More thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
This thread is for people who wish to engage Ray in discussion.
Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread.
Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
"I was pointing out that I suspect that you are a racist"
Based on you calling "brown people" poor?
You need help.
All "three of them" already realise you are lying when you say I was alleging it was a conspiracy.
Are you really that stupid that you think I won't point out that you're lying about what I said by taking it out of context and pretending I wasn't lampooning what someone else said?
Really?
Sloth is now claiming he didn't mean to write the words that he wrote...
One more vote for the redistribution of wealth and that it's not a conspiracy. That makes 2...
At this rate it would appear tin foil hats are becoming trendy.
Next.
Yet another lie from you. I'm claiming that I meant exactly what I said, but what I meant and said is not what you claim it is.
(So yes, you really are that stupid. Or perhaps you are merely desperately seeking attention, even if that means outrageous sequences of lies?)
Quick recap:
Barney lies about me claiming the MDG's shouldn't be funded, then based on his own lie, suggests I am racist with a comment in which he stereotypes brown people as being poor...
Deltoid at it's best.
Sloth...
Keep digging...
"Betula is obviously in the know because he was much more circumspect. Note that the question about the animals’ ranges was cunningly ignored in favour of – oh, look, over there, a squir…er, make that a global wealth redistribution conspiracy!"
And since you have now changed your tune about global wealth redistribution being a conspiracy, may I suggest you pick up your size XL tin foil cap while you still can...they seem to be going fast.
Betula:
Obvious and stupid lie.
That you read this as stereotyping brown people as poor makes you a racist.
But we already know you ARE, in fact, a complete bigot. The real question is who you think you are fooling.
Now, let's see. If the world is getting warmer, why then does the giss piss bozos feel the need to rewrite the history, meaning "adjusting" temp series to get a steeper warming trend? Just asking.
http://www.geoclimate.se/articles/20131107_GISS_Wibjorn_Karlen.pdf
Betula, you know, in the eyes of religious CAGW believers being a realist and a sceptic means you are a "denier". And by that comes all sorts of labells, including racist. How these morons make that connection is way below me. They must have severe malfunctions with the couple of cells in their empty heads.
"That you read this as stereotyping brown people as poor makes you a racist"
Interesting thought process Stu. Can I play too?
Since you believe my thinking this as stereotyping brown people as poor makes me a racist....that makes you a racist.
Your turn.
Oh, betty, you're so dumb!
"Sloth actually came out and said it was a conspiracy"
Hmm. So betty claims.
However, betty hasn't actually quoted it, therefore this must be an interpretation of what was said through betty's mind.
Pretty disturbing how ugly that thing is.
Also note how betty decries the taxing of the poor whilst insisting that no housing be provided to them, and thinks that such attempts to house and improve their condition is a priori an evil conspiracy to be fought with any tools (especially lies) at its disposal.
Arguing with deniers who argue from ignorance and bad faith must be the greatest waste of time yet devised.
As I said,
human: Why the fuck am I even talking to an ebola virus?
#8 Conspiracy tinfoil bollocks. We've already established that you are a nutter as well as a lackey for the liars so you don't need to keep posting stuff like this.
Your lie exposed.
Everything you say is a lie. You are a bullshitter.
Quick recap
Right-wing racist liar Betty-who-hates-taxes doesn't want a better world for the worst off.
However, BWHT knows that coming right out and saying this would reveal him for the sociopathic vermin that he is, so he pretends that he's not agin the MDGs.
This transparent and sickening dishonesty is characteristic of one of Deltoid's most persistent and repellent commentators.
There. Not bad, though I say it myself.
BBD ..
"Right-wing racist liar Betty-who-hates-taxes doesn’t want a better world for the worst off"
You forgot baby killer.
I would expect more from someone who's wish is to be able to watch indiscriminate beatings take place...
Recap:
We all agree that, clearly, the purpose of all this is to redistribute the worlds wealth through climate policy. It's just that some of us can't actually say it...
The end.
Now that is a conspiracy theory!
I'd say your "recap" (read:invention) deserves an indiscriminate beating at the earliest opportunity.
Steady on chek, or Betty will start that interminable whining again and I'm not sure I could go through weeks of that a second time.
Summary.
;-)
(pinched from uknowispeaksense who presumably pinched it from somewhere else).
"Now that is a conspiracy theory!"
The co-chair of an IPCC working group is spreading conspiracy theories?
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy."
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-t…
Edenhoffer, in context:
Summary.
Again.
Betty, again:
Emphasis added for clarity.
;-)
And another thing. Betty, why do you not censure Pentax for making a series of false claims and then refusing - repeatedly - to back them up when requested to do so?
This suggests that you endorse what he has done, which to put no too fine a point on it is lying.
Can you explain to us why you did this? Do you endorse lying? If not, why do you remain silent?
ianam @ # 73 & 74
After sifting through all the irrelevant abuse, name calling and obfuscation, there is nothing left to comment on.
The point remains that while they are noble goals (but certainly not unique to the UN) it is the mechanism ( the how to achieve) that is the point of contention.
" Global Governance" and "Deliberative Global Governance" as per the earlier posted links is the current name of the mechanism.
You can easily look it up and check the funding sources and the academic research.
If you dislike the term 'benevolent dictatorship' you are welcome to call it something else.
However, there is no conspiracy and no need for tin foil hats.
Ah, such subtlety!
Co-ordinated attempts to address the following are to be feared and resisted because they are a sneaky plot to take over the world:
1/. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2/. Achieve universal primary education
3/. Promote gender equality and empower women
4/. Reduce child mortality
5/. Improve maternal health
6/. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7/. Ensure environmental sustainability
8/. Global partnership for development
So I could, but since you raise this, what problems do you see? Please be clear and specific, and reference the sources.
de facto
Ebola viruses don't understand Latin.
The point remains that while they are noble goals (but certainly not unique to the UN) it is the mechanism ( the how to achieve) that is the point of contention.
The point remains, as I said, that you are a lying git. As I already said, this is false in every possible way. What, you missed that while sifting? That's because you're STUPID and DISHONEST.
the earlier posted links
As was previously noted, your cherry-picked links have nothing to do with the discussion here.
You can easily look it up and check the funding sources and the academic research.
When I do, I come to different conclusions than you do because unlike you, I'm not an imbecile.
BBD: Not that it has anything to do the ebola virus's notion that climate science is just an evil ruse to steal its precious bodily fluids under the guise of protecting children from ebola viruses and such, but if you look at something like http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/garnet/workingpapers/2507.pdf you can get a gist of why 2Stupid has problems with “Deliberative Global Governance”:
The idea of deliberation has, in
recent times, been most commonly defined and defended by
democratic political theorists (Bohman and
Rehg, 1997; Elster, 1998; Fishkin and Laslett,
2003). Deliberative democracy denotes a system of government in which free and equal
citizens engage in a collective process of debate and argument, within the framework of a
shared constitution, to determine law and policy. What differentiates deliberative accounts
from alternative interpretations of democracy is that decisions should not be made
exclusively on the basis of an
aggregation of preferences, or
strategic compromises between
competing interests, but on the basis of publicly expressible reasons. This idea of
public
reasoning
is the defining feature of deliberative democracy, specifying the norms that are to
regulate its institutions and argumentative practices (Freeman, 2000: 378).
This translates into "benevolent dictatorship" when passed through 2Stupid's mental filters.
However, there is no conspiracy and no need for tin foil hats.
Again you demonstrate your dishonesty and stupidity:
We all agree that, clearly, the purpose of all this is to redistribute the worlds wealth through climate policy. It’s just that some of us can’t actually say it…
there is no conspiracy
Yes, moron, that's what we have all been saying ... everyone except the ebola virus. It asserts a conspiracy -- while denying the obvious, that its assertion amounts to asserting a conspiracy. The only way you avoid this is by pretending that you don't know how language works.
BBD, that is a classic "strawman" :
"Co-ordinated attempts to address the following are to be feared and resisted because they are a sneaky plot to take over the world:"
As I have commented several times here, there is no 'sneaky plot' (which is of course just another word for conspiracy) to be "feared and resisted" and therefore there is also no need for tin foil hats.
I have supplied a couple of references, but if you look up 'global governance' and 'deliberative global governance' you will find many more.
The point of contention is scepticism over the validity of the mechanism not the noble goals themselves.
Neither the goals or the mechanism are a new concept.
But 'co -ordinated attempt' is much softer terminology for 'benevolent dictatorship'.
There is that well known Shakespeare quote about the name of the rose.......
Ianam,
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year :-)
I hope you get to have a break as it looks like you need one.
It's almost as if there's some debate over taking action on climate change, without affecting economic activity powered by fossil fuels.
@ chek
One marvels.
@ Stu 2
#29.
But it doesn't rhyme with "conspiracy theorist".
You are arguing that there is multidisciplinary collusion to misrepresent the physical basis and probable ecological consequences of AGW.
This is just for you.
Betula:
Are you doing this on a dare to act like the dumbest sentient being in the universe?
Congratulations, you win. You can stop now.
Holy fucking shit you're a moron.
@ 37 BBD
Look them up. A couple have already been supplied on the previous page.
Although no longer a frequent visitor, Eli wishes all, and especially Tim, a wonderful New Year and a great Christmas.
ianam
That's good. Bears repeating even:
Make your point if you have one. Insinuation doesn't count.
Thank you Eli for your kind words. Soft rain in hell.
;-)
And @ 38 yet another classic "strawman":
" You are arguing that there is multidisciplinary collusion to misrepresent the physical basis and probable ecological consequences of AGW. "
But good job with coming up with yet another name for that rose: "multidisciplinary collusion":
Very impressive :-)
The name of the rose is "conspiracy theory".
:-)
And I repeat, because you are being evasive:
So I could, but since you raise this, what problems do you see? Please be clear and specific, and reference the sources.
Make your point if you have one. Insinuation doesn’t count.
Deniers seem to have the singular talent of waving their hands very loudly.
The sound of one hand flapping.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hand+waving
hand waving
n.
Usually insubstantial words or actions intended to convince or impress: resorted to hand waving instead of arguing rationally.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hand+waving
noun
1.
insubstantial words, arguments, gestures, or actions used in an attempt to explain or persuade.
Perhaps BBD and ianam have inadvertently hand waved about "deliberative democracy" rather than the posted terms: "global governance" or "deliberative global governance"?
However, the term "deliberative democracy" is related.
Maybe a bit of handwaving about "conspiracy" as well considering the "rose" was clearly referring to "benevolent dictatorship" ?
BBD, if you go back to earlier comments you will find that the point of contention was outlined.
...."We all agree that, clearly, the purpose of all this is to redistribute the worlds wealth through climate policy"
As I said earlier, this is comic-level book discourse from Betty. Not worthy of a polite response. I might as well discuss this with one of my parasitoid wasps; I'll get actually more out of the insect. Its this level of stupidity that makes me think that we are in deep, deep trouble. Not even a basic understanding of how the world works. Sad indeed.
