistry.
Why do you think that the theoretical and experimental work that demonstrates - unequivocally - that the rapidly increasing atmospheric fraction of CO2 will lower ocean pH is questionable? You are, after all, questioning it.
This is equivalent to questioning the fundamentals of chemistry itself. Only the deranged and rhetoricians with an axe to grind would do that.
You don't appear to be deranged, so...
Cue Latimer denying it, perhaps by arguing that he's holding a "null position" on the matter, in
3...
2...
1...
Lionel's beaten me to the punch, but it is well-understood that marine organisms are integrators of ocean acidification. After all, that's what the concern is about.
There's a huge body of literature already building up on the subject, but for those who don't have the ability to find it and/or who have short attention spans (such as the current henge of trolls), these three cover some of the impacted taxa:
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/article-colomban-coco.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n4/abs/ngeo460.html
http://www.co.broward.fl.us/NaturalResources/ClimateChange/Documents/bg…
Until you've tested every single organism in every single ocean, I think the jury will remain out on whether the effects of acidification are deleterious....
Oh hogwash. There are still fish, right? So what's the problem? Where's your proof?
[/sarcasm]
Well, all those crustaceans are different, so you don't know if they all have a problem with carbonic acid. And they evolve, so you have to prove that they won't "just adapt" to it.
By, for example, becoming extinct.
Bernard J
And you in turn beat me to the follow up. I am rather handicapped still (chek thanks and it is 'Phoenix Squadron' BTW, that latter just in case others are trying to follow that aside) whilst testing my stamina, or lack thereof.
Here is one bit of background on the natgeoscience letter: Social justice and reduced calcification in planktonic foraminifera.
So whilst some worry about windmills spoiling the view others are deeply concerned about the impacts on ecosystems and the infrastructure that supports them for we realise that we are a part of this bigger picture and a major and largely a very ignorant, or in some cases arrogantly immune to understanding, part at that.
But then of course my interests in physics, chemistry - various branches of, biology, ecology, palaeo-this-that-and-the-other-gy (and many other things) makes me insular and needing to get out more.
The basic point, that the amount of CO2 dissolved in seawater will change depending on temp and CO2 conc was conceded right at the start of this by Latimer. Therefore to continue to deny that increased atmospheric CO2 concs will drive down oceanic pH indicates he is stupid or a troll. Or maybe both.
@wow
'You’ve done the chemistry with all the different compositions of seawater that exist?'
There is no simple thing like 'typical seawater'. There is just the seawater that exists at a particular place and according to the local conditions. Some of the things that vary are salinity, starting pH, temperature, depth, inorganic composition...these have been well documented in the OA literature. And even at the same location, these can vary greatly with depth and currents. And so. just like no individual weather station can be nominated as 'typical' of the globe's climate, no single observation of 'ocean acidification' can be taken as typical of 'an ocean' as a whole - nor of the globe.
The measurements in Hawaii, for example are for relatively warm water, close to large chunks of metamorphic rock (volcanoes).
The seawater chemistry here will be quite different from say, the North Sea which is shallower, colder and mostly bordered on sedimentary rocks (esp calcium carbonate). For the claim of 'ocean acidification' to be true, you need at least to be able to show that the phenomenon occurs under a far wider range of circumstances than just the five local environments that have been measured.
To demonstrate global warming' took about 3000 locations (some may argue it could have been done with fewer, but haven't yet come up with an estimate of how many).
It will take considerably more than 5 locations to show that 'ocean acidification' is really occurring at an oceanic level
There is.
If it's water, in the sea, then it's seawater.
The hint is in the name.
How do you know? Have you checked ALL of it?
PS including the Indian Ocean et al?
You know, those places where you said pH hadn't been recorded.
ROFL!
@vince whirlwind
'Ocean acidification is a process that is well-understood, observed, and observed over time in the oceans, including every single one of the oceans for which you erroneously denied there exists such data'
Well its a very very strange sort of data when you can't actually point me to where it is shown in the papers you repeatedly claim to contain it.
I'll ask you once again - I think for at least the third time..
I have looked at the papers you cited. I could not find the data you claim is there. Please indicate under which section it is discussed, or in which reference or wherever I need to go to find it..
You've obviously found it yourself, so you'll be helping us all out by making it crystal clear where to look.
Thanks for your time
So you can't even read?
And you demand that Vince read it out to you, explain the data, methods and conclusions, so you don't have to do any work?
Really, stop skiving off and start STRIVING, you scrounger.
I bet you're on bloody winter heating allowance and other government handouts out the wazzoo.
"The seawater chemistry here will be quite different from say, the North Sea"
Does it reject CO2?
No.
Does it refuse to produce carbonic acid?
No.
So your point is what?
Sound and fury, signifying:
NOTHING.
@lotharsson
'You claim you’re just insisting on observations and experiments, but you’re denying any methodology other than your one method, and you’re denying the best inference from the experimental data we do have.'
If you confine yourself to saying that
'ocean acidfication' is our best inference (or 'expectation') of what will occur',
I'm cool. with that.
As long as you don't claim - as Guthrie did - that it is an
'established scientific fact'.
Until you've made the observations and they have confirmed your inference (or not) then no such fact has been established..
Excellent - we got there in the end.
@wow
' Some of the things that vary are salinity, starting pH, temperature, depth, inorganic composition
How do you know? Have you checked ALL of it?'
Umm no - to show that these things vary I only need two samples that differ in each. Then I have shown that there is at least as much possible variation as I can show between them.
Forgive me if I am being over harsh, but I don't think that you have spent much time doing real chemistry in a lab otherwise this would be an unlikely question to ask.
"Umm no"
So go find out.
Let us see your data when you've collected it.
And THEN we'll take your word for it that these differ.
Latimer
The weakness of your reasoning is evident:
Do you argue that the average pH of the vast majority of the world ocean is already so low that ~390ppmv CO2 (well mixed and continuously rising) will *not* reduce pH further?
Is this what you believe? Yes/no.
If yes, please reference. If no, please explain why not. Explain why robust, fundamental theory and experimental confirmation are not reliable guides to the chemical reactions involved.
Unless average ocean pH is already so low that further reduction could not be driven by the increase in atmospheric CO2, it will occur. It must. See 'robust theory and experimentation', above.
Are you really going to push this any further, with all these people watching...?
I bet you never tell your "university" that, do you.
If you had pretended to get through atmospheric chemistry and thought that this:
http://ion.chem.usu.edu/~sbialkow/Classes/3600/Overheads/Carbonate/CO2…
Was not valid, they'd have taken your certificate away from you.
Except it's probably one of those mail-order places, isn't it.
@lionel a
i followed your links. But I doubt if the Coccolithophore are in fact very good pH proxies given the report here
'However, some studies have found different response to ocean acidification, with coccolithophore calcification and photosynthesis both increasing under elevated atmospheric pCO2,[54][55][56] an equal decline in primary production and calcification in response to elevated CO2[57] or the direction of the response varying between species'
Maybe one day it'll all get sorted out and they'll be useful, but not yet
Ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
as per the link you recommended.
Latimer, for a guy with a basic chemistry degree, you are a real comedian. If there is any consensus in the debate over atmospheric C02 concentrations and its effects, one of the strongest is on driving a decline in marine pH levels that will lead to levels unreached in millions of years:
https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/AnthropogenicCandOce…
The literature is replete with similar studies and more recently on their attendant ecological effects. I would think that if you were a statured scientist, with profound expertise in the area and a lengthy list of peer-reviewed publications, then I would take what you say seriously.
But you're not. You are a rookie. You lack any expertise in the field. And your ' views' are at odds with those in the field.
What we have here folks, is another Dunning-Kruger candidate promulgating opinions not based on actual science but instead using science to camouflage some other political or economic views. Why else would total laymen think that they know more than those with years of experience? I have seen this pattern repeated on thread after thread on Deltoid (nowhere more so than on the you-know-who thread). People who have absolutely no expertise in any scientific field wade in here parading their ignorance as if they understand complex areas of science that have somehow bypassed those working in the field.
As a postscript, I will say that Latimer, you won't win a debate here or anywhere. If you think you possess some innate brilliance that has mysteriously bypassed the academic community, then why haven't you written up your fabulous ideas and sent them out to a journal like Nature or Science? I have asked Jonas that a gazillion times and he routinely ignores it, thinking that if he can bluff and fake and evade and pontificate here, that he will win some big intellectual victory.
The real reason that the deniers here don't throw their scintillating ideas out into the scientific arena is that their ideas aren't scintillating at all but are instead garbage. But as long as they can drag the discussions on and on and on and on in commentaries on blogs, it builds up their egos and gives them the impression of being scholars. That satisfies them and their fragile egos. Hence why they are stuck on blogs forever.
@bbd
'Why do you think that the theoretical and experimental work that demonstrates – unequivocally – that the rapidly increasing atmospheric fraction of CO2 will lower ocean pH is questionable? You are, after all, questioning it.'
Because I've spent enough time working out in the real world to know that lab work doesn't necessarily scale up to the outside world. And the theoretical models are never comprehensive enough to give the whole picture.
You hope that the lab work will be indicative of how the real world reacts, you may expect that it will ...but until you've done the work out of the lab and actually in the environment for which your bench work is but an imperfect model, you haven't proved it.
That's why.
Latimer: "You hope that the lab work will be indicative of how the real world reacts, you may expect that it will …but until you’ve done the work out of the lab and actually in the environment for which your bench work is but an imperfect model, you haven’t proved it"
Shorter Latimer: Until I see even more massive die-offs of coral reefs, phytoplankton and other biota than has already occurred, I will deny that increased atmospheric C02 will lower marine pH levels or have negative effects on marine biodiversity
@guthrie
'The basic point, that the amount of CO2 dissolved in seawater will change depending on temp and CO2 conc was conceded right at the start of this by Latimer. Therefore to continue to deny that increased atmospheric CO2 concs will drive down oceanic pH indicates he is stupid or a troll. '
H'mm
You're going to have to talk me through the bit that starts 'therefore. Especially the proof that atmospheric CO2 drives down pH *in seawater*. Quite happy that it does so in *pure water*.
But as I said way back when at the very beginning of this discussion, seawater ain't pure water.
Look, we already KNOW you're incompetent.
But is that any reason to insist that everyone else must be?
You've already been shown that proof.
Look at my link above.
So you think seawater has no H2O in it.
Really?
Now where did they say that it WOULD NOT acidify?
Hmmm?
“The seawater chemistry here will be quite different from say, the North Sea”
"Does it reject CO2? No.
Does it refuse to produce carbonic acid? No."
I'm not a chemist, but I think Wow nailed Lati's twaddlling around right there. Well, that and a conversation I had with Tim Barnett from Scripps.
@bernard j
Thank you for the links. I took a glance at them and found that (unless my glance missed the point) but found that none of them had any useful information about pH over the recent short term (last 100 years).
Please point me to my error if I am way off beam and there are indeed nuggets of useful information contained within them.
@wow
'The seawater chemistry here will be quite different from say, the North Sea”
To clarify - off the top of my head. At least these will be different - starting pH, average temperature, salinity, inorganic ion composition esp. carbonates and bicarbonates. The buffering effect will be different as will all the equilibria that vhnage and eventually may lead tp pH changes.
Just to check - you do have a good grasp of equilibria and buffering and understand why they make this a very much more complex and far less 'obvious' problem than the simple 'pure water' case?
Latimer
You are being silly now. And I am getting bored.
Latimer dropped:
Ah! Does this indicate that you think that because sea water contains ions of dissolved salts that it is therefore incapable of becoming less basic if carbonic acid is added?
If so you are suffering from a similar delusion to Tim Curtin (well one of Curtin's delusions). If you know not to what I am alluding then you need to get out more.
Whatever, here is some explanation from those involved in research:
Frequently Asked Questions About Ocean Acidification.
@chek
'Does it reject CO2? No.
Does it refuse to produce carbonic acid? No.”
Will its buffering capabilites be very different -yes
Will its starting pH be very different - yes
Will its temperature be different - yes.
Do these things affect the overall chemistry? Yes.
You completely skipped over this:
Do you argue that the average pH of the vast majority of the world ocean is already so low that ~390ppmv CO2 (well mixed and continuously rising) will *not* reduce pH further?
Is this what you believe? Yes/no.
If yes, please reference. If no, please explain why not. Explain why robust, fundamental theory and experimental confirmation are not reliable guides to the chemical reactions involved.
Unless average ocean pH is already so low that further reduction could not be driven by the increase in atmospheric CO2, it will occur. It must. See ‘robust theory and experimentation’, above.
Wittering about how things sometimes don't scale from bench to real world is evasiveness masquerading as expertise.
Nobody's fooled.
OK, sorry, you need more than that. Your head has been shown already to be an unreliable source of information.
Data, please, not musings.
What changes?
Your point is missing.
This is no different than saying "Well, your sports car could be slower than my Ford Focus because things like engine size, torque/weight ratios, top speed and traction are different".
Indeed, the difference of each of those things WILL change how fast things go.
And indeed they ARE different between, say, a Porsche 911, and a Ford Focus.
But you cannot use those differences to claim that the Ford Focus will be faster than the Porsche.
@chek
'a conversation I had with Tim Barnett from Scripps'
Unless you choose to describe this conversation, this is no more than a meaningless throwaway remark.
Does that affect mean that it doesn't acidify?
No.
So your point is what?
"this is no more than a meaningless throwaway remark."
Says the master of the throwaway remark.
Your point is..?
Latte,
Just to check – you do have a good grasp of equilibria and buffering and understand why they make this a very much more complex and far less ‘obvious’ than the simple ‘it can't acidify’ assertion you place on it?
Why were you demanding this yet third option on what you demanded before?
As predicted: you are presented with what you demanded, then come up with "It doesn't have... therefore it isn't proof".
Were these the case before - Yes
Do these mean that the formation of carbonic acid is forbidden - No
Do you have a point - No
Are you an idiot - Oh yes.
Latimer drop-quoted:
So having picked that cherry, or cherries counting the three sources cited, you can claim that ocean acidification ain't happening and there is nought to worry about.
So those studies cited actually said what and about what? In other words the context is...?
Come on, that is year 4 level of debate. And I did indicate that I was trying to get you out more and think more broadly.
This line of enquiry seems to have rattled you. Probably because you had no idea about this facet of ocean acidification and the light on your ignorance hurts.
"Unless you choose to describe this conversation, this is no more than a meaningless throwaway remark"
As I previously said, I'm not a chemist so the details were over my head, but suffice to say that a researcher at a leading institute impressed on me that OA is a serious problem. It's only use (and only to me) is for calibrating the contortions you're going through in denying that in the non-specific ways that are the hallmark of Bish style denialism..
@jeff harvey
'Shorter Latimer: Until I see even more massive die-offs of coral reefs, phytoplankton and other biota than has already occurred, I will deny that increased atmospheric C02 will lower marine pH levels or have negative effects on marine biodiversity'
I've said nothing at all on these topics. The furthest I have gne is to show that 'ocean acidification' is not an established scientific fact. And nor will it be until the relevant realworld observations have been made.
Please do not put words - especially word about topics I have not even mentioned - in my mouth.
Cockroaches don't like the light.