... or should I add in Stu2 as well. Congratulations Stu2! You're clearly a paid up member of the ignoranti. I wondered, upon reading your early posts, when your true kindergarten-lebvel colors would be revealed. Its taken time, but we've finally whittled you down to the same common denominator: there is some evil movement incarnate to redistribute the world's wealth afoot. Nothing in this discourse about why the world's wealth is so unevenly distributed, especially how this pertains to those inconvenient little words 'plunder', 'looting' and 'repatriation', or how the Washington Consensus has always been aimed at maintaining the status quo. If you understood anything remotely about history - from historical expansionism and imperialism to the that in the present day, you'd realize just how utterly gumbified your comments are. Read some planners comments and tell me that the world's wealth is so disproportionately distributed because of 'bad luck' rather than by cruel design.
Again, like Batty, if you knew one tiny bit about how the world works politically and economically you would be ashamed at the pure gibberish you have written. Its hardly worthy of a dignified response - I'd have to start well before the reatively recent likes of Kennan and Butler and company, long before we get to Meachling, Dulles, Nitze, Carrothers, Kissinger et al and start back more than two thousand years ago. But if anything can be said, its comments about "UN Agendas' and the like that are gleaned from Tea Party websites that present such a puerile understanding of the world that it is almost impossible to know where to start.
@ # 52
Now there's a rip roaring "conspiracy theory" for you !
It's been occurring for over two thousand years!
Jeff Harvey,
Along with ianam, I sincerely hope you get a nice break over the holiday period, it does definitely look like you could do with one :-)
Hehe, quite telling that not one deltoidian dares to comment on why gisspiss have an urge to altering data so it shows warming where there isn't one. Telling indeed.
http://www.geoclimate.se/articles/20131107_GISS_Wibjorn_Karlen.pdf
Ah jeffie, have you found any AGW extinct species yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zO9zEfqWDA#t=239
Spot on!
Science the religious alarmistic way:
"The paper will be thoroughly refuted. I do not know as yet by who, or on what grounds, or where the definitive refutation paper will appear. But it will be refuted and dismissed in no time, never to be talked about again (except by ”deniers” and ’flat-earthers”). That is thankfully the way we operate in climate science, trust us, we’re scientists. Everything is under control. Nothing to see here, move on.”
http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/17/climate-scientist-blasts-ruthless-da…
Stu2, No conspiracy needed. The problem is, that when people like you have had their heads stuck up their butts their entire life, new information presented to them appears to be outrageous, ridiculous, even insane.
Its telling that you can't remotely discuss any of the issues I mentioned; you clearly don't have a clue. So you are left with a demeaning little riposte. Ultimately, its why people like you are time wasters, trolls who are happy to live in their little myopic worlds. That's fine, if you want to believe in fairy tales so be it, but don't try and enter into debates that are well over your head.
I am sure that you believe the oft-perpetrated myth that we live in countries that support human rights, freedom and democracy in our foreign policies, and that our ruling elites want to do everything they can to help those less fortunate. Our media is full of this b*, and its rammed down our throats from the day we are born. Its hardly surprising that many of us weaned on it cannot see the reality behind the myth. Its really not hard to find if you are willing to look for it. But most of us in the over consumptive developed world are beneficiaries of political economic systems that need to loot resources from the south in order to maintain the current disparity. Its been ongoing for centuries. It explains imperialism. And there is no really concerted effort underway to eliminate or even reduce it.
You are on of the people, Stu2, who Edward Bernays and Walter Lippmann would have been proud of. Your consent has been well and truly manufactured. Given your paucity of even a basic understanding of political reality, I expect your next reply (if any) will be as similarly myopic as your last. That's to be expected when your lack of basic knowledge has been well and truly exposed.
Pentax: I answered your equally vacuous question a few days ago. No need to humiliate you any more than you are doing on your own.
No, when I reviewed the thread I found you making baseless insinuations and indulging in silly conspiracist ideation. Later, when repeatedly challenged to substantiate and develop your hand-waving, you refused to do so. It is abundantly clear that you have no argument and are being dishonest. If you disagree, then stop hand-waving and deliver a substantive, supported argument instead of referring back to your previous empty though self-serving assertions.
Fuck off with your lies. Can't you even read a simple graph?
Why are you referencing a retired geologist and right-wing liar instead of an actual climate scientist? Non-expert partisan ideologues are not reliable nor appropriate sources.
PantieZ promoting jjunk from EIKE a CFACT spin-off providing some retirement activity for elderly engineers and cranks.
I wonder if they asked "Dr." Richard Courtney exactly where he got his doctorate - somehow I doubt it.
Says Betula, as he goes on to immediately jump on his own petard by quoting me thereby making it crystal clear that I was paraphrasing and lampooning Betula, not making the claim that he still says that I did.
Truly impressive cream-pie-in-one's-own-face trolling. Sunspot would be proud!
Then again, perhaps the reason is that Betula is terminally stupid. He STILL claims this (my emphasis):
...even after many people have clearly disagreed and expressed that disagreement in many and varied ways - and not only that but explained why the claim is not just disagreed with but wrong.
I'm leaning more and more to BBD's cognitive deficiency theorem.
No, jeffie, you did not. My question is if you can specify at least one species, animal or plant, that has been extinct, not migrated, due to AGW. You have not named a single one. Why is that, one can wonder.
cheeky, as mentioned before by one of you retards, it's not who says but what is said. Or do you mean, that only goes for retards like deltoidians?
Interresting that not one of the deltoidians dare to comment on why giss must massage data to promote a warming trend. Can it be that they think that unconvenient facts will go away if one does talk about it? As said, Bagdad Bobs the lot of them.
Are you fucking blind?
Look at the graph. GISTEMP, HadCRUT4 and NOAA global are virtually identical from the 1960s to the present. The lying right-wing geologist you quote is making stuff up.
BBD @ # 58
That's weird.
If I go back I find I was actually the one who was commenting there is no conspiracy and no need for tin foil hats.
I have no argument about that.
Jeff Harvey @ # 57
I don't believe in oft-perpetrated myths or that our ruling elites want to do everything they can to help those less fortunate.
That would be rubbish!
There is no evidence anywhere in the world that would support such a belief.
I did try to point out earlier that it is unwise to believe in such a thing as a benevolent dictatorship.
Pentax
That's the third time you have repeated a lie about nobody responding to your lie about GISTEMP being fraudulently altered btw. I responded at #14, #59 and now at #65.
Lies, lies, lies. Do you realise you never say anything that is actually true here? And you never acknowledge when your lies are exposed either. You are either insane or beyond shameless.
Stu 2
Sick of your intellectual dishonesty and evasiveness too.
So I could, but since you raise this, what problems do you see? Please be clear and specific, and reference the sources.
Make your point if you have one. Insinuation doesn’t count.
No point? Then fuck off with the insinuations.
And others have pointed out that you provide no evidence whatsoever despite repeated challenges that there is any evolution towards this "benevolent dictatorship". It's just a lie you are attempting to foist on us.
Enough of you. Back it up or sod off.
Exactly. So some crank working for the offshore branch of a fossil fuel funded think tank suggests galactic influence on climate, while admitting it has no bearing on the current warming.
This appeals to cranks and know-nothings, but makes no impact on climate science. The aforementioned cranks and know-nothings whine and complain about "the debate being shut down", not even realising that science isn't a debate.
Pentax wets his pants page 4 #79:
O! My! Just look at the asinine replies by Ben Gaul in the comments there e.g.
Gaul has the gall to resurrect a mole so bashed dead it isn't fit for Tussauds Chamber of Horrors and note the total absence of any references to information source in that comment. The phrase 'high priests of doom' is a red light warning of deception and lies by cretin Gaul who is channelling James Taylor of the .........................................................
wait for it
..........................................................
Heartland Institute.
And also note the makee-lookee guardian nature of the URL. The Guardian should lodge a complaint.
Panty, you are a joke note fit for hose for your seams are split.
Pantie,
I explained why in the most banal, simple terms one does not measure extinctions in terms of '1980 the rapid warming began, by 2013 there were "x" number of extinctions'.
First of all, species must not be observed in the wild for a minimum of 50 years (IUCN) to be officially classified as being extinct. Second, extinction takes decades or even centuries after the initial perturbation to be manifested. The destruction of tropical forests led to gradual extinctions that spanned many, many years as species populations decline towards lower equilibria or else eventual extinction. Your argument is a classic straw man - made on the basis of complete and utter ignorance of the field.
Besides, we know that previous extinctions were certainly generated by rapid climate shifts (e.g. the Permian-Triassic and K-T boundaries). Even then, when the climate changed dramatically, extinctions took centuries or even several millennia to be realized.
Discussing this topic with you is like arguing with a 5 year old. You are clearly patently ignorant, but in true D-K fashion are happy to parade that ignorance here.
babyboyasshole, let's see if you have any real arguments, or evidence, for the need to why "homogenisation" of temp data and why those "adjustments" allways make the first half of the previous century colder and the second warmer. Why is that necessary if the records shows "unprecedented" warming? Any rational answer, asshole?
jeffie, "First of all, species must not be observed in the wild for a minimum of 50 years (IUCN) to be officially classified as being extinct."
Officially, yes. But despite that, you should nevertheless, unofficially, have species not seen in 40, 30, 20 or even 10 years. Is there any "in the path" to be extinct, not migrated, supposed due to AGW? Is there?
"There is no evidence anywhere in the world that would support such a belief"
Really? Try reading most of the mainstream media output in the west, or most anything our so-called 'elected' governments say. The point I am making is that the only way we will get out of the environmental bottleneck we have stumbled into is through some form of global social justice. It simply won't work when 15-20% of the planet's population controls >80% of the world's wealth; and that can be whittled down to an even smaller percentage when we factor in wealth disparities in the rich world. I am saying that ongoing policies have been constructed in order to ensure that this disparity is maintained in full knowledge that we'd need 4 more Earth-like planets if everyone consumed resources and produced waste at the rate of the average US citizen. This explains the points made by the likes of Butler, Kennan, Kissinger, Carrothers and co right up to the present day.
This is hardly rocket science; but it sure appears to be whenever I read the usual bilge about global socialist conspiracies and UN mandates etc. Our society is clearly unsustainable; none of the countries in the developed world can support their ecological footprints on the basis of resources contained within their own land masses. So how do we make up the deficit? By reaching beyond our own borders into other lands, mostly in the south. Once these countries aspire to have the same standard of living that we enjoy in the north, then we'll need 8 Earth-like planets to sustain humanity. So looting has long been high on the agenda of corporate/state planners of developed countries, but of course the real agendas are hidden from public view. They instead candy-coated with words like 'democracy promotion' and 'human rights' etc. ad nauseum when in reality these actually conflict with the real policies. Economists know full well that the current policies cannot be maintained forever; its just too bad that many of them bury their heads in the sand and hope for miracles.
" let’s see if you have any real arguments, or evidence, for the need to why “homogenisation” of temp data "
I think you a word, panties.