And this dude is both a cock and a roach.
Yes, you've said nothing on ANY topic.
Nope, you've claimed it. Claiming ain't proving
Are you actually Joan with a different sock on?
Why?
Why the fuck should ANYONE care about your whining little white-arse bitching?
You know, maybe you should try thinking and say something rather than the empty calories you manage now.
Go away.
@lionel a
'So having picked that cherry, or cherries counting the three sources cited, you can claim that ocean acidification ain’t happening and there is nought to worry about.'
Please check my writings, and you will find that I have not passed an opinion about either of the two topics you mention.
And it is disingenuous to claim I have .
We did.
You did.
Otherwise what is the point of your whining?
@lionel a
'So those studies cited actually said what and about what?
It seems that they said three things.
1 Increased CO2 gives extra photsynthesis and calcification
2. Increased CO2 gives decreased photosynthesis and calcification
3. It all depends on things we don't understand.
The relevance to our discussion is that this stuff is not likely to give us good proxy information about pH levels.
None of which says that extra CO2 will cause no acidification.
Where EXACTLY does it say that? And how do you know it is true?
@wow
'Why the fuck should ANYONE care about your whining little white-arse bitching?
You know, maybe you should try thinking and say something rather than the empty calories you manage now.
Go away.'
Thanks for confirming what other people have said about some of the inhabitants of this blog. It seems that their low opinion was justified.
"1 Increased CO2 gives extra photsynthesis and calcification
2. Increased CO2 gives decreased photosynthesis and calcification"
So you base your intransigence on acidification not happening because it could happen???
Sorry, tone trolling from an imbecile like you is not a problem for any sane human being.
The idiocy of deniers seems justified. Your posts have confirmed.
Thank you for confirming the correlation of idiocy and denialism.
In other words, Latte here has nothing so tone trolls.
As opposed to discussing anything of relevance.
All the while crying about everyone talking about irrelevant things.
Poor dear. Doesn't realise the huge joke nature has played on him.
Definitely not the sharpest tool in the kiddies playbox...
@chek
' a researcher at a leading institute impressed on me that OA is a serious problem'
Hmm
Was your paid researcher kind enough to reveal the data on which he based his view.
Latimer
Skip, skip, skip...
Do you argue that the average pH of the vast majority of the world ocean is already so low that ~390ppmv CO2 (well mixed and continuously rising) will *not* reduce pH further?
Is this what you believe? Yes/no.
If no, please explain *why* robust, fundamental theory with copious experimental confirmation is an unreliable predictor of what to expect.
Please explain *why* you think the fundamentals of chemistry will not apply in this case. Please explain *why* average ocean pH will *not* continue to fall as CO2 concentration increases if it is *not* already so low that further reduction cannot be driven by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
I think you are spouting crap.
@wow
'the simple ‘it can’t acidify’ assertion you place on it?
I've made no such assertion.
I suggest that would do better to read an understand what I have actually written rather than just spray random insults loosely connected to things you have imagined I have written.
Your point being..?
Tell us, do you work for free?
(mind you, if you did, you're still overpaid)
Yes you did.
It's why you claim it is unproven.
BBD, there's no need to think he's spouting crap.
It's evident.
Latte: All Froth, no Substance.
Am I the only one expecting Latimer to explode at any time, probably in a frothing "you can keep your facts, I'll take the truth!" starfart?
Deary me Lati - resorting to dog-whistling for the 'only in it fer t' grant money' crowd now, eh? Pathetic.
Chek, that's cheating, you aren't supposed to talk to real scientists, you're supposed to waste hours of your life trying to understand it yourself then regurgitate it to Latimer.
No Stu,
Far more likely that he will just tire of the petty name calling and pathetic attempts to trap him semantically.
Why don't you deltoids go back to the original assertion made about OA here?
Latimer is correct that
a) It an assertion and/or assumption (and overstated)
b) There is not enough data to make such an assumption
The rest is just name calling and arguing over irrelevancies.
chameleon
a) You would have to give your quantified reasoning why OA is 'overstated' or this is just argument by assertion.
b) The insistence on data is to miss the essential point, as I have attempted several times to explain to Latimer. See # 31.
Your reasoning seems to be as rickety and reliant on rhetoric as his.
CHameleon, don't choose to be taken in by Latimer's idiocies.
Here is a simple graphic depicting ocean acidification at Hawaii:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series
Two things to remember,
- basic chemistry says that if you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, oceans that connected to that atmosphere will increase in CO2 as well
- increased CO2 causes acidification
Neither of these two things is in any doubt in the real world. They are basic, simple, inarguable facts.
Latimer just likes playing silly buggers to wind up the cranks. He knows he's lying, and he'll get a chortle out of seeing you agree with his misstatements.
Lat Alder
the following is from 'Ocean acidification due to increasing
atmospheric carbon dioxide', Royal Society 2005 (see link ahead of the quote that you repeated:
Does that not indicate that, contrary to your assertions, that quantitative studies have been carried out other than those three that you tried to focus on?
Cue more semantic slaloming from our latest addition to the list of faux sceptics.
No BBD,
I was not the one to make the original unsupported assertion.
Overstated in this instance means the original assertion was made with no supporting evidence.
How does one supply quantifiable data for something that was not quantified in the first place?
Camo, look on it as a failed chemistry student, now a bitter middle-management lackey for an anonymous IT company (literally) reduced to tilting at windmills, arguing against what he's 35+ years out of date with.
Of course you're sympathetic because it appears to relieve you of the responsibility of being informed. By putting your trust in a washed-up crock like Lati here, rather than those active in the field who are by definition more informed about what is going on.
The fact that you'd prefer not to know what's going on in reality is - in your terms - a consumer choice. But that, needless to say, isn't enough to protect you from the consequences.
More pearls of wisdom (NOT) from Chameleon:
"Latimer is correct that
a) It an assertion and/or assumption (and overstated)
b) There is not enough data to make such an assumption"
According to who.. YOU?!!!!!!!!
Ha, ha, ha, ha!
Now this IS getting good. We have every major scientific body on Earth in agreement over the link between increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and ocean acidification on the one side, and a few Dunning-Kruger graduates with no relevant expertise or shame on the other.
Chammy, have you read any of the empirical literature in this area of research? A single study? There'a a helluva lot of em' out there. Have you ever visited the ISI Web of Science? Done a check in the key words section by typing in the relevant words? Watch the studies pop up in their hundreds? Downloaded any? A single one? I linked to two above, but if you want to get technical I could paste a pile more for you.
But you won't read them. Latimer won't either. We'll get more blather about the evidence being too limited, more studies being required etc. I have spent the past 15 years giving lectures at universities etc. on the tactics and motives of the anti-environmental lobby. You both fit the term live a glove. Essentially, the anti-environmentalists generally demand 100% concrete evidence of a process; without this, the problem does not exist. I have seen this slimy little trick used to downplay so many environmental threats that I have lost count. Acid rain, pesticide contamination of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, other forms of pollution, rates of deforestation, loss of biodiversity as well as defending various technologies like genetically modified organisms. Now, in spite of the vast and growing empirical evidence, we've got our own versions of Abbott and Costello here arguing that we need more proof! And still more!!!! And on top of that, more still!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What should be obvious to everyone by now is that the deniers here like Lat and Cham aren't behaving any differently than the massive anti-environmental lobby out there that is arguing on behalf of maintaining the status quo at all costs. I have experienced this kind of thing so many times over the past decade and half that I have lost count. Proof must be absolute or there is no problem. That's their battle cry.
"Chameleon, don’t choose to be taken in by Latimer’s idiocies".
Vince, Chameleon will be taken in by any argument with respect to climate change and other environmental problems so long as its contrarian. She has a pedigree in her short time on deltoid for doing this. Flat Earthers one and all.
Latimer - that hollow, hollow man - is well aware that the only intellects he could ever hope to sway are those of the calibre of Chebbie's.
The whole climate debate has been a great opportunity for third-raters, hacks, and genuine loons to gain an audience and lashings of undeserved attention.
If you can't achieve much on a genuinely level playing field the admiration of fools may be the best you can hope for.
Of course, some - e.g. Monckton, Delingpole - have managed to turn this unhappy intersection of sociopathy and an ocean of suckers into a nice little earner...
From the National Academy of Sciences (USA):
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12904
Arguing with Latimer and Chameleon over a strong consensus is a waste of time. They are deniers for reasons that have nothing to do with science in my opinion and will continue to be so indefinitely.
The late Stephen Schneider once said that debating contrarians is more like a mud wrestling match than a scientific debate. They aren't interested in science (they actually loathe it), but need to distort it to bolster their pre-determined world view.
Another colleague at a university in the US once warned me against debating contrarians and deniers in public venues. When I asked why, they said it was simple: because I will tell the truth and the opponent will lie. They have nothing to lose by lying, as they aren't interested in the truth. Moreover, while the truthful scientist is very cautious in his or her arguments and sticks to probabilities, the denier will confidently assert that there is absolutely nothing to worry about. They will therefore appear much more convincing than the cautious scientist. My colleague's warning I have taken very seriously since then.
From the internet (reiterated above in NAS link)
Two main points; the oceans are an immense system and any changes in pH would require a major external forcing. pH has decreased on average by 0.1 units over the past 150 years. Even this supposedly minor decrease occurring in the blink of a geological eye is alarming enough for such a deterministic system. As the reports suggest, the rate of change is likely to be unprecedented in millions of years. Moreover, because of lag effects on large scale systems, the pH will continue to fall for probably decades until it stabilizes - and that would be if we were to stop burning fossil fuels altogether immediately. Deniers seem to believe that effects are virtually instantaneous.
From the report:
What is ocean acidification? What is causing it?
The ocean absorbs approximately 1/3rd of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels (1). However, this valuable service comes at a steep ecological cost - the acidification of the ocean. As CO2 dissolves in seawater, the pH of the water decreases, which is called "acidification".
*Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, ocean pH has dropped globally by approximately 0.1 pH units*.
Past and present variability of marine pH. Future predictions for years shown on the right-hand side of the figure are model-derived values based on IPCC mean scenarios. From Pearson and Palmer (2), adapted by Turley et al. (3) and from the Eur-Oceans Fact Sheet No. 7, "Ocean Acidification - the other half of the CO2 problem", May 2007 (4).
While these pH levels are not alarming in themselves, the rate of change is cause for concern. *To the best of our knowledge, the ocean has never experienced such a rapid acidification*. By the end of this century, if concentrations of CO2 continue to rise exponentially, we may expect to see changes in pH that are three times greater and 100 times faster than those experienced during the transitions from glacial to interglacial periods. Such large changes in ocean pH have probably not been experienced on the planet for the past 21 million years (5).
Jeff, your colleague is correct. You see it clearly with dealing with creationists - they can spout out 10 lies in a minute which the scientist doesn't have time to address. Your options are therefore somewhat limited - I believe our host met Monckton once but had prepared everythign beforehand because Monkton doesn't usually deviate from his previous script.
Or you can concentrate on one or two things and hammer them home, ignoring all the other lies.
As I said earlier JeffH,
You are operating under the misconception that, to quote you, there is :
"the massive anti-environmental lobby out there"
To quote you again:
"what utter tosh!"
It does however make for highly amusing reading.
What 'status quo'? Jeff H?
You are actually arguing politics and policy platforms based on the 'precautionary principle' and the theory of 'deliberative global governance'.
It has precious little to do with 'the environment'.
And once again:
THANKYOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!
There is NO QUESTION that mankind has and will impact his environment.
Like DOH!
It is actually entirely NATURAL behaviour for mankind to do that.
You seem to forget that humans are amongst the most successful species on the planet and one of the reasons for that is that humans can and will enhance and alter the environment.
You also seem to think that mankind is somehow not part of the global environment.
The ONLY way that could possibly be the case is if mankind was put here by aliens.
NO ONE is claiming that humans are perfect or that we can't do better and behave more responsibly.
Of course we can and of course we are.
But you are being dishonest trying to frame a political debate around 'evil mankind vs environment'.
It's rubbish politics JeffH.
If you want to have a POLITICAL discussion, then I am happy to oblige.
Please be honest about it though and stop claiming that I am 'anti environmental'. That is just pure, unadulterated political nonsense.
For all you know I may have done far far more for 'the environment' and been far more 'environmentally responsible' than you.
Your rather wonky and unfounded assessment of my "POLITICAL BELIEFS" would be entirely irelevant to my treatment of 'the environment'.
"a) It an assertion and/or assumption (and overstated)"
Incorrect.
"b) There is not enough data to make such an assumption"
Then why did you make the assumption?
I count 9 strawmen in that last post alone. Wow.
"What ‘status quo’? Jeff H?"
Ever heard of this thing called "Fossil fuel companies", chubby?
"Please be honest about it though and stop claiming that I am ‘anti environmental’. That is just pure, unadulterated political nonsense."
Says the noisy troll who gibbers pure unadulterated political nonsense...
"It is actually entirely NATURAL behaviour for mankind to do that."
Really? You eat petroleum distillates and coal for dinner?
Hey, we've got permalinks back - so does killfile work here again yet?
Because I have no desire to waste any more time scrolling past Chebbie's drivel.
Chameleon writes (of Jeff):
Anyone who gets this from Jeff's writings clearly has major comprehension problems. Ecologists as a group are extremely cognizant of the fact that humans are a part of, and very dependent on, the global environment.
Maybe chubby can point out what from Jeff's postings makes her think he seems that way?
Chameleon: you seem to have missed this question I asked earlier:
I particularly had you in mind when I asked it and I'd really appreciate an answer.
Link failed, try again.
Chameleon: you seem to have missed this question I asked earlier:
In the late 60s, when I was an undergraduate student, our crop physiology lecturer told us that global temperatures were likely to increase as a result of human production of CO2. He gave the reasons and we all agreed it seemed plausible. What do you think was the explanation and evidence that he gave us?
I particularly had you in mind when I asked it and I’d really appreciate an answer.
Chameleon, if you aren't "anti-environmental", then you are no doubt concerned about the progressive acidification of the oceans and the effect this will have on marine food chains and hence on the fishing industry, correct?
It's astounding how many ways can you find to be wrong. Does it came naturally, or do you practice with chameleon?
Some do argue. Or are you disputing that fact now too?
And "some" asked you to come up with your own estimate. In part because you reject 90% of what other people point out to you, so perhaps you'll do better if you put some effort into it yourself. In part to see if you have ANY research ability whatsoever - and we have little evidence to support the contention that you do thus far.
It's not like this is a difficult research question. You appear to be incompetent at this stage.
No, dear, Latimer is wrong and so are you.
What is correct that:
1) It is a prediction from very well established chemistry theory - which itself relies on a lot of experiments done under a lot of different conditions. You know, like varying temperature, salinity, starting pH levels and the like...now where have I heard that before?
2) The direct experimental data in the oceans confirms it. Yes, we'd all like more data and even stronger confirmation, but it's most definitely not an "assumption" (just like it was the first time you came here and claimed certain findings were "assumptions"). Latimer has pointed to not a shred of data that goes against it. That means it is Latimer's claims that are "overstated" here, given the weight of evidence.
3) If I'm not mistaken the weight of the proxy evidence, including that from recent history as well as muuuuuuch longer time periods, points to ocean acidification occurring. Direct measurements are not the only way to understand the system, no matter how cutely Latimer stamps his feet and threatens to hold his breath until he turns blue if he's not given enough of them.
4) If I'm not mistaken some of the other factors that Latimer suggests might significantly impact the process have been scientifically investigated and scientists say they won't. Latimer refuses to investigate their conclusions or their reasons - perhaps because if he did, and were honest, he would not be able to advance his faux-skeptical position.
You'll note that I pointed Latimer to a FAQ produced by ocean scientists for the public that says Latimer is wrong - not only on his use of the term "neutralisation", but on his Great White Hope that "buffering" will save the day from increasing CO2. So far he's had plenty of time to pontificate here, but no time to show us why they are so deeply mistaken and are spouting unsupported claims. Let me know when he contacts them and shows them the error of their ways and the FAQ is changed, OK? Until then he's like a kid playing dressing up and pretending that one day when he grows up he'll be a heroic (thanks, Brad Keyes) researcher fearlessly telling the truth that the mighty consensus refuses to admit...
I've wondered for a while if they're a double act elsewhere, Latimer with his scientific truthiness act and chameleon cheering on from the sidelines with a word salad made out of incomprehension, illogic and garden variety confusion...
Which part of naming me an 'anti enviromentalist' and claiming there is :
"the massive anti environmental movement out there"
Which I am apparently an active and scary member of:
Is actually argung politics and has precious little to do with the environment;
did you happen to miss deltoids?
I'm happy to oblige if you would like to honestly discuss the POLITICS but instead you people just want to claim that if anyone questions your policies and politics then it means they are against the 'environment' and part of:
'the massive anti environmental movement out there'.
That really is just 'utter tosh' (as JeffH would say)
It has made for highly amusing reading but that's about it folks.
As I said above, for all you know, I could have done far more for the environment and been far more environmentally responsible than JeffH has been.
Making wonky and unsupported claims about my POLITICAL BELIEFS from some type of self proclaimed and authoritarian platform associated with lecturing, would be entirely irrelevant concerning my views about the environment.
Your resultant questions from that comment are highly amusing.
Richard,
Why is that question particularly for me?
Do you think I was present at that lecture?
I was just beginning Primary School in the late 60's.
And just in case you're not aware of it, research into cropping has moved on in huge leaps and bounds since the late 60's and cropping practices have changed remarkably since then as well.
That would actually be a good thing BTW as cropping practices in Australia are far more responsible and sustainable now than they were in the late 60's.
You can't handle an honest discussion of the POLITICS around these topics because you keep injecting a dishonest set of claims about the SCIENCE that informs it into the discussion. When called out on the scientific dishonesty you fall back to claiming it's just a discussion about politics. IT IS NOT!
As far as I can see you're not discussing anything here in good faith and good comprehension - including the politics around anthropogenic climate change.
Chameleon, we only have your political beliefs to discuss - you have made it amply clear that you don't have any relevant knowledge about the facts that your politics rejects.
So, chameleon, since you won't answer Richard Simons' question, and since you're burnishing your "I might actually be concerned about the environment because you don't know for sure that I'm not" credentials, how about Vince's one:
Who was it that insisted a few pages ago that Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is relatively credible? Vince, right?
You're wrong. Guldberg tells lies and is therefore (by definition) not credible.
Guldberg writes at http://theconversation.edu.au/whos-your-expert-the-difference-between-p…
"Searching for articles by David Evans and William Kininmonth revealed no peer-reviewed scientific literature that tests their claim that climate change is not happening.
"None of these peer-reviewed articles presented data or tested the idea that climate change is or is not happening, or any of the other “errors” that Carter and his co-authors claim are associated with the conclusions of the Climate Commission.
"The number of articles by Franks since 2000 that involve peer review of his claims that climate change is not happening is also zero."
The problem is, none of the scientists attacked by Guldberg have ever made such a claim.
Continuing his libellous strawman argument, Guldberg even resorts to outright quote-doctoring:
"Carter and his colleagues dispute the major findings and assert that “independent scientists are confident overall that there is no evidence of global warming” or unusual “sea-level rise”."
The real passage reads:
"[I]ndependent scientists are confident overall that there is no evidence of global warming at a rate faster than for the two major 20th century phases of natural warming; no evidence of sea level rise at a rate greater than the 20th century natural rise of ~1.7 mm/yr; no evidence of acceleration in sea-level change in either the tide gauge or satellite records …"
Apparently Guldberg thinks he can convince us of our Climate Commission’s “credibility" by lying about the Commission’s critics.
Does this sound like the tactic of a credible scientist to you?
...says the guy who lies about "Mann abolishing the MWP".
Guldberg tells lies and is therefore (by definition) not credible.
Says the guy who backs up his truthful assertions with a link to the proof thereof, which you apparently haven't even bothered to check, son of Lothar, seeker of the truth.
Ah, the monkey's back!
Anyone convinced by the, ahhh, stuff he's chucking around? Thought not...
You're nothing without your organ-grinder, Braddie...
Wait, wait - I get it! You tell a lie or two, but then you say something truthful and that means you're no longer a liar!
OK. Has this Hoegh-Guldberg fellow said anything truthful since he said what you claim is a lie? Because if so, under your rules, he's off the hook.
Right?
"Wait, wait – I get it! You tell a lie or two, but then you say something truthful and that means you’re no longer a liar!"
Well, I haven't told "a lie or two", so you're wrong there—but at least you accept that what I've just revealed about Hoegh-Guldberg is "something truthful". That's a start.
O bilious one,
I'm an ape, not a monkey, you ignoramus.
Looks to me like the Distraction Troops are back in force, hoping that Latimer's abject failings at science and logic will be soon forgotten.
(And yes, Brad, I had already looked at it - sheesh, I told you not to come back and claim you can mind-reading until your practice actually started working!)
One would have to be a fool to claim that "global warming" in this context did NOT mean "anthropogenic global warming", or that Carter et al. are NOT claiming there has been no anthropogenic global warming by comparing warming rates to two periods which they allege were "natural".
One would also have to be a fool NOT to note that Carter has exactly one peer-reviewed climate science paper which was absolutely destroyed after publication, Evans has none that I recall and has been caught out time and time again making scientific claims that won't stand up to scrutiny. Kininmonth has been similarly caught out.
So you are that fool - and are apparently desperate enough to proffer this weak piss - accusing a scientist of lying about the nuance of what was said by people who routinely and blatantly misrepresent the science even after they've been repeatedly corrected.
And you're still lying about Mann which is interesting, given that you claim to hate liars and challenged people to find an example of you lying. Not acknowledging that is yet another form of lying. I guess you'll fail to acknowledge this too, thus adding another layer of lies to your lies.
Methinks you're suffering from a severely over-inflated sense of your ability to detect lying, and perhaps you should go away and practice lie detection along with your mind-reading, and not come back until you actually show some skill at it.
You lie about lying about Mann?
Called it.
Er, no. I'm just inferring your rules from your claims.
Doesn't mean I accept them.
Wow, zero for two on that post! Care to try again?
And do you think all of this will really lead people to forget that thus far Latimer has revealed he hasn't got a leg to stand on - despite your cheering him on with misguided praise?
"And do you think all of this will really lead people to forget that thus far Latimer has revealed he hasn’t got a leg to stand on – despite your cheering him on with misguided praise?"
I haven't been following your spat with Latimer. I doubt your assault on his legs was successful, but I may get around to reading it if I ever find myself with nothing better to do.
"You lie about lying about Mann?"
Nope. Keep grasping.
And look at this one Richard.
By none other than Matt Ridley!
(yes it is a little ironic I know)
Now please deltoids, this does not automatically mean that I am a member of some mysterious organisation or a blind faith supporter of everything Matt Ridley says.
His figs and references here however are quite interesting in relation to Richard's question.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/peak-farmland-is-here.aspx
Look at how far the world of Agriculture and therefore crop physiology has advanced since the 60's.
It seems like it is now becoming possible to feed more people from less land.
That would be a pretty good thing don't you think?
Lotharsson,
There is a huge difference between being 'no doubt concerned' and discussing political policy platforms to deal with this 'no doubt concerned'.
You Deltoids are so intent on arguing and trying to lay semantic traps that you are totally missing the point.
Let me try again:
Your assumptions about my politics have NOTHING to do with my behaviour and my concerns re the environment.
Just because I may/may not have differing POLITICAL views to you , does not mean that I am automatically less concerned about or less responsible for my environment than you are.
That is nonsense.
If you want to discussand/or argue the POLITICS and the POLICY PLATFORMS and the CURRENT POLITICALTHEORIES then let me know OK?
"Wow, zero for two on that post! Care to try again?"
So Wow is back and failing as usual? What a surprise.
Gee, the 'two major 20th century phases of natural warming' and '20th century natural [sea level] rise' is, um, 'truthful', is it, Mr. Ape?
What does 'unusual' mean, pet, in relation to the word 'natural': would a 'natural' event be 'unusual'? So where's the problem in stating that your heroes were claiming 'no unusual sea-level rise'?
'Global warming' vs. 'natural warming' may be sloppy, but we all know what he means - surely you're not going to support a rather tawdry semantic trick to try to get the audience to implicitly buy into the notion that any waming is 'natural'?
Hence this reverts to exactly the point I just made above.
'[I]ndependent scientists are confident overall that there is no evidence of [anthropogenic rather than what we're going to demand be 'natural'] global warming' is an absurdity, but one you'd certainly like to believe.
'Semantic games' is a bit of a phrase of the month around here, so that's all rather topical. It's about all you lot have.
Little wonder you're Latimer's little shadow...
And how long did you have to hunt around to find some chum to cut-and-paste on Guldberg?
"And how long did you have to hunt around to find some chum to cut-and-paste on Guldberg?"
Already had it in my quick-chum links. Took a couple of seconds to call it up as soon as I noticed the serial reef obituarist being trotted out as an exemplar of credibility (above, on this thread).
I see Brad is from the Alder School Of Debate, whereby asserting that one's argument is valid is far more important than - nay, completely removes the necessity to - demonstrate its validity.
It does mean one never "loses" and never "lies" because one's own assertions that one has not lost and has not lied are sufficient proof under Latimer's 4th Form Rules.
"I see Brad is from the Alder School Of Debate, whereby asserting that one’s argument is valid is far more important than – nay, completely removes the necessity to – demonstrate its validity."
An argument's validity (or otherwise) is an intrinsic property thereof. I'm not in the habit either of meta-asserting or of meta-demonstrating such a property, since it's either self-evident or it isn't. You however seem addicted to meta-denying it (extremely verbosely), which is equally ineffectual.
Good grief!
That article about farm land usage and productivity discusses the reasoning behind '60's predictions of greenhouse gas warming exactly as much as Delingpole's article quoted Flannery saying "fleeting fancy".
That is, not at all. Nada. Not in the slightest. Zip. Never discussed it. Zero. Did not do so. None. Never even hinted at it.
Is your village missing you?
You should try reading your own stuff back some time.
Maybe get an English teacher to help you. They might also help you with your frequent miscomprehension, and suggest that writing snarky responses when you have miscomprehended tends to make you look, well, silly.
ROFL!
I demonstrate it. And then you typically do what you did in that quote - "meta-assert" that the demonstration does not thus demonstrate without showing reason to think that to be true.
So thanks for illustrating my point.
Here's some more epic 'truthiness' from The Men the Ape Admires (in that Bastion of Truthiness, Quadrant):
You cannot seriously try to uphold that one, surely?
Ho ho ho. And here we are, what, playing again on a veritably autistic use of the word 'unusual'?
Well, given how mind-numbingly, pole-axeingly, ideologically blind the target-audience is...
(Anybody seriously doubt he's got a 'quick-chum' list?)
Same question as your keeper; do you imagine you're achieving what you'd like to believe your achieving here?
Because I don't think anyone else does!
:-) :-) :-)
Chuckle :-)
What point was that again Lotharsson?
" I demonstrate it. And then you typically do what you did in that quote – “meta-assert” that the demonstration does not thus demonstrate without showing reason to think that to be true.
So thanks for illustrating my point"
Chuckle :-)
Chameleon—I no longer bother asking Lotharsson what his point was. It rarely comes across any clearer the second time.
Chebbie needs help to comprehend what's going on again. Quelle surprise!
Braddy, babe, you're right: you two are just about intellectual peers, rest assured...
Brad (and chameleon), let's recap.
Brad: "Mann abolished the MWP".
Me: Nope, that's false because of A - it had not been established at the time you claim it was abolished. It's independently false because of B. Pick either one, the claim is still false.
Brad: OK, so you don't like the timing. Let's say "Mann denies the MWP".
Me: Nope, that's merely a fallacious variant - A still applies. B does too - which you haven't addressed.
Brad:
[...some time later...]
Brad: I never lie. Show me otherwise.
Me: You claimed "Mann abolished the MWP".
Brad: Not a lie.
Me: You're asserting your own claim. I demonstrated it wasn't true; you have failed to demonstrate my demonstration is wrong. That's just like Latimer who argues mostly from asserting the truth of his claim in the face of rebuttals rather than demonstrating that it survives scrutiny.
Brad: My claim is self-evidently true. You're the one asserting your position.
Me: The first claim there is an assertion, not a demonstration. And so is the second! Thanks for illustrating that you predominantly argue by assertion, especially by reasserting claims in the face of rebuttals (such as B, and even the variant of A) that you have not even attempted to demonstrate do not hold.
(I predict that won't be clear to either of you.)
Only 4 more prolix and irrelevant comments to go, Lotharsson and bilious, and you'll have succeeded in your goal of pushing my proof of Hoegh-Guldberg's mendacity (comment #71) back to the previous page. A tedious game.
Chameleon writes, "Just because I may/may not have differing POLITICAL views to you , does not mean that I am automatically less concerned about or less responsible for my environment than you are".
The why are your supposed opinions at odds with every respected scientific body on Earth? Why in lieu of these bodies do you choose a side populated by a rag-tag army of pseudo-scientists, right wing pundits, other non-experts, think tanks and various anti-environmental groups? Since arriving on Deltoid, you've donned a cheerleaders dress and danced to the tune of downplaying SLR, climate warming, ocean acidification, and other areas where the weight of scientific evidence and, more importantly, opinion, is heavily skewed to the other side.
Your approach is much like Bjorn Lomborg's - claim to be an environmentalist, but then argue that environmental problems are overblown (again, in contrast with the weight of scientific opinion) and thus spend elsewhere. In Lomborg's case it was a sure-fire way to go from academic unknown (1 peer-reviewed article to that point in an obscure field) to prominence amongst the lay public, who know even less about the complex issues he superficially covers than Lomborg himself. Its also made the guy very popular amongst those who are keen to see the current global economic and political systems remain intact. Hence why Lomborg speaks often at think tanks, corporate dinners and the like.
Essentially Chameleon, you are a hypocrite. Your posts also aren't witty, despite you may think.
To help you along, here's a (succinct and potent) comment from me.
Lotharsson faux-quoted me:
"Brad: My claim is self-evidently true."