Given that, what on earth do you mean by "homogenisation of temp data"?
"and why those “adjustments” allways make the first half of the previous century colder and the second warmer."
They don't.
Pantie. You are such a boring fool.
Certainly we see demographic declines of species that are dramatic - yes. In North America, some once common birds have declined by >70% since the 1970s. That is a terrifying development. Is climate change a factor? In some declines certainly. But as I said, by the time we are counting up all of the official extinctions it will be too late.
Pentax
Now let's be very clear about this. This is an accusation of scientific misconduct aimed at NASA Goddard (GISS) and its recently retired director, Dr James Hansen.
It is false and libellous.
Pentax is either too stupid to read a graph or can read a graph but is sufficiently dishonest to repeat - for the fourth time - a lie demonstrably exposed by the graph.
Let's be clear about that too: Pentax is either a moron or a liar, or quite possibly both.
Here, yet again, is the evidence that Pentax either has not looked at or is lying to us about.
NOAA Global, HadCRUT4, GISTEMP comparision 1900 - present; annual means
Let's compare the evidence with Pentax's false claim:
Look at the graph. GISTEMP (red) and HadCRUT4 (blue) are in very close agreement for both halves of the C20th. NOAA (green) is cooler than either.
So either all three temperature reconstructions are being actively and co-operatively falsified by the teams responsible for them or Pentax's specific claim about GISTEMP is libellous and false. Not to mention a conspiracy theory meriting yet another tinfoil hat award.
I have lost count of how many of Pentax's incessantly repeated lies I have exposed on this thread alone, but this one is done.
Next lie please, Pentax.
To be more clear:
"NOAA (green) is cooler than either [GISTEMP or HadCRUT4 until the early 1960s and in exact agreement thereafter]."
woowoo:
"“and why those “adjustments” allways make the first half of the previous century colder and the second warmer.”
They don’t."
Actually, moron, they do. Or have you perhaps evidence for your claim that they don't?
"Given that, what on earth do you mean by “homogenisation of temp data”?"
Perhaps you should ask the chaps at gisspiss et al why homogenisation is necessary to old data.
jeffie:
"Certainly we see demographic declines of species that are dramatic – yes. In North America, some once common birds have declined by >70% since the 1970s"
And? Demographic declines (or inclines) is hardly unusual and obvious not something unique (or unprecedented) for the present. So what's your point? The question was, is there species that has not been seen 40, 30, 20 or even 10 years. Is there any “in the path” to be extinct, not migrated, supposed due to AGW? Due to AGW. Is there?
"That is a terrifying development."
Yes, of course. If you have a religious CAGW belief. For the rest of us with a more realistic world view it's the natural order of nature as it has been since the dawn of life on Earth. Species has allways come and gone. And will of course continue to do so as long there is life on earth.
"But as I said, by the time we are counting up all of the official extinctions it will be too late."
Ah, yes. And that's of course what you see when you are glaring into your crystal ball I suppose. Get a grip. If one claims that nature can't cope with the utterly modest rise in temperature of 0,7 deg C in hundred years (or what ever) for the last century, and with no rise at all the last 17 years, one truly must be a loon. I would suggest a meeting for you with the men in white coats to learn how to handle your anxiety.
I have just shown it to you for the fourth time. What the fuck is wrong with your brain?
Re your shite about homogenisation - you are simply demonstrating that you haven't got a clue. You need to find out how gridded surface temperature reconstructions actually work.
You are a buffoon, you are clueless and you are dishonest.
There's a kind of kamikaze quality to the mendacity on display here. It's as if, having gone so far, all restraints are cast off.
"Now let’s be very clear about this. This is an accusation of scientific misconduct aimed at NASA Goddard (GISS) and its recently retired director, Dr James Hansen."
Exactly! Finally you got something right. About time.
"So either all three temperature reconstructions are being actively and co-operatively falsified by the teams responsible for them or Pentax’s specific claim about GISTEMP is libellous and false"
Haha, nice, but futile try. And you certanely know that you are lying and/or are totally blinded by your religious belief. You ever heard of the story when original temp series data has been eaten by a dog? What was that? A real event or just somebody trying to hide data tampering?
You show no evidence. I showed the data that contradict your lies. Now you repeat the lies.
It's all you do. Lie, refuse to accept correction and refuse to back up or withdraw your lies.
What kind of moral pygmy does this make you?
I've had enough of this shit for one afternoon.
Now let’s be very clear about this. This is an accusation of scientific misconduct aimed at NASA Goddard (GISS) and its recently retired director, Dr James Hansen.”
Exactly! Finally you got something right. About time.
“So either all three temperature reconstructions are being actively and co-operatively falsified by the teams responsible for them or Pentax’s specific claim about GISTEMP is libellous and false”
Haha, nice, but futile try. And you certanely know that you are lying and/or are totally blinded by your religious belief. You ever heard of the story when original temp series data has been eaten by a dog? What was that? A real event or just somebody trying to hide data tampering?
Evidence, proof or strikethrough.
No more unsupported lies.
"“Now let’s be very clear about this. This is an accusation of scientific misconduct aimed at NASA Goddard (GISS) and its recently retired director, Dr James Hansen.”
Exactly!"
So you admit that you're making libelous accusations.
Naughty panties.
""They don’t.”
Actually, moron, they do"
Actually, dick cheese, they don't.
Remember: you said "all corrections".
All PantieZ knows about the subject comes from liars at his liar websites. He couldn't cite a single instance on pain of death, which is why he can only repeat the tropes he's been fed.
Myths and fairy stories are all he's got packed into his little head, and that's good enough for him.
Pantie loves Marc Morano and smears James Hansen.
I don't think I can stand much more of this comedy. And to think we try and debate this guy.
Incredible.
Yeah, that's really the part that makes my head hurt, too. I can have SOME understanding for people (temporarily) sucked in by Nova, Curry, even Watts or Monckton -- but Marc fucking Morano? Seriously?
Absolutely Stu. Morano is as slimy as they come. I remember him writing this wretched piece 12 years ago - Amazon.con he called it - in which he claimed that the tropical Amazon forests weren't under threat. The article was so utterly atrocious that it spawned several rejoinders, but it showed how much on the anti-environmental bandwagon Morano is. Climate change became his cause celebre later.
So jeffie, you can't name one single species that has gone extinct due to AGW the last 40, 30, 20 or 10 years? I'll be nice to you and will throw in 5 years as well. So, is there any plant or animal that has dissapered and that isn't anywhere to be found the last five years? I'm kind of cutting you some slack here, bozo.
"“”They don’t.”
"Remember: you said “all corrections”.
Ah, woowoo, moving golpoasts now? But of course, that's a common trade among alarmiztas.
But ok, I'll rephrase, virtually all corrections. Happy now. But that hardly changes the fact that ALL adjustments result in a steeper warming trend. That aside, tell me, why is that necessary if all unadjusted data would show warming? Tell me please, woowoo.
"““”They don’t.”
“Remember: you said “all corrections”.
Ah, woowoo, moving golpoasts now? "
Ah, smegma-breath, so you saying all corrections and me answering to what you said is me moving goalposts?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Panties, you're full of shit.
So I take it you admit that your earlier statement was wrong. Care to try one that's accurate?
"But ok, I’ll rephrase, virtually all corrections."
Nope, that's wrong too.
pentaxZ the clown, who does not tax his brain:
OK here are a few starters you tosser:
What Jeff Harvey reads and this one is a must if you are an honest broker.
Also:
Birds and Climate Change Ecological Disruption in Motion pdf from Audubon if you have not heard of Audubon I would not be at all surprised.
Climate change and phenological asynchrony check out 'symbiotic disruption' and the Golden Toad too.
If you don't realize this is happening then you need to get head out of seventh rock from the sun.
Another one for pentaxZero:
The Future of Biodiversity. Stuart L. Pimm,* Gareth J. Russell, John L. Gittleman,. Thomas M. Brooks..
Pentax
See #78.
If GISTEMP were being tampered with it would differ from other gridded surface temperature reconstructions and you would see it. A simple comparison shows that GISTEMP is in good agreement with other gridded surface temperature reconstructions so either they are all bent or you libelled GISS and Hansen.
Are you seriously unable to follow the logic behind what I have shown you here? Or is this more of your endless dishonesty?
Looks like I set off a concussion grenade in Barney's head with my comment at #22...well worth it. Here, have an aspirin.
Funding The Millennium Development Goals:
1. “How can we find an extra US$ 50 billion for development funding? Our focus is on flows of resources from high-income to developing countries"
2. "To give a concrete illustration, suppose that the participating governments agree that each country should pay a tax related to national carbon emissions."
3. "However, this needs to be moderated to take account of the unequal distribution of world income — the very reason for our current interest in the tax".
4. "Considerations of global justice point to poor countries bearing less of the cost burden, and may justify the tax being levied only on high-income or middle-income countries."
5. "We are presupposing that the tax is indeed levied on individuals and firms in the form of a carbon levy (or other environmental tax base). Suppose, however, that we have subsidiarity, where the burden on national governments is determined by their carbon emissions but the national governments are free to decide how to raise the revenue. As noted above, they may, for political or other reasons, choose another tax base.”
http://www.unescap.org/tid/mtg/egmrti_ref272.pdf
“The revenue potential appears large – a fuel-consumption tax on CO2 emissions could by itself finance the MDGs. … It would require that the United States opt for it, however; 20 per cent of the tax yield would originate there alone.”
"Given the MDG deadline, however, little realistic chance exists that a global carbon tax could contribute in time"
http://books.google.com/books?id=_XvLvuRd4-8C
Note - Does that last line ring familiar? We are running out of time, we need to act now, urgent action is required etc.. No worry, the SDG's will kick in when the MDG's deadline is up.
Of course, we can be sure that there's no connection between the U.N's MDG's and that unbiased, non political, faction of the U.N....the IPCC, especially from agenda lacking IPCC members that represent their poor countries. Right?
Let's look at Saleemul Huq,..... "a lead author of the chapter on Adaptation and Sustainable Development in the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and was one of the coordinating lead authors of ‘Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation’ in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007)"
Saleemul tells us that..."the actions required to meet the MDGs were to be taken by the poorer developing world (with the rich world providing financial assistance)"
http://archive.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=267049
But we already knew that. Please continue Mr. IPCC member...
"In future, therefore, when affected countries demand assistance from the rich countries of the world in helping address climate-related disasters such as floods, it will not be for a request for charity but for compensation, appealing to their moral responsibility, if not their legal liability, to make good the damage and destruction for which their activities have, directly or indirectly, been partially responsible"
http://www.scidev.net/global/climate-change/editorials/bangladesh-flood…
Wow. Could it be that the IPCC is a tool of the U.N. used to justify the needed financing of the MDG's, and later the SDG's..... with many members having similar ideologies with a taste for global justice through wealth redistribution?
And could it be that Deltoid is a tool used by ideological tools of the same ilk...only their dishonesty on this subject, along with anger issues and some cognitive disorders, limits their forum to that of a washed up blog with Barney as their self appointed deputy?
Oh sod off Betty. It's all been explained to you, over and over again. We know you hate taxes and we know you don't give a shit about the poor and you hate the very idea of the MDGs and we don't fucking care.
If your paranoia has birthed a conspiracy theory whereby all the world's scientists are lying to implement wealth distribution and world governance by the UN, then fine. Believe whatever noxious fantasies you like. It makes no difference to the reality in which the UN operates, in which taxes are levied, and in which some decent human beings try to help others because they wish to invest in the future of the species rather than fill their fucking boots.
This is aimed at Teh Stupid and Paranoid Nutters like you, Betty, so please take it personally.
You are still dodging the question about your conduct on this thread. Why?
Why do you not censure Pentax for making a series of false claims and then refusing – repeatedly – to back them up when requested to do so?
This suggests that you endorse what he has done, which to put no too fine a point on it is lying.
Can you explain to us why you did this? Do you endorse lying? If not, why do you remain silent?
So let me see Birch bark, an IPCC official says this:
which a obfuscating hound of the GWPF spins as:
See the difference or are you on mind altering substances too?
It is you having a shit-storm in the brain.
Get back up your tree.
Again, and this is very, very important -- the regulars here are quick and ruthless to point out inaccuracies in statements of people they agree with. Amongst deniers, not even the openly ludicrous claptrap evokes a twinge.
No, really.
Scroll back.
Go back to previous months.
Find the "why are you defending X" type comments.
Go on, I'll wait.
More on that distribution of world resources here the need is explained:
Major share of economic and human burden of weather catastrophes on developing countries.
And a heads up for pentyz, seeing as we have turned a page, to add to my #97 and 98 on page 5.
One of the most important links at 'What Jeff Harvey reads' is this one:
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment but do also visit this page:
Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2013.
Jeff Harvey @ # 75 previous page:
"The point I am making is that the only way we will get out of the environmental bottleneck we have stumbled into is through some form of global social justice."
What is your definition of 'some form of global justice'?
How would that be operated and who or what would be operating it?
And:
"So looting has long been high on the agenda of corporate/state planners of developed countries, but of course the real agendas are hidden from public view. They instead candy-coated with words like ‘democracy promotion’ and ‘human rights’ etc. ad nauseum when in reality these actually conflict with the real policies."
While I don't disagree that social policies conflict with reality, why would overlaying it all with ever more conflicting social policies be an improvement?
This still presents as an unrealistic and a naïve belief in some type of non specific, trustworthy but benevolent global dictatorship.
Democracy is not perfect Jeff Harvey, but neither is it an abject failure with no checks and balances.
This still presents as an unrealistic and a naïve belief in some type of non specific, trustworthy but benevolent global dictatorship.
Er why not an agreement between sovereign nations? Like what happens in countless international treaties.
@ # 7
There are indeed countless international treaties between sovereign nations, they cover such things as human rights, and numerous environmental objectives, but, Jeff Harvey appears to be arguing that it is not working and there is another hidden agenda:
“So looting has long been high on the agenda of corporate/state planners of developed countries, but of course the real agendas are hidden from public view. They instead candy-coated with words like ‘democracy promotion’ and ‘human rights’ etc. ad nauseum when in reality these actually conflict with the real policies.”
lyingel, who claims that changes don't occour? Reading comprehension difficulties? Just asking, moron.
Unbelievable, deltoid morons have a stronger belief in the AGW hypothesis than the Phelps family has in the fucking bible.
"Again, and this is very, very important — the regulars here are quick and ruthless to point out inaccuracies in statements of people they agree with."
Hahahahaha...among other examples I do remember a hand pushing a box...and there wasn't much of corrections from peers despite the deltoidians arguments being totally and utterly wrong. As we say up here in the north, don't throw rocks in a glass house. Moron.
It's more than just environment and human rights: a large number are actually about trade and law. Here's a link to just the UN ones. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ParticipationStatus.aspx
Actually I believe that JH is right: do you really believe that the Gulf Wars had nothing to do with protecting oil extraction by the USA?
@ # 12
a)Yes of course there are others and;
b)No I don't believe that it had nothing to do with protecting oil extraction.
What did you see that caused you to ask such an incredulous question?
"do you really believe that the Gulf Wars had nothing to do with protecting oil extraction by the USA?"
Then you must also remember Jonarse's half-baked grasp of simple mechanics and quarter-baked grasp of English.
Moral: Don't try to be a smartarse in a foreign language.
And as all of it was waaaay, way over your pointy little head PantieZ, all you can do is cheer your team colours, just as with everything else you believe to be true but isn't.
Pentax
AGW is a consequence of well-established physics. No act faith is required. The evidence is there, unlike the Bible. Here you argue from false equivalence, which is a logical fallacy.
You have an unsupported belief system that is demonstrably in conflict with the scientific evidence (eg your #10). You are right there with the Bible-bashers. This is why you are forced to lie and cling to your lies while the rest of us simply reference the scientific literature.
Amid this shitstorm of cognitive dissonance you have set yourself up as certain that the experts are wrong without ever having understood what it is that they have discovered about the fundamentals of physical climatology. This is a faith-based delusion of grandeur totteringly founded on arguments from ignorance and from incredulity, which are both logical fallacies.
No.
This has been another edition of short answers to deeply stupid questions ...
... predicated on conspiracy theories that the theorist tries to disown by pretending that someone lampooning his theorising is actually advocating for it.
Now, let's see, sceptics are sponsored by Big Oil. Correct?
http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2013/general-information/thank-you-to-our-sp…
Hm, somebody is lying. Wonder who that is?
Actually Stu2, I am not arguing that its hidden - I stand corrected. Its actually brazenly open - its just that our media, being part of the problem, tend to gloss over it and focus on propagandizing the truth.
As for 'treaties', they are ignored by the powerful nations when they conflict with the primary agendas. Look at the UN Charter - shat all over in leading up to the Iraq war. It should also be easy to see that the rich countries indeed do loot resources from the south - as detailed by economists like Samir Amin, Patrick Bond, Tom Athanasiou and historians like Greg Grandin. Again, ignored by the mainstream.
Stu2, you also hold the narrow belief that we live in healthy albeit flawed democracies. If you truly believe that, then yI might as wall be speaking to a wall. Plutocracy or meritocracy yes, democracy, no. The ruling elites loathe democracy because it puts power into the hands of ordinary people. That's why our democracies are stage-managed, ensuring power remains bottom up. Read up on Walter Lippmann, Edward Bernays and the history of propaganda and you'll see how absurd the discussion of democracy is. If our countries were as remotely democratic as, say, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador etc, then I'd think change was really afoot. But, as I said, our western democracies are 'stage-managed' - a facade, aimed to placate but ensuring that the top 1% control the wealth and power. Thats reality.
I mean top down..... wrote this in a rush.
"Now, let’s see, sceptics are sponsored by Big Oil."
Now lets see, deniers are sponsored by Big Oil.
Heartland Institute.
McIntyre.
Pat Michaels.
Yup, this is demonstrated true.
"Hm, somebody is lying a naïf who's never heard of PR. Wonder who that is"?
Fixed that for you PantieZ. And the answer is you are.
Big Energy rather than Big Oil pays for the creation of the misinformation narrative karaoked by fuckwits like you, Pentax.
All this is exhaustively documented and considered a matter of fact by the better-informed.
You are a tool, Pentax. A muppet puppet. Other people write your lines and wind you up and set you going. A normal person with some vestige of self-respect would burn with anger to be used like this but you are a lackey, so you revel in it.
Some mood music.
pentaxZ (Z for asleep perhaps):
Changes! Effing changes! You were on about and I quote:
in answer to which I provided sources to inform you on how ecologies are being disrupted, including by APGW, and species sent extinct.
The fact that you replied so quickly tells me you didn't bother to read much at all. The comprehension failure is with you as is dishonesty.
Here, go find a copy of this:
Driven to Extinction: The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity to disabuse yourself and quit abusing others with your blatantly ignorant anti-social behaviour.
Pentax you ninny, that is what is called the ":good cop, bad cop" strategy.
Its really simple: a polluting industry funds an environmental group (e.g. and NGO). They then give many times as much money to think tanks and other bodies trying to eviscerate regulations protecting the environment. It works like this: by funding the environmental NGO, they can (1) paste that up on their website to indicate that they support environmental issues; (2) at the same time, reduce or even eliminate that possibility that the group they are funding will criticize their companies practices, because the NGO needs the funding and will be scared that this source of funding will be stopped.
The polluting industry can then pursue its interests to reduce regulations by investing much more money in bodies and organizations, such as think tanks, that lobby Congress with much more influence than the NGOs (for one thing, they have much more money at their disposal).
So Pantie's point, as usual, is nonsense.
WORTH REPEATING
Funding The Millennium Development Goals:
1. “How can we find an extra US$ 50 billion for development funding? Our focus is on flows of resources from high-income to developing countries”
2. “To give a concrete illustration, suppose that the participating governments agree that each country should pay a tax related to national carbon emissions.”
3. “However, this needs to be moderated to take account of the unequal distribution of world income — the very reason for our current interest in the tax”.
4. “Considerations of global justice point to poor countries bearing less of the cost burden, and may justify the tax being levied only on high-income or middle-income countries.”
5. “We are presupposing that the tax is indeed levied on individuals and firms in the form of a carbon levy (or other environmental tax base). Suppose, however, that we have subsidiarity, where the burden on national governments is determined by their carbon emissions but the national governments are free to decide how to raise the revenue. As noted above, they may, for political or other reasons, choose another tax base.”
http://www.unescap.org/tid/mtg/egmrti_ref272.pdf
“The revenue potential appears large – a fuel-consumption tax on CO2 emissions could by itself finance the MDGs. … It would require that the United States opt for it, however; 20 per cent of the tax yield would originate there alone.”
“Given the MDG deadline, however, little realistic chance exists that a global carbon tax could contribute in time”
http://books.google.com/books?id=_XvLvuRd4-8C
Note – Does that last line ring familiar? We are running out of time, we need to act now, urgent action is required etc.. No worry, the SDG’s will kick in when the MDG’s deadline is up.
Of course, we can be sure that there’s no connection between the U.N’s MDG’s and that unbiased, non political, faction of the U.N….the IPCC, especially from agenda lacking IPCC members that represent their poor countries. Right?
Let’s look at Saleemul Huq,….. “a lead author of the chapter on Adaptation and Sustainable Development in the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and was one of the coordinating lead authors of ‘Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation’ in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007)”
Saleemul tells us that…”the actions required to meet the MDGs were to be taken by the poorer developing world (with the rich world providing financial assistance)”
http://archive.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=267049
But we already knew that. Please continue Mr. IPCC member…
“In future, therefore, when affected countries demand assistance from the rich countries of the world in helping address climate-related disasters such as floods, it will not be for a request for charity but for compensation, appealing to their moral responsibility, if not their legal liability, to make good the damage and destruction for which their activities have, directly or indirectly, been partially responsible”
http://www.scidev.net/global/climate-change/editorials/bangladesh-flood…
Wow. Could it be that the IPCC is a tool of the U.N. used to justify the needed financing of the MDG’s, and later the SDG’s….. with many members having similar ideologies with a taste for global justice through wealth redistribution?