No, I said that arguments are either self-evidently valid or self-evidently invalid, and so Lotharsson's notion of "asserting" that a particular argument is valid makes no sense at all. That's not how people argue.
Do you even know the difference between validity (of an argument) and truth (of a claim), Lotharsson?
Lotharsson?
It isn't about debating talents and debating tactics you know.
You seem to think that everybody should engage according to your tactical rules and that we must have an affirmative and a negative case.
You do realise that you're not actually communicating anything of much use don't you?
You are obsessed with trying to lay semantic traps and when people choose not to 'take the other side' you go to great lengths postulating and ruminating on what that means about their mental abilities according to your rules.
It doesn't mean anything of the sort you know.
It just means that people aren't interested in playing at debating tactics or perhaps that people don't think that we have to argue from your defined battle lines.
We can all see clearly that you like playing that game and it is obviously a hobby of yours.
But you are only proving that you like to argue.
I worked that out not long after my first visit here Lotharsson.
You don't need to keep proving it.
Argument by assertion that responses to your argument have no merit - without demonstrating any reason to believe that assertion.
Thanks for yet another illustration of my point.
Argument by assertion, this time relying on mind-reading, and inaccurate mind-reading to boot. Your conspiracy theorising about my motives isn't working.
It is not my goal to "push back" your comment about Hoegh-Guldberg. My responses indicate that your claim is difficult to substantiate and appears quite likely to be mendacious - or at least indicative of comprehension problems. I'm more than happy for readers to have that exchange front and centre of their mind when reading your other comments.
That wasn't what I was referring to. (That claim is not true either, but let's let that slide.)
In response to reasons supporting the claim that you lied about Mann abolishing the MWP, you didn't address those reasons. Later I pointed out that (due to reasons unchallenged) it seems pretty clear that you did lie about it, and that you were now claiming not to have lied. I argued this was a lie about lying about Mann abolishing the MWP.
At that point you responded, and I quote:
Are you really not smart enough to understand that this is an assertion that harks back to your "Mann abolished the MWP" claim, despite you not addressing the counter-arguments to that claim?
Oh, wait...
Lotharsson, you seem to think I'm being evasive. I can understand why that would frustrate an honorable (in comparison to other denizens here) disputant like you. But cheer up: you're wrong. The only reason I no longer bother responding to your "argument" that I lied about Mann is that your "argument" is spectacularly boring, fight-picking and point-missing. I pointed out that his "abolition of the MWP" (a phrase I didn't expect would evoke any outrage) was the key point of contention around the Hockey Stick, and that the BEST study couldn't possibly have come to Mann's aid since it didn't even cover the Medieval period!
A self-evidently valid point, one would have thought.
But you objected to "abolition." So I graciously offered to say "denial" instead, since Mann doesn't accept an MWP. You chose to object even to this, insisting that I must be making some nefarious insinuation.
Sorry, but you can only be so paranoid before I lose interest.
One last thing about Chameleon's profoundly superfifical posts:
She draws false dichotomies time and time again. For instance, she writes this complete gobbledegook:
"You seem to forget that humans are amongst the most successful species on the planet and one of the reasons for that is that humans can and will enhance and alter the environment. You also seem to think that mankind is somehow not part of the global environment"
I have never once denied some of these arguments. What I am saying is that there has been an immense cost to our ecological life support systems as a result of thé 'success' she describes. Humans co-opt more than 40% of net primary production and 50% of net freshawater flows, leaving increasingly less for natural systems. We've ploughed, paved, dammed, dredged, slashed-andburned, logged, deforested, chemically altered, genetically reduced and biologically homogenized much of the biosphere. In doing so we have greatly simplified natural systems, and in the process have reduced, not increased, their capacity to support man. At present we are continuing with these various assaults at ever increasing rates blind to the fact that we are undermining critical servcies that permit us to persist and thrive.
Now, given how dense Chammy is to the physical realities of the predicament, I might as well be discussing this with an ameoba. When she has to resort to sandbox-level arguments (e.g that humans are not part of the environment) its hard for me to crack her pachycephalosauran skull in that I never said this at all; I said that our species is not managing the biosphere in ways that are prudent in the medium to long term, given our species' total dependence on a range of ecological services that freely emerge from natural systems and for which there are few, if any, technological substitutes.
In the article I linked a week or so ago, which Chammy clealry did not read (she doesn't appear to read much of the primary literature either), Chris Hedges described contemporary humans as being like cavemen who drive an entire herd of woolly mammoths over a cliff and enjoy a short-term glut on the carcasses, rather than to sustainably manage the herd to ensure a longer term food supply for the population. The metaphor is totally appropriate.
The incredible recent succss and technological adavnces of human civilization are being made at an immense cost and which are building up an increasing ecological debt that will have to be repaid at some point. One of the main problems is that we are a rapacious bipedal primate who,despite our technological adavnaces, have not adavnced much int erms of our primitive instincts in 40,000 years. In that way we are much like our Cro-Magnon ancestors. We are part of a huge socio-political system which aims to keep wealth concentrated in the north, as well as in the hands of the privileged few, and where short-term greed trumps longer term sustainability. Those with power like to maintain the status quo and will do everything they can to dismiss or downplay clear evidence that humans and the natural world are on a major collision course. It boggles the mind why the average citizens and laypeople spew forth the nonsense that they do, given what the scientific community already knows. I wouldn't mind if Chammy was capable of putting up even the thinnest empirical argument in favor of her views. Instead, she relies on cranks and wretched books by deniers to spew forth her gospel of doubt.
Ah, I see - you're merely having trouble expressing yourself without using terms that have nefarious connotations when applied to scientific work, despite there being plenty of other terms in very widespread use that do not.
My mistake.
Yes, you would have.
You have not yet dealt with the substance of Loth's original point, which can be easily found, thanks to Nat Geog's belated but helpful introduction of permalinks, here.
Not dealing with it is, at least , consistent. Thanks in anticipation of your ongoing - and highly-revealing - evasion.
And this is also revealing:
And there speaks the true sneak!
I'm not even slightly concerned by your trivial complaint about Guldberg - in fact, I view it as illustrative of the level of 'debate' that constitutes Denial. Loth and I have both raised some of the more obvious absurd uses of language in that Quadrant 'paper' (and we all know to what use quadrants of paper are usually put... ;-) ): deal with that.
Or keep on wriggling: I don't care.
I mean, here you are, twisting around like a well-oiled eel, and all the while castigating others for their lack of ramrod straightness... motes and beams, little Braddie, motes and beams...
You know, bill, we could post a copy of Brad Keyes' claims and the responses that he has largely ignored on every new page of 100 comments. That would dispense with the martyr gambit and keep the wriggling in full view ;-) Trouble is they'd all be queueing up for special treatment, and in no time at all every new page would be full of 100 comments with unrebutted counterarguments!
(And what is this strange idea that many readers will only read the last page of comments? Or is that just Brad revealing his own limited reading habits?)
Another recent review on changes in the marine environment since the industrial revolution:
Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2012
Pressures on the marine environment and the changing climate of ocean biogeochemistry.
Rees AP.
Abstract
The oceans are under pressure from human activities. Following 250 years of industrial activity, effects are being seen at the cellular through to regional and global scales. The change in atmospheric CO(2) from 280 ppm in pre-industrial times to 392 ppm in 2011 has contributed to the warming of the upper 700 m of the ocean by approximately 0.1°C between 1961 and 2003, to changes in sea water chemistry, which include a pH decrease of approximately 0.1, and to significant decreases in the sea water oxygen content. In parallel with these changes, the human population has been introducing an ever-increasing level of nutrients into coastal waters, which leads to eutrophication, and by 2008 had resulted in 245,000 km(2) of severely oxygen-depleted waters throughout the world. These changes are set to continue for the foreseeable future, with atmospheric CO(2) predicted to reach 430 ppm by 2030 and 750 ppm by 2100. The cycling of biogeochemical elements has proved sensitive to each of these effects, and it is proposed that synergy between stressors may compound this further. The challenge, within the next few decades, for the marine science community, is to elucidate the scope and extent that biological processes can adapt or acclimatize to a changing chemical and physical marine environment
There are some 1450 articles on the Web of Science in this area. You'll be hard pressed to find a single one that does not accept the link between atmospheric C02 and declining marine pH levels (= ocean acidification). There is no debate now in terms of cause; the debate now lies in the possible ecological effects.What deniers do (they do it with climate change in general) is to take the undertainty over the outcome of a process and apply it to the process itself. Its another one of their less than cunning tricks, and they've been doing it for years.
"So Wow is back and failing as usual? What a surprise."
Ah, yes, nothing like a little humour.
And that was nothing like it.
Brat, do you know english? I can teach you if you want.
And what is it with the paranoia - "you're writing comments because you want to push my comment off the latest page", "you're only talking about the MWP because you want to distract from my other point".
Brad, I take it you don't realise you're projecting like an IMAX here?
Chammy dribbled again with:
Yawn. This is not something that we are unaware of, indeed you may be surprised to realise that this has been a trend ever since humans started engaging in agriculture.
The step change came with the use of oil products to produce fertilisers (As the guano trade died - ever wondered what many of the square riggers were doing battling back and forth around Cape Horn?), pesticides and power the increasing numbers of machines, including aircraft, required to ensure a valid crop once planted. Not to mention the transportation requirements at all stages.
This understanding, along with that of the associated rolling deforestation over millennia, informs on the long accelerating rise in GHGs, particularly CO2 and CH4, that began way before the industrial revolution. Look up William Ruddiman for more.
"It seems like it is now becoming possible to feed more people from less land."
It seems like we're throwing away 1/3 of our food production.
Latimer
Your lack of specific references is becoming tedious. Which two topics would that be now?
Are you not understanding the differentiation between photosynthetic carbon fixation with rate of calcification as implied by 2?
You will find more on this in 'Reduced Calcification of Marine in Response to Atmospheric CO2' , Ul Riebesell, Ingrid Zondervan, Björn Rost, Phillipe D. Tortell, Richard E Zeebe, & François M. M. Morel. which can be found within this The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation For Climate Change Forecast along with much other valuable stuff for the true sceptic.
You could also try 'The Principles of Planetary Climate, pp 514' for a detailed look at the complexities of oceanic-atmospheric carbon chemistry.
That is if you truly wish to get out more. Perhaps you are too busy elsewhere broadcasting how badly treated you have been here.
Brad Keys # 2
Things have moved on since 1999. Mann and others argue that the MWP is a misnomer. There were a number of regional, asynchronous and relatively brief warm periods ~900CE - ~1400CE, mainly in the NH.
Regional, asynchronous and brief warm peaks dotted around the NH over ~500y do not constitute a 'Medieval Warm Period'. Nor even a 'Medieval Climate Anomaly'.
A better term would be plural: Medieval Climate Anomalies.
Brad, can you please provide evidence that Mann "doesn't accept an MWP"?
Or are you just creating a strawman by not accepting his MCA concept?
Chameleon:
Because you seem to base your 'arguments' on a complete lack of understanding of the science of AGW and I was wondering if that is indeed the case.
No. There was no need to be present then. I'm sure Lotharsson, Jeff and various other commentators here could provide a good answer.
Of course I am aware of it. Besides, it is completely irrelevant to the question I am asking.
Later:
Completely off-topic. How could you possibly think that this addresses the question of 'what do you think was the explanation and evidence that he gave us (regarding anticipated global warming)?
Marco # 14
I suspect this is the old contrarian lie that climatologists (or at least the millennial-scale paleoclimate reconstruction community) is 'trying' to 'get rid' of the MWP.
As opposed to understanding it better and describing it more accurately.
Tired, mendacious tripe.
It's all from the old idea that the scientists are "making things up".
It's not really about the MWP or "getting rid of the MWP". It was always about how "dem ebil sciemtists wuz all makin fings up to get der muniez.".
It isn't about how it was warmer in the past.
It isn't about showing the climate changes widely.
It's only to try and demonstrate that scientists are lying. Nothing else.
"It’s only to try and demonstrate that scientists are lying. Nothing else."
No, the vast majority of scientists *aren't* lying. Scientists don't do that.
BTW it's amusing how, to you people, *nothing* we say is ever about what we're actually, you know, saying.
So you retract the claims that the MWP is being removed falsely.
Brad,
"But you objected to “abolition.” So I graciously offered to say “denial” instead, since Mann doesn’t accept an MWP. You chose to object even to this, insisting that I must be making some nefarious insinuation."
Since MBH99 clearly shows medieval temperatures higher than pre-industrial temperatures, the claim that Michael Mann denies, abolishes or does not accept an MWP is not valid.
Neither necessarily insinuation nor nefarious. Just a bald-faced lie.
Though I appreciate everyone's efforts to deepen Latimer Adler's thinking from insisting a single line of evidence is the only possible way of deriving a scientific conclusion by helping him look at the consilience of multiple orthogonal and corroborative lines of evidence, someone might have directed him to collections of data such as here and here.
That's 235832 profiles of pH ocean measurements since 1910, just from NOAA.
Hogwash. What you say, what you claim to have said and what you say what you said means changes by the minute. You mount your goalposts on a rocket sled and hope nobody goes back and verifies your comments against what came before.
Do you really think we haven't seen this tripe before?
Keyes admits that neither he nor Alder are scientists:
Since it is obvious that both lie through their teeth then they can't be scientists, which is of course obvious from the junk that they post.
Folks
Apologies for the temporary break in transmission. Real-world problems have rather overtaken my blogging.
To those of you who attempted to have a civilised debate - thanks for your time.
For the rest - I thought you'd appreciate this little clip of how the best professionals achieve the same goals as you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zYlOU7Fpk
And to those (thankfully few) who'll have no truck with such lily-livered mealy-mouthed copouts, here's a nice video of the life and times of your moral and intellectual guru
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4N46jLdhCU
And if I ever meet anyone who's in need of a Witchfinder-General or the services of Dial-A-Lynch Mob, I'll make sure to bring this blog to their attention.
A bientot - bis gleich!
Latimer
Oh dear.
Flouncing already, Latte?
The McCarthy witchhunts are almost identical to the GOP witchhunts against prominent climate scientists.
It is COMPLETELY EXPECTED that the knuckle-dragger would get it arse about face, mind, and think that Mann is persecuting Inholfe for "unamerican activities".
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/02/25/205560/sen-inhofe-inquisiti…
And that is the best you can come up with is it Latimer when you realise that you have gone off-piste and made yourself look not only ignorant but stupid too?
Just like that room full of cockroaches that I walked across (i wondered what the heck I was walking on in the dark) before getting to the light switch at the far end, as I hit the switch for lights the carpet moved to the walls - to hide away.
Here is a clip for you Latimer 'Cleese' Alder
Seriously? Aside from the irony-meter-exploding Orwell reference... accusations of McCarthyism? Mr. Alder, you can take your persecution complex and stick it where the sun don't shine. Pathetic.
0/5 for content. 5/5 for whining. Need better trolls.
Stu, due to recent terrorist activities, irony meters are now classed as munitions and cannot be had for civilian use.
Lionel, you missed the tale of brave Sir Latimer.
Latimer
You never answered my questions, although I repeated them three times. Duly noted. I will ask again next time this comes up.
BBD, I agree not to ask or respond to any questions of/to Latte until that one is answered.