And could it be that Deltoid is a tool used by ideological tools of the same ilk…only their dishonesty on this subject, along with anger issues and some cognitive disorders, limits their forum to that of a washed up blog with Barney as their self appointed deputy?
NEXT.
Haven't you learned yet that the answer to all rhetorical questions in headlines or articles or whatever is 'no', Betty?
Otherwise they'd make statements and wouldn't pussyfoot around asking the reader rhetorical questions.
“How can we find an extra US$ 50 billion for development funding?"
This is a pittance, if we see how much money the US taxpayer spent bailing out the banks (thus far over 4 trillion dollars) and how much they spend on the military then 50 billion dollars is a drop of water in a large bucket.
So, first of all, stop using the money to kill people (through the military industrial complex). There's a start. Second, stop stealing their resources, and encourage internal development. The developed world has long tried to undermine democratic and nationalist movements which attempt to break free of the neoliberal model and use their own resources to benefit their own people (see works by Bond - "Looting Africa: The Economics of Exploitation" and Grandin, "Empire's Workshop"). Read any declassified planning documents and this becomes patently obvious. Third, re-conform democracy from the bottom up. This is especially true of our own so-called 'democracies', which are in reality plutocracies. James Madison once famously said that the US 'should be run by a better set of men' meaning the rich. The reason is simple: they know how to ensure that policies enabling them to retain their wealth will also give them control of power. PR guru Walter Lippmann echoed this point a century later. In his view, the general public were a bewildered herd whose consent needed to be 'manufactured' by those wielding wealth and power through propaganda.
Betty writes as is the disproportionate distribution of wealth and power in the world is somehow in the natural order. In doing so, he fails to explain why its OK for 15% of the planet's population to control 80% of its wealth, and why its also OK for the developed world to maintain large ecological deficits (e.g. live unsustainably) on the backs of the resources we need from the south.
“How can we find an extra US$ 50 billion for development funding?”
Easy.
Withdraw forces from foreign interference and cut back all NSA activities and you'll safe that in a couple of years.
"WORTH REPEATING"
Not really, no.
$50 billion a year divided by the population of the "first world" is less than $50 per person per year say 15 cents per day. That's what you're whinging about?
More perspective on $50bln:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0_TtYQEDTo
*Worth repeating*
Oh sod off Betty. It’s all been explained to you, over and over again. We know you hate taxes and we know you don’t give a shit about the poor and you hate the very idea of the MDGs and we don’t fucking care.
If your paranoia has birthed a conspiracy theory whereby all the world’s scientists are lying to implement wealth distribution and world governance by the UN, then fine. Believe whatever noxious fantasies you like. It makes no difference to the reality in which the UN operates, in which taxes are levied, and in which some decent human beings try to help others because they wish to invest in the future of the species rather than fill their fucking boots.
* * *
As Jeff points out, it's a fucking pittance. If Betty bothered to understand the quotes he mines, he might have noticed this for himself:
#32
Turblocke
That's right. Betty-who-hates-taxes refuses to countenance the MDGs because it might cost him a few cents a day. As I and others have observed, he is sociopathic vermin.
Since we're into repeats and re-runs, here's a quick reminder of what the UN Millennium Development Goals are:
1/. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2/. Achieve universal primary education
3/. Promote gender equality and empower women
4/. Reduce child mortality
5/. Improve maternal health
6/. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7/. Ensure environmental sustainability
8/. Global partnership for development
This is what Betty & co. do not want because they are too selfish to agree that these goals are worth funding and too myopic to understand that fostering development will increase the chances of future global prosperity for all.
But he gets to keep his few extra cents a day. "Scum" just doesn't begin to express it, really.
Those who deign to fly the "don't tread on me" flag are, on average, the ones that definitely should be.
A billion here, a few hundred billion there. What's hundreds of billions of dollars amongst evil doers?
"The eighth MDG recognises that developing countries will need a supportive international environment to have the best chances of success. This includes more generous development aid, especially for the poorest countries."
"Some attempts have been made to quantify the volume of external assistance required to meet different MDG's. Estimates as to the amount of resources needed annually to control malaria and tuberculosis stand at over US$10 billion. US$25 billion and US$36 billion is required annually for HIV/AIDS and education respectively. To eradicate hunger requires an additional US$30 billion per annum. 3 While these estimates are subject to a high degree of uncertainty, it is clear that the amounts provided annually in Official Development Assistance (ODA) are far from sufficient to meet the MDGs and other international development goals; in
2010, ODA from the OECD DAC members reached US$128 billion of which US$46 billion was allocated to sub-Saharan Africa, the region furthest off-track towards the MDGs"
"The revenues raised are allocated to international development. Proposals for a financial transactions tax and carbon taxes are also examples which fit into this category."
"These taxes could help to reduce carbon emissions as well as generate a sizeable flow of revenues. The UN Secretary-General’s High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing reported that “if a carbon tax were imposed on all energy-related CO2 emissions in the “OECD+” countries, it would raise in the order of US$10 billion in 2020 for every U.S. dollar of tax per ton of emissions.” A Swiss Government proposal for a global carbon tax would involve every country imposing a base levy of US$2 per tonne on all carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use with an exemption on the first 1.5 tons of emissions per capita.
This initiative would raise an estimated US$48 billion per year (United Nations 2009). The World Bank and IMF have recently proposed global carbon taxes on aviation and ship fuels in developed economies to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This could raise around US$250 billion in taxes in 2020"
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Poverty%20Reduction/Develo…
But how do we justify taxing carbon? And how do we make it so the rich nations pay the carbon tax and the poor nations receive it?
We need some sort of official organization that is the sole authority, a world authority if you will, that we can point to and say....."Look! The debate is over! This group of experts, made up of some scientists and other people ̶l̶o̶b̶b̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ representing their countries, but all with the same ideological mindset, have proven beyond any doubt, that hypothetical future catastrophic scenarios will most likely definitely occur if the rich don't pay what are they are morally obligated to pay!"
But where can we find such an organization?
Don't waggle your brain Betty. Your expertise in international negotiations won't be required.
That's right, it's all a communist/UN conspiracy to raise taxes in the fucking Bible Belt. It's funny. I thought I couldn't dislike Betty more that I already did, but you live and learn.
Betty, show us the bit where the UN says that the development aid budget is unlimited, never to be capped. I think you missed that part out and you would need it for concern trolling the meme that this will cost the developed economies "too much" money.
But Betty hates taxes, so I suppose any tax is too much. And fuck 'em, eh, Betty? Let 'em starve and die of filthy foreign diseases. You keep your nickels warm in your little fists.
Let's keep the list of things Betty doesn't want to happen front and centre while we are discussing Betty's reluctance to contemplate development aid for this stuff:
1/. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2/. Achieve universal primary education
3/. Promote gender equality and empower women
4/. Reduce child mortality
5/. Improve maternal health
6/. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7/. Ensure environmental sustainability
8/. Global partnership for development
9) Clean up the problems they've caused.
10) Avoid continuing to do the dumb shit stuff again.
Underneath that pile of conspiracy theories, tinfoil and flags over in the corner there.
I'm not entirely satisfied that Betty comprehends that should MDG already have been accomplished and his big TV given a new home with an appreciative Botswanan village, that the IPCC would still be required to inform us of the impacts of CO2 on global climate, and to co-ordinate action to deal with it.
Are you trying to sound line George Bush II, or just brain-damaged? "Evil doers"? You cannot possibly be serious.
This article, from the New Left Project, hits the proverbial nail on the head:
http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/aid_in_re…
The final sentences are the clincher: "Of course, rich country governments will never commit to these reforms. But that is because – behind the false rhetoric of aid – they have never been seriously interested in eradicating poverty".
Good point Stu. Perhaps Betty is doing a Poe.
Evil doers?
1/. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2/. Achieve universal primary education
3/. Promote gender equality and empower women
4/. Reduce child mortality
5/. Improve maternal health
6/. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7/. Ensure environmental sustainability
8/. Global partnership for development
Oh, that's some nasty Evil stuff alright. Thank goodness for the unsleeping eye of the American Right protecting us from Evil.
My favorite part is how Bill Gates is all evil now, working with the UN to eradicate diseases and all.
Why is Betty so against eradicating poverty but willing to subsidise coal burning?
See Table 2 http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
Coal fired electricity generation causes gross damage more than twice its value to the economy roughly $50 billion/year
But, Turbo, erm, jobs?
... and profit (using the current limited accounting model).
From Jeff's #45 link:
What do you mean? I've CEO Personal Goals for the year, as published, and none of it went past the next 11 months.
@BBD: if you really want to research a stab-yourself-in-the-neck-there-is-no hope type thing, go look up GE and Exxon's tax returns for the past few years.
Also (sorry for dating myself), this was funny back then... not so funny now:
http://stopthecap.com/2012/08/23/were-the-phone-company-we-dont-care-we…
"A billion here, a few hundred billion there. What’s hundreds of billions of dollars amongst evil doers?"
"Evil doers?"
Try to follow along Barney. Wow, Turdo and Stu were suggesting what a pittance $50bln is for rich nations ...of course, much more is needed than that...but what's a hundred biilion here or there for rich nations?
The "evil doers" are the rich nations you putz. The fact that I have explain what you already know is beyond sad.
Look at this paragraph from the article Hardley's linked at #45:
"We need rich countries to transfer money to poor countries, to be sure, and in much greater quantities than they presently do. But these transfers should not be considered charity; they should be considered a form of justice. Franz Fanon puts it best: “Colonialism and imperialism have not settled their debt to us once they have withdrawn from our territories. The wealth of the imperialist nations is also our wealth. Europe is literally the creation of the Third World. The riches which are choking it are those plundered from the underdeveloped peoples. So we will not accept aid for the underdeveloped countries as ‘charity’. Such aid must be considered the final stage of a dual consciousness – the consciousness of the colonised that it is their due, and the consciousness of the capitalist powers that effectively they must pay up.”
Don't those rich nations sound evil to you Barney?
Now, let's compare it to this paragraph from a leading IPCC member...Saleemul Huq:
“In future, therefore, when affected countries demand assistance from the rich countries of the world in helping address climate-related disasters such as floods, it will not be for a request for charity but for compensation, appealing to their moral responsibility, if not their legal liability, to make good the damage and destruction for which their activities have, directly or indirectly, been partially responsible” (repeated from #27)
From the same mold. But this is no surprise to you because you and Hardley et al. could have stated the same thing.....because that is what this is really all about, the redistribution of the worlds wealth....compensation that is due, not for faux futuristic catastrophic scenarios, but for plundering the poor.