Does everyone else here agree to do so?
Until BBD's query is answered, we refuse to answer any queries from Latte.
After all, after the flounce, there's always the bounce.
The idiot will be back:
Proverbs 26:11.
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Wow prophesies:
"The idiot will be back:
Proverbs 26:11...."
So this is a faith-based site. Noted.
Really? Where do you get that idea from, Brat?
No mention of God there.
Brat, are you saying that anything a Christian says is automatically wrong?
A faith-based site, you say?
Gee, Brad, you've got us there: I mean, just the other day I quoted Ecclesiastes 9:11 (spooky eh!) -
Albeit the Damon Runyon version that ends -
You ever heard of this thing we call 'education'? The King James version is one of the truly great works of rhetoric, and, as a confirmed Atheist - someone who literally never believed, despite a Methodist upbringing that taught me a lot of values I still admire - who loves cathedral architecture and a bit of Gospel music (the real problem is that it's Jesus that has all the best tunes!) I'm more-than-happy to make use of it...
Also: yep, we can disallow everything, say, John Cook says because he's a Christian!
But I'm wasting my time talking to you - see Matthew 7:6
Wow,
If you want to lay semantic traps and ask pointless tactical questions, you need to take some lessons from Lotharsson.
He at least has a bit of class.
JeffH,
You continue to sneer and huff and puff and labour under the theory that there is a 'massive anti environmental movement out there' or that there is some type of evil group funded by mysteriously tainted money called 'climate change deniers'.
You are talking about POLITICS JeffH
You are basically claiming that 'science' supports a particular political theory.
That's rubbish JeffH.
You further claim that anyone who disagrees with your political theorising is automatically a 'denier' or an 'anti environmentalist'
Even people like Bjorn L who has no issue with any of the 'science' gets sneered at by you because his policy platform is different to yours.
That is 'utter tosh' whichever way you attempt to claim that.
Let me try to explain this to you again JeffH
Just because people have a different political or policy platform to you does NOT automatically mean that they don't care about the environment OR that they 'DENY' the science.
Neither does it automatically mean that they are a member of some massive and/or highly organised anti science and/or anti environment movement 'out there'.
BTW JeffH, where do you think 'out there' is?
Apparently JeffH, after all those papers and all those years of lecturing etc, 'out there' (wherever that is) is not paying attention to you.
Maybe you actually need to get 'out there' as Latimer has suggested?
Perhaps 'out there' can learn something from you and you can learn something from being 'out there'?
Thereby demonstrating that Chubby here can't understand English.
"Until BBD’s query is answered, we refuse to answer any queries from Latte."
Doesn't translate even by Babelfish into "ask pointless tactical questions".
How many flounces is that for Lati now?
And he chooses to go out with that interesting projection of persecution which was his motif throughout.
1 / projection - please demonstrate your criticism of the blatant hatespeech of Monckton, Delingpole, Morano, or, even, say, Tucci 78. You even warmly accepted the admiration of the most genuinely scary nutter we've had turn up here.
2 / yep, you can come here and say whatever you like, including admitting you're trolling - deliberately stirring people up - without restriction, but if anyone's impolite to you you immediately switch to playing the victim and start squealing à la 'being rude is how the Nazis started'! Manipulative, hysterical, and more than a little dishonest.
Certainly, if there is indeed substance to his claimed academic pedigree I can see that his experience here must have been quite genuinely traumatically humiliating.
Particularly if drawing attention to his mean persecution at the hands of the nasty Deltoids meant that any lurking cheersquad got to see just how much clay his feet were made of... (that's a reference to Daniel 2:41 - 43, by the way, Brad)
But biting off far more than you can chew is always your own problem.
I see Chebbie's still typing.
Camo, try informing yourself first before spluttering your vapid imaginings based on ten minutes interest in the subject as mediated by a twelve year old's logic. And understand that some have a view based on a career's worth of direct experience of which they speak, not idle chit-chat with their hairdresser..
This may start to give you some idea by way of introduction to what you either don't or profess not to know about. Or likely will be way above your pay grade and over your head.
Aw, c'mon Chek , that's hardly fair: Chebbie can't even parse the likes of troglodyte brutalist James Delingpole, and you're sending her off to sort out the complex mind-mapping of John M? ;-)
Merchants of Doubt. Anyone who claims there isn't an anti-environmental industry needs to either read it or shut their mouths.
Chek,
"And understand that some have a view based on a career’s worth of direct experience of which they speak, not idle chit-chat with their hairdresser..
This may start to give you some idea by way of introduction to what you either don’t or profess not to know about. Or likely will be way above your pay grade and over your head."
This is more of the same sneering and POLITICAL rubbish.
And what on earth would you know about my pay grade?
Maybe I don't have a pay grade Chek?
Maybe I run my own business or maybe I decide what I pay others?
Maybe I'm independantly wealthy or maybe I'm on social security or too young to work or too old to work or on compensation or many, many other possibilities?
It is an incredibly stupid and irrelevant comment!
No matter what I do or what my pay grade is or isn't I have just as much right to comment on an issue of public policy as anyone else, including you!
I have no issue with JeffH's position and/or experience.
He is not arguing from his experience/qualifications however because his qualifications are not in POLITICS or POLITICAL science or POLITICAL history or ECONOMIC theory etcetera.
You are also apparently attempting to argue that the 'science' supports and quantifies only one particular political and/or economic theory.
That is 'utter tosh' Chek.
While I don't disagree that economic theory and/or political theories are important I completely disagree that 'science' and/or 'scientists' support only one view.
In fact scientists like to argue. I believe it was Walter Starck (marine biologist) who said that the behaviour we are witnessing is like an 'academic pissing contest'.
As I have commented several times, the surrounding politics and media (from whichever side you care to name) have misused and abused the projective modelling.
This particular post is an excellent example.
People are focusing on protecting their predictions and protecting their political theories.
That has precious little to do with 'science and the environment'.
Chubby, nothing you've ever said has been about "science and the environment".
Since you keep bringing in politics and conspiracy theories (and just plain old idiocy), it's rather ham of you to complain about the conversation going that way.
Don't like it?
Stick to the science.
(though you can't: not only do you know nothing about it, limiting yourself to merely the truth and scientifically tested claims would be devastating to your cause)
"You are basically claiming that ‘science’ supports a
particular political theory."
That comment from Chameleon pretty much says it all.
So what if science tells us something that has poltical implications?
Climate science says we have some important decisions to make. Rejection of science because of that is childish.
What I'd like is for even one of these science deniers to just have the grit to admit that they know AGW is real and will have serious consequences but that they simply don't care.
Their cowardice when faced by reality is utterly pathetic.
From now one I'm going to refer to than as climate change cowards.
*on
And does ANYONE know where chubby gets their "apparently" from to make this statement?
You are also apparently attempting to argue that the ‘science’ supports and quantifies only one particular political and/or economic theory.
Which I'm not, but as Gaz points out the simple scientific solution - stop making things worse - has political implications that impinge on the most riches producing industry on the planet.
Note that 'riches' are entirely different concept to 'wealth, and there you have everything. The campaign, the bought and paid for politicians, and the fake grass-roots outreach group motivators who reach all the way down to your own uninformed blatherings with your hairdresser
The proof? You judge a washed up ex-chemistry student failure like Lati to have expertise commensurate with the world's leading published researchers Because you wish that were true, regardless of the asymmetry of the facts.
Give it up Camo, you're transparent and worse, you're boring..
Christ on a crutch, this is a dumb one.
This was in direct response to someone making fun of basing one's opinions on the perception of their hairdresser's.
That is political now?
From your inability to parse even basic information, it seems fair and safe to infer that nobody is paying you a significant amount of money, since you'd be unable to perform anything but the most rudimentary of tasks.
Ah! A clue, Sherlock!
Maybe. Sometimes it's easier for the completely inept to use connections to find money to start a business. Usually, the business is niche, without competition, and the money is usually a government grant specifically designed to fill said niche.
Oddly, the owners of businesses like these without fail quickly amass sufficient cognitive dissonance to become full-on Rand fans, and to rag on government assistance of any kind. Personally, I think it isn't necessarily the full-on Austrian I-got-mine-screw-you school of thought.
No, I'm pretty damned sure you're not. But hey, if you are, could you please hire a spell-checker?
Again, I think you are the owner, co-owner or manager of a small business that was started with money that was not your own. Please feel free to correct me.
Ah, yes... now we're getting to the Don't Tread On Me, I Pay Taxes nitty-gritty. You have the right to your opinion, but not the right to your own facts.
Obvious and stupid lie. You have no end of issues with his position, and you very much resent him using his qualifications to back up positions that should not be, but are in the political realm.
He is not arguing from his experience/qualifications however because his qualifications are not in POLITICS or POLITICAL science or POLITICAL history or ECONOMIC theory etcetera.
Stop shouting, you infant. And if you are going to be pretentious and spell out Latin abbreviations, please use the magical google-machine and do it right. It's "et cetera".
All you've done so far is bob, weave, not provide credentials and fail spectacularly and pathetically when you've tried to be pretentious. I'm sorry, but there's a rule on the Internet -- especially when coming to a science site --: odds are that on any specific topic, there is someone out there, and quite possible a person you are talking to, that knows more about the topic than you do. Any topic. Any topic at all. You can pick math, physics, environmental science, Latin or German folk songs of the 70s. Someone here knows more than you.
Learn some humility, Napoleon.
Science has a well-known liberal bias. I'm sorry you don't like it. Just because you're still swooning from your recent re-read of Atlas Shrugged does not mean any of your opinions have any merit whatsoever. That's the entire point of science, and it's the entire thing you don't like about it.
Economic theory will only get you so far. In a sense, economic theory is trying to be Hari Seldon. Economics, in the end, is subject to human vagaries and as such inherently unpredictable, since it is inherently irrational. If economics was rational, there would be no bubbles.
Pathetic. You cling to a small cadre of bought-and-paid-for loons to tell you what you want to hear. In actual climate science, there is no controversy. The sad attempts at the Galileo gambit fail on one simple yardstick: Galileo had proof.
<blockquote.In fact scientists like to argue.
Yes, that's kind of the point of science. But if one scientist comes up with proof, the arguing stops. That is even more to the point.
Do you have proof? No? Didn't think so.
Oh hi, clown. You cannot dismiss scientists as having no authority and in the next paragraph attempt an argument from authority just because you found one scientist that says something you like. You pathetic hypocrite.
Another hint: science does not depend on who says what. If you have a devastating argument, publish it. If it holds water, you are up for a Nobel.
You're a transparent and obvious liar. You don't like the political consequences of climate change, so you are circling back and are trying to find anything to discredit the underlying science. It is all POLITICS for you. It's all you care about. It's all you talk about. Who do you think you are fooling?
Oh dearie me, the projection is strong in this one.
How would you know? What is your background in science?
I biffed two block quotes in that one, but I think it should be obvious where.
Chameleon, it must be obvious to you that you aren't very clever.
Using crank blogs like Anthony Watts' WUWT is a big mistake on your part - there, you will experience people who are much cleverer than you who will lie to you, and your lack of intelligence means you will fail to spot their lies for what they are.
The net result is that you become even less well informed than you were when you were merely ignorant.
You've now become ignorant AND you're repeating others' non-sensical lies.
I don't know what to suggest, really, there doesn't seem like there's much hope for you.
"Since MBH99 clearly shows medieval temperatures higher than pre-industrial temperatures, the claim that Michael Mann denies, abolishes or does not accept an MWP is not valid."
Ah yes, Mike's Nature trick paper. Is that the one for which he won his Nobel Prize? You're quite right though, I should have said "reaffirmed" rather than "abolished."
The problem is not that the reality of the situation supports one particular position, it is that many politicians, who tend to be concentrated on the right, ignore reality or, as they prefer to put it, 'create their own reality'. The physics that informs us that Earth is warming and will continue to warm pays no attention to politicians, no matter how well-connected they are and no matter how much you bleat about how unfair it is.
Fuck me! I thought we'd seen the heights of self-delusion, but Orwell and McCarthy as distractions whilst brave Sir Latimer runs away from inconvenient questions and data really takes the cake. And this from the guy that Brad Keyes was cheering on as "heroic", and who claimed for himself that he was here for fun.
I ask again, what the heck is it with the paranoia? Brad keeps claiming we have ulterior motives for commenting on his comments on a blog, where, you know, comments are considered part of the purpose of the thing. Chameleon sees "semantic traps" and "tactical questions" everywhere, and comments based on science have by now turned in to POLITICS. And then there's Latimer's latest full bore freakout.
I've lost track - is that two or three flounces from Latimer now?
I agree with Wow - BBD's question should be the first order of business when Latimer returns. (Second should be why he didn't find the NOAA data that luminous beauty pointed to...) Not that he'll actually answer it - he's left a trail of dodgy claims whose rebuttals have been left unanswered.
Nope. That would be wrong for the same reasons "abolished" was wrong. You really struggle to make true claims, don't you?
Keep trying - once you're almost out of options your chances of getting it right via dumb luck will have increased.
(And isn't it interesting that you simply can't find a way to express any sort of assessment of Mann's work that doesn't echo the language and memes of the kinds of distortions that denialism has indulged in with regard to Mann since about, oh, I don't know, 1999?)
"Above your pay grade" is an idiomatic expression, chameleon.
It is not referring to your financial situation.
Go look it up. However, I fear that the definition and usage of the expression (ahem) might be above your pay grade too. But maybe a little research on that front will garner you a promotion?
Walter Starck reads Deltoid? Who knew?!
Oh, wait...you're just co-opting what someone else once said, applying it to a different situation (which you have reliably and thoroughly misinterpreted) and trying to hijack his reputation for an argument by authority. In other words more of your typical sophistry - carry on if you like but we all see through it.
Ah, so 'science' also supports a view other than the expectation this apple I'm about to drop is going to hit my floor shortly afterwards? Who the fuck knew?! The politicians have clearly been lying to me about this one, the bastards!
Fortunately you were here to educate us! Now I can drop ALL my food and not worry about it hitting the unhygienic floor! And just think of the savings in cleaning bills! Please, please, help me with one small problem - how do I get this alternative view to become operative against the objective reality in my house? I'm getting very hungry, the ants and cockroaches and rodents seem to grow larger by the day and I'm seriously considering caving in to the consensus view and doing some floor cleaning.
I'd suggest a writer. And heck, let's go the whole hog and solve the other part of the problem - a reader and an interpreter. Between the three of them it might work. If not, a thinker might be necessary to round out the group.
When Latimer returns, perhaps 3rd order of business after BBD's questions and luminous beauty's data might be how the scientists at EPOCA responded when Latimer offered to correct their Ocean Acidification FAQ. I'd love to hear how he got on.
Brad, confronting the [choose your adjective] scientists who are [choose your adverb] promoting completely unjustified - completely, Latimer says, and he should know, right? - claims about ocean acidification to the chemically uneducated public - now that would be actually heroic, rather than merely engaging in a bit of ducking and weaving and refusing to answer straightforward questions on a blog.
Wouldn't you agree?
What is "denialism", Lotharsson? No dictionary I have access to is of any help in the matter.
And since we're making up words, I'll try one last time to pacify you: Dr Mann debolished the MWP. That's my final offer. Debolished.
This one Wow!
Pay attention!
Good grief!
'Brat, are you saying that anything a Christian says is automatically wrong?'
You seriously need to take some lessons from Lotharsson if you want to play like this Wow.
At least Lotharsson demonstrates a bit of class .
Stu, Vince, Richard, Chek et al,
That is more of the same.
The issue is policy platforms, legislation and politics.
Despite all your personal attacks, your personal insults, your semantic traps and your not so brilliant powers of deduction about what I read or what I do; I am neither your sworn enemy nor a sworn card carrying enemy of 'the environment'.
You're all claiming a belief in an organised campaign/organisation 'out there' that is something to do with a 'massive anti environmental movement' and is peopled by all these 'right wingers' who all 'deny the science' in the same manner that people denied the holocaust.
You seem to think they all huddle together in some type of organisation called 'climate change deniers' and work from a 'playbook' (designed by big tobacco????)
JeffH then further developed that same theme over 3 comments after complaining that 'climate change deniers' believe that the UN, the theory of global governance and government grants are a conspiracy theory.
You all then turned yourselves inside out to argue with me when I pointed out the very simple fact that all 3 of those could not possibly be a conspiracy because they all have official sanction and all have official websites.
Australia is definitely a member of the UN and the Australian Govt definitely funds research into deliberative global governance.
Look it up: is all perfectly googleable deltoids!
In fact, the only one I can't find is this organisation known as 'climate change deniers' and later 'the massive anti environmental movement out there'.
In your comments you reveal a whole morass of political bias that then leads you to make totally unfounded assumptions about the motives and political biases of others when they question your biases.
It's largely rubbish but it does make for amusing reading.
And Richard:
Forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious but your lecturer was apparently an expert in crop physiology in the late 60's.
Shouldn't he be listened to from his expertise and qualifications?
You didn't appreciate the irony re the Matt Ridley article?
Your tactical explanation above is entirely redundant and once again just a pointless and irrelevant personal attack.
You didn't need to explain Richard, it was fairly obvious what you were attempting to do.
And Stu?
I thought I needed to give some more information re Walter Starck so that perhaps Bill could google him and check for the comment.
It wasn't an attempt to put him up as a 'bigger daddy than your daddy' type of thing :-)
Chameleon—do you dare suggest there's no massive anti-environmental movement? Then go read Merchants of Doubt. Not that it contains any evidence of such a movement's existence, but it is an execrable book and by reading it you'll be torturing yourself for 4 or so hours, which will serve you right for being such a meanie as to suggest there's no such thing as a massive anti-environmental movement out there!
Just remember, when you read it, not to burst out laughing at Naomi Oreskes' obvious unfamiliarity with science. Sure, she says beryllium is a heavy metal and the pH of a neutral solution is 6.0, but it's verboten to derive any levity from such oases of non-seriousness. It is a punishment, young man/lady. You are being punished.
Good grief. Brad is playing the "I don't see nuthin'" game with the definition of "denialism" now. I guess that's all he's got left...
How would you know, Brad? You're not claiming you've read it, surely?
Tell me about, say, Seitz, Singer, Jastrow and Nierenberg, and all the various things they've opposed over the years, pet? Any commonality there, little man?
Then you can tell us about, oh, I don't know, the CEI, Marshall, Heritage, SPPI,and Heartland. One could go on.
Your ignorance of something is not much in the way of a recommendation. It's such a huge field, where does one even begin.
Dork.
Chebbie's just an inconsequential idiot. Not much point suggesting she be exposed to any source of learning; it'll simply bounce off
Sigh.
Almost the entire comment is a tour de force of rebutting her own miscomprehensions - even ones that have already been explained to her.
Yes bill, I'm claiming I've read it. I was young and naive. I kept thinking it would get better.
Running away from the question, Lotharsson? C'mon, you're the one alleging there's some force you call denialism out there. The least you could do is point us to a definition.
Anyone who recommends Merchants of Doubt except as an instrument of ocular torture is clearly a sub-Dan-Brownian conspiracy junkie.
Nah, just kidding, Oreskes' and Conway's exposé is a tour-de-force of truth. (And they're obviously scientifically literate; all rumors to the contrary are just cruel denialist(tm) black propaganda.) Denial of The Science(tm) really, honest-to-god, is due to the efforts of a crack squad of time-travelling Jewish tobacco scientists.
*makes circumtemporal gesture with index fingers and whistles*
I mentioned that he was a crop physiologist merely to illustrate that knowledge of the evidence pointing to the expectation of global warming was not restricted to a small clique of evil climatologists secretly in the pay of a James Bond villain. You can drop the subject now - I think you have adequately demonstrated that you have not the slightest inkling of the science behind the concept of global warming.
No. You'll have to explain as, even now that you've told me that it was ironic, I fail to see it. Are you sure you are using 'irony' correctly?
I think it far from pointless or irrelevent to try to impress upon a persistent contributor of nonsense that they are totally ignorant of the topic under discussion.
You have been known to miss the obvious before. And I succeeded in demonstrating that you are completely ignorant on the subject you have been rattling on about, didn't I?
I don't believe you, Brad, you're just chumming.
For a start, it's a 13 frickin ' hour audio book - check, you nitwit! - and you just claim to have read it in 4!
'Beryllium' not being a 'heavy' metal is just pointless nitpicking. Or are you denying it's toxic now?
And pH 6 - let's see, in work of 368 pages, how many mistakes would you expect to find?
Oh, and oh, the irony! You followed someone here who was claiming knowledge of chemistry he clearly does not possess, didn't you? Must suck to be you!
I mean you generally can't even get through a comment without a stuff-up, Braddie! And here you are nitpicking those who actually are achievers.
PS: Chameleon - I would have been thrilled if you had been able to give a coherent answer to my question as it would indicate that some progress would be possible.
Yep, called it - that's all you've got left.
That and bald assertions.
"I don’t believe you, Brad, you’re just chumming."
Hey bilious one, don't believe my admission if you don't want to. It's not like I'm proud of it.
"For a start, it’s a 13 frickin ‘ hour audio book – check, you nitwit! – and you just claim to have read it in 4!"
Lol. Revealing your level of literacy there, bilious.
Never mind. Once you learn to read without moving your lips you'll find that such time-bending feats are indeed possible.
(It did take me rather less than 4 hours, but I was allowing chameleon extra time to throw it across the room in disgust before picking it up again in charity.)
You see, little Brad, I don't think you're any more committed to veracity than any of your heroes are.
I put it to you that you have not read the book - you are just regurgitating Denialist chum-nuggets on the subject of it.
"‘Beryllium’ not being a ‘heavy’ metal is just pointless nitpicking."
Yeah, you're right. The kind of attention to detail required to notice that the 4th element in the periodic table isn't exactly "heavy" is clearly too much to ask of a half-scientist, half-historian, even if Oreskes claims she was a geologist. I shouldn't be so pedantic on the poor dear.
yes I think a solid defintion of whatever the hell 'denialism' means to the people who continue to use the word here would definitely be helpful.
It is after all a key word that is used over and over and over again at this site.
;-)
Who are my "heroes," bilious one?
This ought to be fun.
(No need to answer quickly, feel free to have someone read the question out to you.)
"I think a solid defintion of whatever the hell ‘denialism’ means to the people who continue to use the word here would definitely be helpful."
Yeah, and I'd even settle for a definition of Denialism, as bill spells it.
BTW it is googleable but it is a term that can be applied to just about anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
Gee, a graduate of Evelyn Woodhead, eh! And you just happened, by amazing coincidence, to pick the same points as Fred Singer? Just like the rest of your tribe? Nice level of hive-mind comprehension, there.
Anyone believe him? Didn't think so...
Gee, Chebbie rather lets the side down there because it's a Well Known Fact that calling you lot Deniers is specifically accusing you of rejecting the Holocaust. Tskk...
And you reckon she could read a 13 hour spoken tome in 4. I'm sure she'd certainly know as much about it as you do at the end of that time!
"And you just happened, by amazing coincidence, to pick the same points as Fred Singer?"
Did I? That would hardly be coincidental. Anyone who read it without noticing that it was a farcical anti-Semitic conspiracy pamphlet would be "amazing".
...ly dense.
Gee, I wonder if we'll be treated to 3 rants in a row from the bilious one starting with "Gee."
Why, yes it can! You got one right!
Now we need to discuss the concept of context which is used by high school students to interpret the meaning of words that can be applied to more than one thing.
Actually, Brad: since you've read the book, tell us about the discussion of Rachel Carson.
"Now we need to discuss the concept of context which is used by high school students to interpret the meaning of words that can be applied to more than one thing."
Not so fast. What you owe us first is a definition. If you have to resort to wikipedia for it, you'll be confirming that you pulled the concept ex posteriori.
Ha ha ha! That's really funny! You're going to have to justify that one, poppet!
So you're a victim of a persecution mania as well...
Actually, bill, since you heard the book... nah, doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Never mind.
Riiiiiiiight.
So...do we add anti-Semitical conspiracy pamphlet to "Orwell's 2 minutes of hate" and "McCarthy"?
Logic.
U ain't doin it.
"anti-Semitic conspiracy pamphlet
...
So you’re a victim of a persecution mania as well…"
Gee jiminy willickers, if only I were Jewish your comment might have a patina of plausibility, bilious.
Look, poppet, even the nutter blogs aren't backing you on that one. You're all on your own.
So, how is it an 'anti-Semitic pamphlet'? Did you make a mistake when you quickly skimmed a google search of something on Jo Nova's, perhaps?
Think anybody hasn't noticed that you're flailing badly here, little man?
(Also: what was that word you were bandying about earlier? Defamation? Might be a good idea to piss off about now, pet. Altogether.)
33 comments and counting since I asked in vain for a definition of "denialism." Time to call off the search party methinks.
If I were someone who "thought" like Brad, I'd be thinking "Which comment is Brad trying to push off the 'front page' by posting so many comments - could it be heroic Latimer's rapid advance in a rearwards direction?"
But I'm not, so I don't.
"Also: what was that word you were bandying about earlier? Defamation?"
You're probably thinking of "denialism, waiting for a definition thereof."
Gee, deadhead, let me get this straight: you're not projecting an entirely imaginary - and highly-inflammatory - persecution, here, simply because you're not a member of the group you claim is being persecuted?
But, by all means, do go on! Perhaps we'll get some professional opinions - lawyers, perhaps? - on all this shortly, eh?
You read it, after all. Evidence of anti-Semitism, please.
No, there's no undertone at all in Oreskes' use of her historical creativity to choose Nierenberg, Jastrow, Singer and Seitz as her 4 "Merchants" to represent the entire hemisphere of CAGW skepticism. What was I thinking? There's absolutely no literary tradition I can possibly fit that into.
Genius.
I'd also be thinking "Brad's claiming to have read a whole book about the denialism industry, and he still doesn't know what the word 'denialism' means. That's pretty poor on the comprehension front, even by our low, low troll standards."
;-)
40 comments and counting.
You don't know what it means, if anything, do you?
Have some dignity and admit it.
And hey, it's not like it's Oreskes' fault. All the elite, hand-picked tobacco-sponsored time-travelling Science Assassins behind the whole phenomenon of CAGW disbelief just happen to be of a, er, certain, er, ethno-religio-culturo-racio-, you know, category, so what is she supposed to do? Throw in a gentile Merchant just to avoid the obvious kneejerk accusations? Psht. No self-respecting half-geologist half-historian would censor the hard facts (beryllium is a heavy metal! arg!), no matter how un-PC they might be.
Still feeling highly inflamed, O bilious one?
Er, no dear.
We know what it means.
We reckon you know what it means.
We reckon you know that we know what it means, and you know that we know that you know what it means.
Accordingly we just don't see the need to play your little game. (Chameleon: this game of Brad's is an example of "pointlessly arguing semantics". See - an actual example!)
And even your "40 comments and no definition" is a clearly erroneous claim. When our Resident Queen of Miscomprehension can find a definition that you can't, you should consider the possibility that you're really not cut out for this kind of thing. And it's even more amusing to see you denying her reference to a definition of "denialism" by retroactively attempting to rule her source out of bounds.
Psht. I'm outty. Might check back just in case any y'all jokers grow the testicular fortitude to define "denialism."
(Don't hold your breath though, chameleon—their powers of temporization are rightly legend.)
Nothing retroactive about it. My original request, 45 messages ago and counting, was for something from, you know, a dictionary. If that's not too much to ask.
Now I'm really outta here.
ROFL! Primary school taunts about testicles now! (Do you even know how many readers are of the testicularly challenged sex?)
Sorry, chum. The Queen of Miscomprehension spot is taken. Redefining "retroactive", even after your earlier sterling efforts at redefining "denial", "abolished" and the like, ain't gonna go close to getting you that coveted title.
Or maybe this is a subtle entry for King of Innumeracy? Sorry, that spot's taken too. Asserting 86 does not come after 59 doesn't even come close to predicting the atmospheric CO2 content will exceed 100% by fitting 5th order polynomials to historical data.
Meanwhile, how about heroic Latimer's abject climbdown? I notice you haven't shared any thoughts on how heroic that was. Do you have any sort of estimate of when he's going to get those European ocean scientists to correct their horribly mistaken FAQ?
Not buying it. It was for "a definition", and you said you hadn't been able to find one in dictionaries. Only a fool would argue that English consists only of words in dictionaries...
...oh, wait, you're admitting you are that fool, and therefore that you don't express your requests very clearly.
My mistake. I agree that it wasn't retroactive - although your comment about it was amusingly fallacious. It was merely a poorly expressed request on your part combined with a Latimer-like insistence that all methods of meeting an inquiry except the one you specify are not valid.
Chameleon is still a hoot:
"Just about anything"...provided somebody is in denial of it.
Duh!
What a card-carrying lunatic she is.
Take note:
Not sure what Brad finds so difficult about that - we have Meryl Dorey and her denialism about immunisation along with Bob Carter and his denialism about climate change.
It's often hard to pin the cranks down, but essentially, if you skim through virtually any page on the cranks blogs like Jo Nova's or Anthony Watts' crank blog, you will see:
- people denying that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere
- people denying that it originates from human activity
- people denying that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas
- people denying the greenhouse effect
- people denying the temperature record
- people denying glaciers melting
- people denying polar ice melting
- people denying sea level rise
- people denying ocean acidification
Try to pin them down on any one of these things, though, and their brain explodes, causing them to say, "nobody has *EVER* denied that X, we're just questoning Y".
And then, next time you see them posting, they will have gone straight back to denying X.
Fruitloops. Denialism is a symptom of a mental disorder. In Chameleon's case, it's a very simply case of not having a functioning brain - she gets random thoughts zooming through her head all day long and can't make sense of them, so she's found some crank blogs that are designed to appeal to the stupid and that's where she hangs her hat.
Brad, on the other hand, while plainly of below average intelligence, hangs his hat on crank blogs because it allows him to vent his anger and frustration resulting from having for so long suffered a bad case of intellect-envy.
Come on, clown, that's the sum-total of the 'anti-Semitism' in this book of Oreskes' and Conway's, an 'anti-Semitic pamphlet' published by Bloomsbury Press, is it?