It just really bothers you that I know it, and that I know that when it comes down to it, you are nothing more than Deltoid's resident deputy bullshitter...
Uh ... no.
That's just what you cranks and your crackpot enablers have convinced yourselves that's what "this is really all about". Because you're insane and won't understand the evidence.
Don’t those rich nations sound evil to you Barney?
Of course not Betty! They were just, um... spreading democracy!
IF ONLY THERE WERE A MACHINE ON THE INTERWEBS THAT COULD EDUCATE US ON THIS.
Warning: depressing links ahead. Intentionally hobbled to not bother Tim with modding.
h_ttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/belgium-revisits-the-scene-of-i…
h_ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide
Aaaahh, whatever. That's just a sampling from the top of my head... the Belgians and the Germans. The Dutch, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the French and the British did all of that and more.
I'd put up links if I had any confidence whatsoever you'd actually read them.
So yes, us westerners f*cked over at least 3 continents for a good 100-300 years. We essentially committed genocide on several cultures. Now we are extracting their natural resources with 0% going to the actual population. Go look up what is happening in Equador, for starters... and think about why some of these countries kick out all foreigners.
Corporations don't like this. Why do you think Hugo Chavez was made out to be an axis-of-eeebul type villain?
This, amongst many, many, many, many other reasons, is why you are a what-the-hell level moron, Betula. You're waaaaay past the "were you dropped on the head as a child?" point. You are into severe-and-multiple stroke and/or twenty-year eight-ball-a-day meth habit loopy.
Jeff Harvey @ #18 & 19 & #29 & 45.
From previous postings you were asked 2 simple questions @ # 6 here:
1) What is your definition of ‘some form of global justice’?
How would that be operated and who or what would be operating it? and here:
2) While I don’t disagree that social policies conflict with reality, why would overlaying it all with ever more conflicting social policies be an improvement?
You seem to be very clear and strident about what is wrong with the world but with some confusing advice about when we should and shouldn't listen to "mainstream" here:
"as detailed by economists like Samir Amin, Patrick Bond, Tom Athanasiou and historians like Greg Grandin. Again, ignored by the mainstream."
From what I can gather from your comments, you believe we should trust mainstream science, which appears to be those scientists appointed by academia and government and be wary of what you call outliers who have chosen other career paths, yet we need to view those who work in academia and government as mainstream economists and political/social scientists/academics as suspect and listen to the outliers in those fields?
Maybe you didn't mean to say it that way ?
But leaving that aside; it does appear that many of the commenters here believe in some type of trustworthy and fair global benevolent dictatorship.
I do note however that you don't appear to be as enamoured as others with the structure and operations of the UN.
I also note that you appear to have a distaste for libertarian policies and US and European style democracies.
So it brings me back full circle:
What is the political/social mechanism that you would advocate could deliver real outcomes rather than what you have highly criticised as mostly propaganda and other (sort of not hidden) agendas?
As commented earlier, the point of contention seems to be the mechanism that could be used to achieve what most people would agree are noble MDGs.
"I also note that you appear to have a distaste for libertarian policies and US and European style democracies"
Its not just distaste: its more like revulsion, because we don't live in true democracies but in plutocracies. Or, if you prefer, 'managed democracies' - meaning managed from the top down. If you think the US system is truly 'democratic' then I don't know the exact basal point of your knowledge in which to commence the discussion. Pretty well across the board if one aspires to run for president or prime minister in the west they have to be extremely affluent. Or, to be less polite, filthy rich. This situation is particularly apparent in the US, where billions of dollars are spent by corporations lobbying members of Congress or pouring into election coffers. Obama received 1.2 billion dollars of corporate donations for his 2008 election - if he'd represented even a minor threat to the ruling elites he wouldn't have been allowed within miles of the White House. This is a far cry from countries in South America, where someone can come from the slums to attain office.
Call if what you like, but if we are to deal with burgeoning environmental and social problems then we have to deal with the vast chasms in wealth distribution and stop the wanton plunder of resources and capital from the south by the wealthy nations of the north. Our wealth is largely illusory - without the Washington Consensus and other political machinations firmly in place that facilitate the disproportionate flow of wealth from the poor to the rich then our nations would not be able to foster and maintain the massive ecological deficits that we do.
The solutions are staring us in the face, but the implications are profound. We just do not want to deal with them.
Stu @ 57.
You say it perfectly. Many thanks for this. I cannot express it better than that.
Perhaps BBD and ianam have inadvertently hand waved about “deliberative democracy” rather than the posted terms: “global governance” or “deliberative global governance”?</i.
You stupid fucking dishonest sack of shit ... I provided a quote from a paper on deliberative global governance -- the title is "Deliberation and Global Governance: Liberal, Cosmopolitan and Critical perspectives " -- which makes it clear that deliberative global governance is a form of democracy, it is not a "benevolent dictatorship". The citation proves that you're a stupid fucking imbecile and liar and conspiracy monger and evil and pathetic and worse than the worst thing I've ever scraped off the bottom of my shoe. There is nothing else to be said to or about you.
Perhaps BBD and ianam have inadvertently hand waved about “deliberative democracy” rather than the posted terms: “global governance” or “deliberative global governance”?.
You stupid fucking dishonest sack of shit … I provided a quote from a paper on deliberative global governance — the title is "Deliberation and Global Governance: Liberal, Cosmopolitan and Critical perspectives " — which makes it clear that deliberative global governance is a form of democracy, it is not a "benevolent dictatorship". The citation proves that you're a stupid fucking imbecile and liar and conspiracy monger and evil and pathetic and worse than the worst thing I've ever scraped off the bottom of my shoe. There is nothing else to be said to or about you.
Yup. What Ian said. Sod off, Betty.
We've finished with you now.
If by this you mean self-serving lies and the subversion of democracy by vested interest, then yes.
That was to Stu2 ... As for the thing called "Betula", I had previously concluded that it's absurd for a human to converse with an ebola virus.
Adding to that Stu, if you don't mind, history is not Betty's strong point either it would seem.
Herein is a good run-down of what happened in Africa during the nineteenth century:
The Scramble For Africa and when you have done with that try this one:
Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World.
I once had an Anglo-Indian lady friend who left me in no doubt as to how they felt about the Raj.
And that is only two continents. Delve into Iberian empire histories for more and then there is Australia and its treatment of indigenous populations both on the continent and overseas in Indonesia (John Pilger is a useful source for some of the latter). Then there is the European treatment of the native North Americans and so on and so on and....
Education has failed, particularly for the home-schooled thus usually blinkered from the beginning. Art Robinson's (Oregon) protégés being classic examples.
Education should be for life and a thirst for knowledge, especially that which may cause conflict with pre-conceived ideology, a must for a healthy society in the future.
Why do you think the PTB are so keen to narrow and debase the curriculum in the UK and make it harder for the populace at large to become balanced all round thinkers and thus see through their wicked legislation tricks?
It is notable that Jeremy Hunt was prevented by law in his schemes to close hospitals and thus has added a clause to an otherwise innocuous seeming bill that will change the law in this area and give him a free hand. Sneaky blighter isn't he? As are his buddies when it comes to that so called lobbying bill.
Why do I mention these latter in this context, it is because now the general populations of what are termed 'developed nations' will become subject to the horrors that occurred in foreign lands over the centuries, This as land is degraded by resource extraction and crops and livestock pay the price with those that depend upon same discovering that food, water and shelter are unattainable.
Alarmism, no certainly not if you are an informed individually with the capacity to comprehend what is really happening in the world today and not distracted by fancy toys and celebrity tittle-tattle.
And, as a marker for the ecological degradation that is taking place and going to bite all of us in the bum at some stage there is this mad-cap Tolkienesque development proposal:
Lend Lease, of Australia, coal export facility and the GBR.
Maybe Betty is looking forward to living in a version of Mordor, I am not.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2013/12/dark-deep-demented-green/
"The Sierra Club, America's grass roots environmental group, from 2007 to 2010 took $25m in donations from gas companies,..."
Sierra Club....that's you eh, ianam ?
Sorry, did you just say something, spots? I wasn't listening.
" We essentially committed genocide on several cultures. Now we are extracting their natural resources with 0% going to the actual population. "
Do you know what's "funny" about this?
When countries decide they've had enough and wish to nationalise the raw production industries (e.g. Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq), they are invaded, attacked or painted as some sort of "axis of evil" by a country (the USA) that fought back against an empire owner that wished to take from the resources of their country and give nothing back without strings to pay for them.
When they did it, it was "the birth of True Democracy". And their attacks against the "lawful" owners was a "Struggle For Freedom".
When Cuba did it, it was "the Red Menace Taking Over The World". And their attempts to rid the influence "International Terrorism".
Funny, innit.
"" …..because that is what this is really all about,"
Uh … no."
Actually, it IS what it's all about. It's why panties, Stu-pid, Spots, Joan, Betty, et al, are so funamentalist-nutjob insanely against ANYTHING supporting the fact of AGW: because they are CONVINCED *beyond any possibility of accepting error* that "this is what it's all about".
Nothing that could be said, shown or explained can EVER convince them that this is all just a way to take their money/guns/women. It's the same redneck "the niggas are takin' ovah" insanity that has led to the redneck party OFFICIALLY claiming their SOLE GOAL was to ensure Obama (aka "the nigga in the whitehouse, but we're not racist, just protectin' our wimin an guns and money, THEY'RE the racists! They hate us becuz we white!").
Reality, if it countermands this view of reality, must be a fake. The evidence for it, if found wrong, must REALLY be right, only the NWO is making shit up for it to appear wrong.
So in a way, betty is right: this IS what they ABSOLUTELY AND WITH ALL RELIGIOUS FERVOUR believe to be true.
And, like all fundamentalist religious beliefs, the fact of believing it and not changing your mind is proof of its truth (see Eric Hovind for an example).
Stu @ 57... "Why do you think Hugo Chavez was made out to be an axis-of-eeebul type villain?"
Because he did such a great job running Venezuela of course!
"This report documents how the accumulation of power in the executive and the erosion of human rights protections have allowed the Chávez government to intimidate, censor, and prosecute critics"
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/07/17/tightening-grip-0
Hey Deputy Barney, he sounds like you!
"For years, President Chávez and his followers have been building a system in which the government has free rein to threaten and punish Venezuelans who interfere with their political agenda"
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/17/venezuela-concentration-and-abuse-po…
Hey Barney, want to watch a beating today?
At least Chavez left the people with something to cheer about...