A smarter man than you might perhaps have admitted he hadn't read the book, and certainly would not have published such remarkable claims, but, do keep going...
A denier: One who denies. In your case, AGW. Denialism: the social and institutional practice of denial - in this case of AGW - whether formal or informal.
Now, you're going to have to do better on the very, very dangerous claim of 'anti-Semitism' here, Braddie - and, Rachel Carson, discussion thereof in this book you've 'read', please -
...and that goes for Latimer, too. An intellectual failure, he's found the perfect conduit for avenging himself on all those people who are so much more clever than he was able to be: he just accuses them all of being wrong, with no valid evidence or logic, but with the reassuring back-up crowd of flaming torch and pitchfork-wielding luddites and sociopaths from places like Anthony Watts' crank blog.
Braddie, you can - and certainly shoulddisappear - but in a very real, and legally-binding, sense - to quote Monty Python - you've just published something very remarkable indeed.
You really should have bolted when I suggested that you ought to, you know.
I’m baaack. 20 minutes (or 12.5 Lotharsson-pages in the old money) later, just checking on the local gonadal developments.
Hmm, disappointingly sparse.
“ROFL! Primary school taunts about testicles now! (Do you even know how many readers are of the testicularly challenged sex?)”
You’re right—“Lotharsson,” “bill” and “Vince Whirlwind” could mean anything.
“Meanwhile, how about heroic Latimer’s abject climbdown?”
Didn’t see it (if indeed it occurred). Can you cite a range of comments? As I said, I’ve got a life, so no guarantees I'll get round to reading it.
“My mistake. I agree that it wasn’t retroactive –“
Thank you for admitting your mistake. Perhaps there are 2 intact 'nads to be had between the regular [ant]agonists here.
"you’ve just published something very remarkable indeed."
Oh well, since the legal horse has bolted, allow me to further blow your mind by adding that Naomi Oreskes is unusually ugly, very dull and a deliberate traducer of the scientific method.
As you should have picked up when reading—oh, er, listening to someone read—her book.
On your marks, lawyers.
Thanks! Shouldn't be too hard to trace you, I expect.
And this toxic, venomous dill is an small hero of yours, Chebbie? One of the good guys, eh?
"Thanks! Shouldn’t be too hard to trace you, I expect."
No, not since I'm the kind of person to whom it wouldn't even occur to bother coming up with a pseudonym or heminym for mere blog comments, billy-boy. (I'd wonder what you were afraid of, but then... I read your comments.)
Brad can't even flounce convincingly; a real Nellie Melba.
Proudly using the cloak of pseudonymity to defame his betters - and to, in best sexist oaf manner, abuse a woman based on her looks.
Has an obsession with testicles, too. Inadequacy, anyone?
A real class act, Braddie, a real class act.
Troll flounces ain't what they used to be, that's for sure. But troll miscomprehension, projectionism and miss-the-point-ism are pretty much the same.
"Proudly using the cloak of pseudonymity"
says bill (a type of small bird, apparently) to me (Brad Keyes).
I'd make a lame joke about irony meters if I were a regular here.
It's my real name! Just go, 'Brad'. You've showed us exactly who you are, and it is genuinely ugly.
"It’s my real name! Just go, ‘Brad’."
B-b-but—you're depriving me of the pleasure of a good flounce. You're a real meanie, Bill D. Byrd (if that even is your real name!).
By the way, does that attractive, blonde, scientifically-literate, metallurgically-knowledgeable champion of the scientific method by the lovely name of Ms Oreskes have a sequel in the works to Merchants of Doubt?
Cos by golly, I can't wait for Protocols of the Elders of Doubt. Or is The Banality of Doubt next?
Yeah, except there is no irony because Bill isn't defaming anybody, you monumental dickhead.
Thanks, Drama, for that erudite contribution from behind the arras of pseudonymity.
"A denier: One who denies. In your case, AGW."
bill, n: one of a family of flightless, clueless birds identifiable by their rich summer plumage of pseudonymity
Hopefully you won't add assault to my rap sheet, o bilious one, but here's me birding you with a clue bat:
I've never denialised AGW.
(Damn, why does spell-check keep underlining that perfectly cromulent word?)
Vince shakes his fist:
"In Chameleon’s case, it’s a very simply case of not having a functioning brain – she gets random thoughts zooming through her head all day long and can’t make sense of them, so she’s found some crank blogs that are designed to appeal to the stupid and that’s where she hangs her hat."
Well then, she's found the right place—where vortical luminaries like yourself think the BEST team's study of the past 250 years of temps proves that the Hockey Stick "was correct."
As Lotharsson would type: ROFL!
Brad's really (ahem) "shaking" his Godwin Fist.
Perhaps he's asking to be put out of his commenting misery? Maybe he envies the others their own threads.
He sure isn't here for the hunting. He hasn't got the equipment for it, for one thing.
Latimer Alder was right, u guys r fun.
Why is nobody coming out to play?
Oh, didn't see you there Lotharsson.
Can't even address me in the 2nd person?
Murgh, this place is dead.
Guys, no need to play anymore. Brad Keyes dismisses Oreskes & Conwey for two basic mistakes, and refers to MBH99 as Mike's Nature paper. Well, since MBH99 was published in JGR, we have found an obvious and basic mistake by Brad Keyes, and therefore he himself will now declare himself unworthy of further discussion. Right, Brad?
The others here may take note that my really basic requests for evidence regarding a specific statement by first Latimer Alder and a little bit later Brad Keyes have 'conveniently' been ignored by both.
No Marco, I asked whether it was his Nature paper. I didn't refer to it as such. Understand the difference?
But yes, I should have guessed that Nature still had some standards. I can only pray you'll forgive me for not remembering every second-rate pseudoscientist's entire bibliography in detail.
Brad Keyes dismisses Oreskes & Conwey for two basic mistakes,
Actually Marco, if you read more carefully (try this fun tip from bill: only read as fast as you can talk), you'd know I dismissed Oreskes' and Conway's book for the basic mistake of being a piece of crap from beginning to end.
"No Marco, I asked whether it was his Nature paper. I didn’t refer to it as such. Understand the difference?"
Correction—you were right, I wrote:
"Ah, Mike's Nature trick paper. Is that the one for which he won his Nobel Prize?"
I thought I'd put the question mark on both clauses, not just the first. Sorry for going off at you.
So I repeat:
I can only pray you’ll forgive me for not remembering every second-rate pseudoscientist’s entire bibliography in detail.
Yep, that reiterates "no need to play any more".
Better trolls, please.
Still, your inability to insult me in the 2nd person, combined with Lotharsson's identical inability, confirms the deadness of this joint. I'm going to look for action elsewhere before the birdbrain on my clue bat dries.
Chameleon opines:
"I have no issue with JeffH’s position and/or experience.
He is not arguing from his experience/qualifications however because his qualifications are not in POLITICS or POLITICAL science or POLITICAL history or ECONOMIC theory etcetera"
Neither has Noam Chomsky. He is a linguist. That doesn't mean he isn't one of the worlds' pre-eminent experts on the political economy and the mass media.
For the past 20 years I have read a huge volume of literature linking social, economic and political factors with environmental quality and ecosystem services. I am actually in the processes of preparing a book on the subject when I get time to do a sabbatical. Reading your comments and those of brad are actually cringe-inducing. Both of you use the strategy - jJonas is an expert in this so you both belong in his asylum thread - that if one doesn't know anything about an area then there is nothing to discuss. In addition to Oreskes book and excellent work exposing a huge and well funded anti-environmental lobby, their are the works of scribes like Andrew Rowell, David Helvarg, Jeffrey St. Clair, Sheldon Rampton and Jeffrey Stauber (at PR Watch), Sharon Beder and others who have researched the area. I have given hour long lectures on it at many universities and at invited venues. Essentially, I show how think tanks, public relations firms, astroturf groups, other front organizations and the like are funded by third parties (corporations) to downplay the seriousness of various environmental problems in order to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. When I gave these lectures in Denmark, they were presented to full houses (more than 200 people) at Aarhus and Copenhagen Universities, I also presented it at Princeton and Stanford (US) and in Helsinki (FN) and in several Dutch universities.
Brad wants to know what denial means. Applied to Wise Use and the large, well-funded and organized and politically influential anti-environmental lobby in the US (also Australia: read some of Bob Burton's work), it refers to individuals and groups who deny the seriousness of anthropogenic threats to the environment across the biosphere. They downplay or ignore these threats, and believe that little or no remedial action to deal with them is necessary. Hence, business-as-usual should remain the primary political agenda.
One last point:
Alarma bells start ringing when Brad describes scientists whose work he doesn't like as 'second rate pseudos' or as being 'ugly'. Perhaps you are a pin-up boy Brad, or perhaps you look like the rear end of a bus. That means Jack-****.
I have asked Jonas this a million times and I will ask you: what is your esteemed contribution to science? Publications? Teaching? Qualifications? I have seen the climate change deniers AND down-players (happy now?) on Deltoid, people whose science is at classroom level, routinely smear the names and reputations of scientists whose work they don't like. Its so easy to do this on a blog, but out there in the big bad world of real science, they'd evaporate in seconds.
And while you're there, stop beating yourself on the arse with the cluebat and you'll no longer get birdbrain on it.
"stop beating yourself on the arse with the cluebat and you’ll no longer get birdbrain on it."
Hey, I can't control where bill chooses to perch.
“”Perhaps you are a pin-up boy Brad, or perhaps you look like the rear end of a bus. That means Jack-****.”
You’re right of course, it means nothing. And if I’d simply been referring to a second-degree, dermis-deep ugliness, then I’d be the first to apologise to the unlovely N. Oreskes. But I wasn’t.
“Brad wants to know what denial means."
Thanks for your polite answer Jeff (in all seriousness), but since denial is trivially… undeniably!… real, my actual question was about a mysterious entity called "denialism."
Are you really asking for my qualifications, Jeff? Why?
It’s weird how credentialism is alive and well in the believosphere.
In the deniosphere, not so much.
In any case:
—I'm a student.
—I've "contributed" less damage to science than Michael Mann.
—And vastly less damage to science, history, the good name of Hannah Arendt, or any number of other things you (hopefully) hold dear than Naomi Oreskes.
Those are my qualifications.
How about yours? Nah, I’m just being polite. I don't care in the slightest. I'm more interested in your arguments than your CV.
Anyway thanks for raising the tone Jeff.
my actual question was about a mysterious entity called “denialism.”
Brad nails his colours to the mast of his inability to find a dictionary definition of denialism. Seriously pissweak trolling, there. Oxford Dictionary good enough? Took seconds: oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/denialist
(oh and to head off the obvious feeble retort, do be sure to read the whole entry.)
I’ve never denialised AGW.
I've never communised anything, so by Brad's "logic", communism does not exist. Perhaps English is not the native tongue of our latest fountain of intellectual onanism? He does sound a lot like Joan, after all.
I’m a student.
I hope Brad's studies are a Bachelor of Douchism, because otherwise he's wasting some obvious talent.
Thank you FrankD. Yes, Oxford is plenty good enough, notwithstanding the bathos of the answer.
And it only took 84 comments!
Gotta love the [sole] example they give:
"the small minority of very vocal climate change denialists"
As far as I can tell, there's no other use for it. It was tailor-made for weak-minded self-styled majoritarians.
As for the rest of your "comment" "FrankD," it seems I was premature in congratulating Jeff on elevating the tone of this place.
Anyway Jeff, having said this:
“I’m more interested in your arguments than your CV."
...if you can link me to any of the work you've done on Wise Use or the other ideologies you've mentioned, I'll do my best to read it. As you might guess from the fact that I got through Merchants of Doubt, I'm open-minded.
Since non-literal discourse obviously confuses you FrankD, let me translate this:
I’ve never denialised AGW.
into the more banal:
I've never denied AGW.
Get it? I haven't denied AGW.
Making sense now? Yes, no?
The point is, Brad, that if one looks just a little under thew surface they will find a lot of pretty nasty stuff where any issues dealing with environmental policy are concerned. Orekes actually just focuses on linking climate and tobacco - in his book, 'Green Backlash', Andrew Rowell digs a lot deeper and unearths some pretty unpleasant truths. Some it involves Matt Ridley. The book is now 16 years old but it is as releavnt as ever. Tom Athanasiou's 'Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor' is another quite excellent read. What annoys me about Chameleon's comments is that she argues from a point of knowing very little, as if that is a strength. I have encountered many people during my scientific career who use ignorance as a foundation for debate - in other words, when new information is presented to them, they resoirt to all kinds of smears, cursory dismissals, rank humor and the like to belittle their opponent for daring to present something that they don't know.
George Monbiot, the UK-based journalist (I don't agree with some of his arguments, but others I do agree with) wrote a quite poignant comment: He said, "Tell people something they already know and they'll thank you for it. Tell them something new and they'll hate you". This metaphor is really appropriate here, but also in all walks of life. I have seen it also amongst scientists reviewing my own research as well as others, so scientists aren't immune from it either. In my case, I had a paper rejected because an expert reviewer couldn't believe the results. I was studying a new system and the reviewer clearly did not know of it. So their rebuttal was to argue that the results cannot possibly be true. I offered to send my research material (in this case insects) to the resarcher but they declined. Strangley enough, when I sent the paper to another journal it received glowing reviews and was published. This shows that scientific novelty depends on the eye of the beholder to some extent.
"In my case, I had a paper rejected because an expert reviewer couldn’t believe the results."
That's pretty much the opposite of science as I understand it.
"I have encountered many people during my scientific career who use ignorance as a foundation for debate – in other words, when new information is presented to them, they resoirt to all kinds of smears, cursory dismissals, rank humor and the like to belittle their opponent for daring to present something that they don’t know."
That sucks. But how much of what you perceived as proud ignorance was just posturing or bravado as a function of the medium (the debate) itself—which may not be (in fact, it almost certainly isn't) the ideal way to get to the scientific facts, and is virtually calculated to bring out the snarkiest, most bombastic and least skeptical side of the participants?
So you assert.
But you assert a lot of stuff and demonstrate very little.
Argument from personal ignorance, despite other examples having been given earlier on the thread.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.
(When I wrote "least skeptical", I was using the proper sense of the word. I meant the least critical of their own as well as others' reasoning.)
"Argument from personal ignorance, despite other examples having been given earlier on the thread."
Other examples of the use of "denialism"? From a real linguistic corpus? Really? Then I missed them. As I've repeatedly told you w.r.t. the Latimerian Wars, I haven't read the whole thread.
Which comment number are we talking, roughly?
And I suggest you cut down on the snark and pop-psychology, since you don't know whereof you speak (ironically, given that you're "speaking" of Dunning-Kruger).
Citation needed.
"I was using the proper sense of the word. I meant the least critical of their own as well as others’ reasoning"
That doesn't apply to you, brad. So why did you use that word with that meaning?
Jeff, I notice that you say:
"I offered to send my research material (in this case insects) to the resarcher but they declined."
So you're a kind of opposite of Michael Mann?
I'll have to buy you a drink if you live somewhere in Australia.
Brad Keyes
Apologies for the delay. Different time zones, no doubt.
Denial is synonymous with rejection; denialism is therefore synonymous with rejectionism.
We all know what denial and rejection mean, so why the fuss? In the specific case of the climate 'debate', it is universally understood by all except those fitting the description that denial means unsceptical and unsupported rejection of the scientific consensus on AGW.
This usually (but not invariably) involves scientific illiteracy and misrepresentation.
A topical example of this can be found in your remarks about Mann's findings on the soi-disant MWP (and your confusion about which papers say what).
If you want to know what Mann and others think about the 'MWP' you can easily find out by reading Diaz et al. (2011). Mann and Hughes are co-authors.
Anyone who can read Oreskes & Conway's book in a mere four hours will not find this challenging. It is a short review paper.
Remember: argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy...
"I’ve “contributed” less damage to science than Michael Mann.
Citation needed."
Sorry, better things to do than prove a negative to you.
Wow, I'll give you the same advice I gave Lotharsson, which is to take a leaf from Jeff Harvey's book and talk like a big person. If you're too grumpy then go to bed. Both good options.
Indeed. Ironic that you talk about not knowing what you're talking about with respect to Dunning-Kruger, when you ... er ... don't know what you're talking about on this topic.
Vaccine denialism, often rebadged anti-vaxxers. Usually claim that vaccines are linked to autism spectrum disorders and even more fringe claims. The big corporate money is in selling vaccines so there's no big corporate dollars helping to push this form of denialism along.
HIV/AIDS denialism - the denial that HIV causes AIDS. Fairly fringe movement in the US - the big corporate money is on the side of selling anti-HIV drugs, so they're not motivated to push that form of denialism. Unfortunately became government policy in South Africa and the resulting policy disaster caused an explosion in HIV rates.
Evolution denialism, usually because the denialists are Young Earth Creationists. No corporate money in that either - but close ties to political power in the US.
Moon landing denialism.
Various other forms of modern medicine denialism.
And there are plenty more - and they're not hard to find (which begs the question - if you're so competent, why haven't you found any?)
The term has been used in this fashion since even before this paper from 2007. There's a whole blog by the same author along with some others on the topic of denialism.
Which would almost be amusing, if you weren't so juvenile in your written interactions. Self-awareness doesn't seem to be your strong suit either.
BBD,
Thanks for Díaz y al. Will read it.
Gotta go watch Django.
Will check back for adult developments later. (Still waiting for comment citations, Lotharsson.)
Yep, the fallacious deployment of the "prove a negative" gambit when asked to justify a comparison which embeds your unjustified presumptions in it. Why, it's almost like you're merely tossing out assertions, but totally unwilling to demonstrate reason to believe them.
Do your own homework. You really need the practice. Your research skills are appalling, and you rely on your inept inability to find things to assert that they don't exist.
Which, come to think of it, was one of heroic Latimer's grand failings. Ain't that a coincidence.
Skip, skip, skip...
Just like Latimer.
For the deniers, it's all about faith. And when you have such unshakeable faith as these denier idiots do, there's no reason to believe any of it.
THEY JUST BELIEVE.
Except you've made a POSITIVE claim.
Apparently you don't know the difference between + and -, Brat.
Now THAT'S dumb!
Cham:
Only once the science has demonstrated the potential nature and scale of the multiple problems. For the real issue is the reality of nature and nature, as Feynman's well wrought dictum stated, cannot be fooled (Space shuttle Challenger Report).
The reality of nature is revealed over millennia, centuries and decades, far to long are these periods for the short-sighted and mediocre bunch of politicians that seem to have found their way to the top in the leading economies of the world. Barely a true statesman amongst all of them. We will have to see how Obama stacks up in a second term and this will come by about half way through as the Repugs resurge. My hopes are not high - after all each incumbent remembers what happened to JFK and his clan.
We need to find ways of sidestepping politics as we know it, the politics dictated by big interests with ever larger war chests garnered at the expense of the prol's. What do you think this global financial meltdown was all about. Those with the loot dictate the terms and don't care about casualties lower down the food chain - at many levels.
This right wing/left wing thinking is so 20th Century, time to move on.
I like the formulation of "The Money Party" and "The People Party" to shake up people's "Left vs Right" thinking.
The Money Party consists of those people - no matter what their official party affiliation - who prioritise the needs of those individuals and corporations with a lot of money above most other things. The People Party consists of those people - no matter what their official party affiliation - who prioritise the needs of the people of the nation above most other things.
Jeff I might just look this one up but the Rowell one is a tad expensive, particularly for someone with at least awareness and other literature. My wife's groans with each new book in is almost as loud as that of the shelves taking the ever increasing load.
Thanks for the other pointers too.
Jeff, this is an area we looked deep into at university in the early 1980s and the scenario was well understood way back then. Perhaps I should dig out the assignments that I scored highly on. Our tutor had first hand knowledge of the effects of the creeping globalisation and its methodology - basically the resource rape of third world lands and of the people who live, suffer and die there.
Many of our trolls here seem totally oblivious to the effects of resource wars as encapsulated in internecine warfare in Africa. I wonder how many appreciate the true cause of recent troubles in Mali and Algeria and why there is a rise in piracy in the Indian Ocean. When any organism has its back to the wall then it fights dirty.
Of course there is a large amount of self enrichment of the elites in these blighted lands as the pull foreign aid to their own usage or sell out to vulture capitalists (check out Greg Palast for more here for one and John Pilger too - this message to the obvious ignratti around here who clearly need to get out more). Of course matters are a good deal more complicated than implied above, religious fanaticism for one, but the old hunter gatherer instinct of grabbing everything you can whilst you can is not going to serve humanity well from here on in.
Chamy talks about politics, Chamy you haven't a clue!
There's also the not-so-minor crimp in our style which our evolution hasn't yet come to terms with, namely the warrior instinct which must be made redundant following the development of nuclear weapons. Or be indulged at our peril.
Characterising war as politics by other means as Clausewitz does, dovetails neatly with the points made by Jeff, Lionel and Lotharsson
Sorry, Brad, apologies not accepted. I am still waiting for you to prove that Mann does not want to accept an MWP (and I note others already *dis*proving your claim while we wait for an apology from you to Michael Mann for making false claims about him).
I presume the CEI staffers and their flying monkeys are out in force smearing Dr. Mann wherever possible currently.
The next court appearance is the 25th January according to the docs on view over at Eli's, so there probably won't be any respite in the slander effort until at least then.
Another smear from Brad. Are you referring to the data Mann did not release because it was not his to release?
Remember, to the deniers, their private and privileged data IS SECRET and it is CRIMINAL to expose.
However, YOUR private and privileged data IS THEIRS BY RIGHT and it is CRIMINAL not to give it to them freely.
Hello again Deltoids!
Just dropped by to let you know of a couple of opportunities to meet some real-life UK sceptics over a few beers and a bit of conviviality
Central London - Feb 4th
Oxford - Feb 12th
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2054691
Everybody welcome - but snarling aggression will not contribute to a good evening.
Both events strictly PAYG.
See you there!
Here he comes.
As prophesied!
And, oddly enough, with a Bishop to preach for him...
@wow
Just asking you out for a beer. No need to get uppity.
FYI 'Bishop Hill' is named after a geographical feature near Kinross in Central Scotland.
What is 'Wow' named from? 'Walks on Water'?
No, you're asking me to take my personal time and go to somewhere where if someone talks a load of crap, I have to grin and bear it, AND pay for the beer I drink.
And not once will El Bish castigate someone for claiming "fraud" or "liar" if they are pointing those screaming epithets at the legitimate working climate scientists.
You know, exactly as he did on his blog.
Before he banned all posting on it, because having to sustain his nonsense in the face of people able to point it out was NOT the sort of "free and easy speech" he was looking for.
He (not a scientist, heck, not even a bishop) was looking for adulation.
And now he wants an audience???
PS He calls himself the bishop, to hide his real identity.
Richard, that was Briffa. You know, the data McIntyre already had for years (without telling his audience), upon he had to come with the lame excuse that "I could not be sure it was the same data". Well, he could have asked Briffa if that was the same data, rather than tell him he wanted the data and then complain about "stonewalling" when Briffa had already sent the request onwards (where Hantemirov probably thought: "what? He already has the data!").
@wow
'He calls himself the bishop, to hide his real identity'
Sure. So well hidden that Google comes up with this a third hit on 'Bishop Hill'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Montford
Yup.
You DO know that he kept his real identity on that blog secret for years.
And, like any secret in public, it was revealed.
Seems like you think things never change. Cnut like.
Bishop Hill aka Andrew Montford aka Cardinal Puff (Magic Dragon and all that). 'There are lies, lies and Andrew Montford', no matter all the silly 5 star reviews on Amazon from the ignoratti.
Well we suspected the kinda company Latimer kept when he came swanning in here dripping condescension right and left along with shovelfuls of displayed ignorance laced with arrogance and that has not changed.
Then he gets taken down, with a number of outstanding questions to answer, and flounces off throwing accusations of witch hunts around. Well I guess anybody who can believe in Cardinal Puffery will believe anything even when evidence is shoved under his nose.
In five words 'A right piece of work'.
@wow
Your capacity for self-delusion never ceases to amaze me. Let's just clarify a couple of things
1. The invitation to the pub in Iffley is from blogger 'Rhoda', and the suggestion that we meet after the IoP do in London is from me.
Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) has simply provided the mechanism by which that message has been promulgated. By analogy if you were to suggest a pubmeet on here, it wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with Tim Lambert, despite this being 'his' blog and the invite appearing under the 'deltoid' logo. Since Andrew lives about 400 miles away and is rarely down south it is unlikely he will be there.
2. 'if someone talks a load of crap, I have to grin and bear it,'
Not at all, You'll be very welcome to argue your points vigorously and forcefully. But what I termed 'snarling aggression' (a mode of discourse which seems to come naturally to you) will be discouraged. It adds nothing and detracts from the discussion.
3. 'And not once will El Bish castigate someone for claiming “fraud” or “liar” if they are pointing those screaming epithets at the legitimate working climate scientists'
All the more reason for you to be there to defend their interests should anyone dare to suggest that being a 'legitimate working climate scientist' is not necessarily a guarantee of a place in heaven only one step down from St Peter himself. .
Still, if you choose not to come - as is your prerogative - don't say you haven't been politely asked.
@lionel a
I guess that your busy schedule means that you'll not be able to come?
I wonder what Freud would make of Brad's infantile gonad fixation?
'Politely' be buggered, such condescension is never polite.
What about answering those questions then, see up thread for details there are a number.?Skipping over those isn't polite either.
@'wow'
I'll be sure to recommend that if Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) ever needs any advice about his blog identities, he turns to you for it.
Your fine example will no doubt act as a shining beacon to guide him in the Paths of Righteousness.
@lionel a
The last unanswered question I recall has been outstanding for quite a while.
'How do you propose to establish that ocean pH is decreasing without going out and measuring it?'
So far just a lot of hand-waving waffle about 'inferences and expectations'. But no description of an experimental method.
Just so. I have much science to read with large swathes on ecological issues and don't have time for a 'gathering of deluded swine'. Besides there is a small matter of disability.
Neeps & tatties will it be tomorrow? That is a good idea - stick to poetry your science is thin.
Questions to you, from myself and others (inc. BBD). You are displaying an unwillingness to engage, using the cowards way out H/T Stu.
Evidence for measurement of the falling pH of oceanic waters has been placed under your nose. The fact that you cannot see it is clear evidence of either your ignorance or mendacity.
Latte,
BBD has a question for you.
But since you can't answer it, I guess that's the answer to BBDs question, isn't it.
Just in case you go Jonas Defence on us and pretend you can't see where you left a question unanswered:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-…
Re: unanswered questions
To avoid any confusion, actual or manufactured, this was what I was referring to:
1/ Do you [Latimer] argue that the average pH of the vast majority of the world ocean is already so low that ~390ppmv CO2 (well mixed and continuously rising) will *not* reduce pH further? Is this what you believe? Yes/no.
2/ If no, please explain *why* robust, fundamental theory with copious experimental confirmation is an unreliable predictor of what to expect.
- Be sure to explain *why* you think the fundamentals of chemistry will not apply in this case.
3/ Please explain *why* average ocean pH will *not* continue to fall as CO2 concentration increases if it is *not* already so low that further reduction cannot be driven by the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Wow - we crossed.
Latimer:
You are being extremely disingenuous, I have quoted to you from an RS document with link to source.
I have also laid clues as to where more can be found. But of course your game is to not look so that you don't see.
Here cop this:
Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem.
and you can easily download the full document.
and there is more that ilk out there eg. Ocean acidification as well as the SkS series that you avoided.
And it appears that ocean pH has been measured for some time with techniques going back as far as this:
Measurement of the apparent pH of seawater
with a combination microelectrode
But of course if you get your pseudo science from such as Global Warming Science rather than places such as this Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming Science (and I wonder if that title was hi-jacked) then you are bound to come up with the kinda stupid that you do.
Way past time for you to fess up and answer those questions.
Who is handwaving now? But keep it up, the more you throw up the more others get to realise that it is just vomit. The result of bad or poorly digested input. Enjoy your Haggis.
Yep, argument by assertion against the facts. Same M.O.
Amusing though, when I've been asking Latimer to describe the scientific case for ocean acidification, which would include describing the experimental methods that were used by the scientists. He's got his hands firmly over his eyes and he's damn well not going to let any inconvenient knowledge occlude his eyeballs.
And we know he's too cowardly to take his accusations of getting it wrong to (say) the European ocean scientists who wrote the FAQ that he so repeatedly disagrees with. (But never mind, Brad can sing praises to his heroism and the cowardice will conveniently float away from his recollection...)
He's also too cowardly to answer BBD's questions, methinks. Go on Latimer, prove me wrong on at least that.
@Lionel
Where you suggesting one should get one's "Science" from the "Union of Concerned Scientists"?
Your,
"But of course if you get your pseudo science from such as Global Warming Science rather than places such as this Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming Science (and I wonder if that title was hi-jacked) then you are bound to come up with the kinda stupid that you do."
I think it suggests this, but it may be an attempt at humour on your part. The "Union of Concerned Scientists" has nothing to do with science, it's a loonie advocacy group, they even accept dogs into their membership.
re Ocean Acidification
What anyone 'believes' or 'predicts' is completely irrelevant to science. Science is about what the observations tell us of what Mother Nature is actually doing. Not about what you or me or the guy down the street or the prof in his university thinks/predicts/hopes she ought/will/might be doing.
And as far as I can see - Royal Society claims notwithstanding - there are only five extant datasets that have any records of such an effect. You may recall the little exercise we undertook a few days ago to locate as much published data as we could - and those five were as many as we could collectively find.
If you'd all like to explain how your version of science works without relying absolutely on observation and experiment, but instead on credentialism and science by learned opinion, then feel free.
Finally - before you all rush in with your dire accusations of some terrible 'denialist sins', do me the favour of reading what I have actually written, not what your stereotype bogeyman sceptic is supposed to say in your fantasies.
It gets very tedious just having to repeat 'I have made no such statement' over and over again. And since I am not married, the wifebeater question does not apply either.
GSW
Stick to the science then. There's enough referenced here.
Latimer
The dodging is now *painfully obvious*.