"This tense, relentlessly gray capital embodies many of Venezuela's problems, with crumbling apartment towers and food lines often sharing the same sidewalk with cheering crowds eager to greet their departed Comandante"
"Economists say government-imposed price controls designed to dampen inflation topping 20 percent have made it impossible for store owners to sell basic foods at a profit, sparking widespread shortages"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/venezuela-after-chavez-poverty…
THE LEGACY:
"The most positive legacy that Chavez has is that he put his finger on a legitimate grievance that many Venezuelans have: social injustice"
" but his appetite for power and disdain for institutions has made it unsuccessful,"
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/world/americas/venezuela-chavez-legacy/in…
"Venezuela’s state run oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), was essentially destroyed by the Chavez regime. This to an oil company that generated over 90 percent of the country’s foreign exchange earnings, while providing jobs to around 100,000 employees. Under Chavez’s lengthy tenure, deliberate indifference, corruption and considerable incompetence led to an apparent US$50-plus billion in financial debt to PDVSA"
"The Chavez family reportedly owns 17 country estates, totalling more than 100,000 acres, in addition to liquid assets of US$550 million (£360 million) stored in various international banks, this according to the Venezuelan news website Noticias Centro. “While ordinary Venezuelans suffer growing food shortages and 23 percent inflation, the Chavez family trades in US dollars that now fetch four times the official bank rate on the black market,” states the British daily The Telegraph"
http://www.mexidata.info/id3727.html
VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
Stu @57...
"So yes, us westerners f*cked over at least 3 continents for a good 100-300 years. We essentially committed genocide on several cultures"
I here I was thinking this was about the Polar Bears disappearing because I own a toaster...
Barney at # 63: "Yup. What Ian said. Sod off, Betty. We’ve finished with you now"
iaam at # 65: "That was to Stu2"
Like I said at #55 Barney.....try to follow along.
Betula has me splitting my sides here... but what does one expect from a guy whose views appear to depend totally and utterly on information gleaned form inside the system?
HRW? That bunch of US cronies?
I wouldn't touch a scintilla of anything they say....
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/14/the-bias-of-human-rights-watch/
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5963
http://links.org.au/node/656
Essentially, Batty is spewing out the usual bile about Chavez from the corporate media. Just as has been explained numerous times, of course our media loathe nationalist governments who don't fulfill their service functions to western investors.
CNN and HRW... poor old Batty. This is the best he can do.
Gotta keep shaking my head. Ya gotta also love Amnesty International which described the killing of civilians by the US using Drones as 'the arbitrary deprivation of life'. Orwell wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry.
Why not call it what it is.... bloody murder... instead of the sugar coating? But of course, in the world of HRW and AI, 'our side' makes mistakes and does naughty things, but no more, whereas for officially designated enemies the gloves come off and anything goes.
Again, Batty is a lightweight as far as I am concerned.
"“The Sierra Club, America’s grass roots environmental group, from 2007 to 2010 took $25m in donations from gas companies"
Just as I said yesterday: good cop, bad cop. Too bad Mack doesn't appear to be able to read well.
Betty, you are nitpicking. We know all about your repellent politics, your paranoia and conspiracy theorising, your science denial and your buttock-like stupidity. So sod off. We've finished with you now.
This bears repeating:
Mossadeqh. Sadat. Allende. The SOA. The contras. Al-Quaeda. China. Honduras. Nicaragua. Haiti. Dominican Republic. Panama. Egypt. Syria.
Of course Chavez is a muppet, Betty. Now think really hard about why they elected him.
Yes Stu... he was elected and elected and elected again. None of his opponents came close... and this was despite the heavily privatized media in which he was called just about everything under the sun.
Polls by Latinbarometro (based in Chile), the leading pollster in South America asks people in countries across Latin America how they feel about the state of their democracy. Which country comes first or second every time? Venezuela. Under Chavez.
yeah, but if it's not the democratically elected person that the USA wants, it was a sham election! Obvious!
Let us not forget the CIA controlled 'Tricky Dickie' inspired Chilean coup against Allende that brought Pinochet to power and gave Thatcher ideas.
What for democracy.
Now, on the other side of that continent, we wait for Kirchner to make a move against her growing unpopularity.
What's this? A peer reviewed statistical analysis of rigged results?
"Finally, these findings lead us to conclude that the Venezuelan opposition has statistical evidence to reject the official results given by the CNE. The irregularities detected were observed consistently in numerous voting centers and the magnitude of the irregularities imply that the official results do not reflect the intention of voters with statistical confidence"
http://infodio.com/content/study-shows-how-hugo-chavez-rigged-elections…
But that's so 2004...
"The Chávez-controlled National Electoral Council (CNE) had refused to allow an independent audit of the voter registry, and the likelihood that the list is corrupted is high. How else to explain that there were 11 million registered voters in 1999 and there are almost 19 million voters today? The CNE’s website lists thousands of voters between the ages of 111 and 129."
http://patdollard.com/2012/10/wall-street-journal-chavez-election-total…
But that is neither here nor there. The important thing is that Chavez left the people with a socialist paradise...
"It’s well known that inflation and basic necessity shortages hit the poor the hardest, as does crime, which has skyrocketed in Venezuela. According to InSight Crime, an American University-sponsored think tank in Washington DC, the country has seen a sharp rise in violence, “with murder rates doubling or tripling over a decade, according to different figures.” For the first time in several years, the government reported homicide data, noting over 16,000 murders last year. But the Venezuelan Observatory of Violence, a local non-government organization that tracks crime, put the number at nearly 21,700, for a national homicide rate of 73 per 100,000, more than double the 31 per 100,000 in Colombia, which is fighting two guerilla insurgencies"
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/03/06/venezuelas-economy-under-chav…
No way! A colonized nation turns to a dictator! This has never happened before and must be stopped!
Rigged results?
Is it talking about Florida?!?
Of course not. Must be Ohio.
So now half a century of modern radiative physics depends on the character of Hugo Chavez.
You couldn't make this shit up. Betty, you are a hoot.
Betty can't understand modern radiative physics.
Betty can understand commies.
Simple substitution and projection takes care of the rest.
Perhaps it's time to remind the reality challenged that the discovery of the radiative properties of CO2 preceded the idea of a carbon tax and redistribution of wealth by a large number of decades.
"So now half a century of modern radiative physics depends on the character of Hugo Chavez"
Sorry, I forgot this was Barney's open thread.
"You couldn’t make this shit up."
You just did.
Be angry with the people who filled your mind with lies, Betty, not with me. I'm not lying to you.
"Perhaps it’s time to remind the reality challenged that the discovery of the radiative properties of CO2 preceded the idea of a carbon tax and redistribution of wealth by a large number of decades"
So you're saying "the idea of a carbon tax and redistribution of wealth" go hand in hand. Is their a particular authoritative group you can point to that might be used to justify a carbon tax?
"So now half a century of modern radiative physics depends on the character of Hugo Chavez”
"I’m not lying to you."
Betula at #94: So you’re saying “the idea of a carbon tax and redistribution of wealth” go hand in hand. Is their a particular authoritative group you can point to that might be used to justify a carbon tax?
Betula it was you who posted about the use of a carbon tax to fund the MDG at #27: “We are presupposing that the tax is indeed levied on individuals and firms in the form of a carbon levy (or other environmental tax base). Suppose, however, that we have subsidiarity, where the burden on national governments is determined by their carbon emissions but the national governments are free to decide how to raise the revenue. As noted above, they may, for political or other reasons, choose another tax base.”
http://www.unescap.org/tid/mtg/egmrti_ref272.pdf
“The revenue potential appears large – a fuel-consumption tax on CO2 emissions could by itself finance the MDGs. … It would require that the United States opt for it, however; 20 per cent of the tax yield would originate there alone.” ″
I do note that you're being disingenuous in misrepresenting my post to mean that I'm suggesting that the MDG are a pretext for a carbon tax.
@95
?
I'm not lying.
You are the one who thinks that there's a conspiracy within the UN to redistribute wealth using fabricated claims about AGW as a pretext.
I'm pointing out that this is a conspiracy theory which is promoted by misrepresenters with political and financial motives to deny the scientific evidence. This is not a lie. The evidence is all around you if you did but look.
As I said, I'm not lying to you.
No, no, no,, no, no,. BBD.
You don't believe wholeheartedly in Murcan Capitalism as currently practised.
Therefore you're suspect.
And most likely lying, in Betty's view.
How can a harmless trace gas etc etc drivel, drivel, drivel ad infinitum
Meanwhile in the civilised world on Planet reality, France introduces a Carbon Tax:
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/london/france-adopts-2…
I'm still dying to find out what is so bad about taking some money from the Exxons and DeBeers of this world and using it to help developing nations.
Oh FFS Stu.
If they can't do it for themselves by shorting average mortgage arrears 10 years hence, then they don't deserve it
That's the kind of money Betty approves of.
Anything else is just freeloading.
Speaking of polar bears and toasters,, here's what passes for science education in schools and public education via the newspaper in little ol' state controlled NZ.
It's headed up in our local newspaper.....
" Some pupils of Waimea Intermediate have been learning about survival and sustainability and paired up to write letters to the editor on their topics. The Mail (newspaper) will publish selected letters from them this week."
(notice how they've got these kids paired off for peer reinforcement) (Intermediate pupils are aged about 10 and 11yrs) Here's the one of the best letters quote verbatum....
Saving the polar bears
"We have learnt about how polar bears are becoming extinct and we have been thinking of creative yet realistic solutions that could help save the polar bears in the future. They are endangered because the pollution is making global warming worse, so it is melting the ice which is affecting the polar bears because it is making it hard to get food.
We have made five solutions and using a criteria grid we have chosen our best one. Our best solution is for scientists to make an artificial cloud that they put in the air that blocks out the heat that global warming and pollution is causing.
The ice will melt less meaning that polar bears will be able to get their food. This cloud will not affect the air so the polar bears and other animals won't get sick. We like this solution because it will help save the polar bears.
A problem with our solution is that the cloud will be very tricky to make. We hope that someone likes our solution and puts it in to action."
Alexis Brough and Sophie Borlase
Waimea Intermediate School, Dec 3
So there you go Jeff Harvey ..the solution should be a great idea for you and all the looney AGW indoctrinated Doltoids here. The kids all take it as a "given" eh Jeff Harvey. ...so no sweat .
"I’m still dying to find out what is so bad about taking some money from the Exxons and DeBeers of this world and using it to help developing nations."
But....won't the further developing of nations cause greater CO2 emissions? Unless of course, that's not really what this is all about...
It's interesting that we have got to the character of Hugo Chavez without any commentary on how we account for paleoclimate hyperthermals and the Cenozoic cooling.
Mack...
"We have learnt about how polar bears are becoming extinct and we have been thinking of creative yet realistic solutions that could help save the polar bears in the future"
I've got the solution.....increase development. What we do is, we take money from developed countries to help develop other countries. Trust me, it will work.
"Our best solution is for scientists to make an artificial cloud that they put in the air"
10-11 yrs old and they already have their heads in the clouds.
"It’s interesting that we have got to the character of Hugo Chavez"
And who was it that brought up Hugo Chavez?
Then what IS it about, you weasel? Can you make a farking point for once?
Congratulations, that's the dumbest thing you've said yet.
I think I was the one who brought up Hugo Chavez -- partly to see if you were just visiting the failboat or booked a first-class cabin.
Of course, you did not disappoint. Just one more Betty, for fun:
Disregarding his silly education reforms, when did the Venezuelan people rise up (totally grass-roots, natch) and start protesting and rioting, while a coup was underway? What specific action of Chavez prompted this?
Why do you think that is?
"I’ve got the solution…..increase development. What we do is, we take money from developed countries to help develop other countries (whilst minimising their use fossil fuels). Trust me, it will work"
After the inevitable correction, you may be onto something there Betty..
And Betty, there are those hyperthermals to explain.
Jeff Harvey @ # 59 previous page;
"Its not just distaste: its more like revulsion, because we don’t live in true democracies but in plutocracies. Or, if you prefer, ‘managed democracies’ – meaning managed from the top down."
ianam @ # 61
" which makes it clear that deliberative global governance is a form of democracy, it is not a “benevolent dictatorship”. "
As I said earlier ianam, if you want to call it something other than 'benevolent dictatorship' you are welcome to do that.
Jeff has coined it as a 'managed democracy' - meaning from the top down.
So what form of governance or political/social mechanism is being advocated here that would be an improvement and a mechanism to achieve those MDG goals?
I note distaste through to revulsion about variations of what is coined 'right wing libertarianism' or 'western style democracies' yet there is no clear alternative being offered.
Surely you are not advocating a "left wing dictatorship" ?
I don't understand, by the way -- isn't one of the "arguments" "we shouldn't do anything because poor countries are building coal plants anyway, so there's no point"? Now the same people are arguing against helping these countries to create a cleaner energy infrastructure?
Talk about motivated reasoning. As long as you wind up with "don't help the darkies", it's just fine.
Even if you were right, which I dispute, why oppose bettering the human condition?
Let's revisit the UN goals:
1/. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2/. Achieve universal primary education
3/. Promote gender equality and empower women
4/. Reduce child mortality
5/. Improve maternal health
6/. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7/. Ensure environmental sustainability
8/. Global partnership for development
Why are you against these things?
@Stu 2:
Oh yes, it's totally unfixable, so why try, right?
Let's start with these.
- Public campaign financing, prohibit corporate donations to political speech
- Strict regulations against revolving door crap
- Reinstate Glass-Steagal
- Full statehood with representation for all territories if they want it
- Maintain and upgrade infrastructure (electrical, roads, bridges) -- could be Welfare to Work after making that program not criminally insane
- Massive, permanent tax breaks on renewables
- Massive increased funding for research into renewables, battery tech
- Massive increased funding for basic research
- Remove religious vaccine exemptions
- Abolish state-level education standards and make them federal
- Incorporate costs of use in everything (gas, etc)
- Classify SUVs as cars
- CAFE to 50mpg by 2020
- I can haz EPA? Stop fracking, mountain-top removal mining, shale gas until proper controls and safety regs are in place
- Restructure/abolish Federal Reserve
- Heavily subsidize college fees (not private ones, thank you)
- Corporate taxes at 30%, no more loopholes
- Reinstate estate taxes (above 2M, adjust for inflation), no more loopholes
- Massive subsidies for public transportation
- No more offshoring for tax purposes
- Living wage
- No separate vote on debt ceiling
- Enforce war powers act
- Fix hiring/firing policies for federal/state employees
- Capital gains tax at 30%, no exceptions
- Break price fixing in energy, gasoline, telecom
- Radio spectra for rent, not sale
- Single payer healthcare (Medicare for all) -- or at the very least the Dutch system
- Governance accords, allow for recall votes
- Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as bags can be packed
- Close Guantanamo
- Nuke the NSA
- Remove supplement loopholes, FDA to enforce
- No more tax exempt status for religious institutions
- Ma Bell the media conglomerates
BBD,
Which part of 'those are noble goals' are you not understanding?
No, 2, we fully understand. You're firmly in the "well, that would be neat, but they are impossible because you can't trust government" camp. So why try, right? I mean, it might even raise your taxes.
@ # 16
What social/political mechanism are you advocating to deliver?
@ # 19
Does that mean you trust a particular government to deliver?
Which one ?
Okay, here's a random pondering. I think one of the basic failings of libertarians, deniers and all of their ilk is that they fail to grasp two phrases:
"[Life, liberty, and] the pursuit of happiness"
and
"consent of the governed"
I just don't really understand why basic selfishness can destroy even 3rd grade Civics class.
@2:
I think the best way to describe it into terms you understand would be "social democracy". As of right now, the closest thing would be the least corrupted European government, but even there the safeguards against corruption are laughably inadequate. To wit: when bureaucracies create a bureaucracy (European Parliament, for one), it removes the checks and look where that goes.
Let me just ask you a random question: are you at all familiar with the concept of government accords and recalls?
@2:
I think the best way to describe it into terms you understand would be "social democracy". As of right now, the closest thing would be the least corrupted European government, but even there the safeguards against corruption are laughably inadequate. To wit: when bureaucracies create a bureaucracy (European Parliament, for one), it removes the checks and look where that goes.
Let me just ask you a random question: are you at all familiar with the concept of government accords and recalls?
I swear to the baby Jeebus I only hit Submit once.
Not only at Deltoid. :-)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/20/greg-laden-once-again-expresses-s…
@ # 22 & 23
What about countries such as Australia, NZ and Canada?
Are they not also functioning 'social democracies' with at least some checks and balances (but of course not perfect)?
Which particular Government in Europe is the 'least corrupted' in your view?
Also, please note the question to Jeff Harvey earlier about the layering of extra bureaucracy.
You have no argument from me that adding extra layers will likely remove checks and balances and contribute to more, not less, corruption.
Olaus, you pathetic weasel clown.
1. Watts? Seriously? Ah, never mind.
2. Quoting Tisdale? Seriously? Ah, never mind.
3. Greg Laden is now the conventional wisdom? Seriously? Ah, never mind.
4. You just linked to an article with graphs showing ice loss, you unbelievable moron
@2
In order...
Of course. I was talking about the US because I live here and its foibles is what I keep up with.
You seem to be leading up to another episode of Morons Attempt To Play Gotcha, so go for it, sweetheart.
If I had a preference I would have stated it. I am not a child like you. I do not have time to keep up with the political ins and outs of 20+ nations. Unlike you, I have a job.
Actually, this bears elaboration. In response to Greg known-to-go-off-half-cocked Laden's assertion that "AGW models do NOT predict SEA ICE-reduction" (which is wrong, as our favorite TV weatherman points out... the IPCC says "Most CMIP5 models simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent over the past few decades compared to the small but significant increase observed."
So let's just stop and go for reading comprehension levels here. What do you think the IPCC meant by that quote?
Back to the issue at hand and my original point; pentax posted a link to a Watts article. Just to make sure, this is the link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/20/greg-laden-once-again-expresses-s…
Go look. You HAVE to see this. In this, Watts says
Go look at the article. Go look at the graph he posts right after that quote. Go look at the trend line. Note that this is a farking TISDALE graph he's using.
What the -- I don't even -- **triple facepalm**
No, screw that. Betty will try to play 20 questions and Morons Try To Play Gotcha with this for days.
Hello, deniers. Please click on the Watts link Pentax provided and that I helpfully copied down (you, on the whole, seem to be scroll-up-impaired).
Now pay close attention.
When Anthony Watts says "Antarctic sea ice has been increasing", you're probably want to know how your favorite weatherman knows that.
Well, he is helpful. One paragraph later he posts a graph to support his point. The graph is courtesy of Bob Tisdale, who is firmly in the denier camp. So no "herpa derpa wrong graph claptrap", this is the best he could source from one of his denier buddies. Note I haven't even verified the accuracy of this graph! This is straight from the shills' mouth here.
Go look at the graph. It shows a steady downward trend.
Hang on, let me think for a second. What tardmuffin arguments can we expect here?
Oh, yes!
"But look! It's been increasing steadily since 2009!"
As it did from 1983-1986.
As it did from 1988-1989.
As it did from 1990-1995.
Oh, wait. Too short?
How about 1983-1994?
How about 1997-2006?
This is why there is a field called "statistics". They invented things like "trend lines". See the blue line? That's the trend. In a graph Anthony Watts took from Bob Tisdale. This is not a commie IPCC graph, this is YOUR guys showing a graph that shows a clear, steady downward trend.
In the same vain, Pentax... I hear Bob and Anthony want to talk to you. They're doing an experiment in their bathroom and they say it is raining. Better get in on that.
@ # 28
OK, so the US is not a good model in your view but Australia, NZ and Canada could pass muster?
However you did say there was a sort of prototype of an ideal 'social democracy' in Europe:
here :
I think the best way to describe it into terms you understand would be “social democracy”. As of right now, the closest thing would be the least corrupted European government, but even there the safeguards against corruption are laughably inadequate."
Not in an attempt to play 'gotcha' but a genuine question ensued:
"Which particular Government in Europe is the ‘least corrupted’ in your view?"
Your answer is this?
"If I had a preference I would have stated it. I am not a child like you. I do not have time to keep up with the political ins and outs of 20+ nations. Unlike you, I have a job."
Just so we're clear, a wildly inaccurate assumption about my age or my employment status has zero to do with any relevance to the question.
If we ignore that part can I assume that this is your answer?
"If I had a preference I would have stated it..... I do not have time to keep up with the political ins and outs of 20+ nations. "
?
Oh, but wait! It gets better. Watts COPIED THE WRONG GRAPH.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/model-data-comparison-hemisp…
No, you are and others are responding to your claim. That does not mean they are making your claim.
As someone recently said, "do try to keep up".
BTW, this is exactly the same play you tried against me. You pretended for days that I had alleged there was a conspiracy when I was lampooning you claiming one. Bit of a pattern developing here...
Why is that the wrong graph Stu 2?
When I read that post and the Tisdale reference, there are 2 graphs. One is the "Observed Hemispheric Sea Ice Area Anomalies"( NSIDC )and the other is the "Modelled Hemispheric Sea Ice Anomalies" (NSIDC)
Greg Laden's Comment was:
AGW Models do NOT predict southern SEA ICE reduction. You are simply wrong. And confused.
Isn't that the 'modelled' graph?
Jeebus Tapdancing Cripes. Is there a contest going on that I don't know about? You know, the "who can say the most idiotic thing with a straight face" kind?
I did not say or imply anything of the kind. @16, I give a long list of things I would change about the US way of doing things.
Because I live there.
Because it takes quite a bit of time and attention to follow the workings of a government.
Which I stated.
And as I stated I only have time for one. Which is the reason the list is US centric.
But you knew that, if you read what I wrote. So either you do not understand basic English or you are not arguing in good faith.
Probably both. You seem to have joined Betty in completely abandoning actually addressing the issues. No, scratch that. The issue is global warming, and you've both essentially ceded you are spectacularly wrong about how it works, what causes it and what can be done to fix it. You are now all engaged in Red Herring Gotcha... but you are all too goddamned stupid to do even that properly.
Anyway.
I said nothing of the kind, you Jello-brained weasel.
Hey, moron. Here's a tip. Whenever you make a ludicrous bald assertion about what someone said, do not in the next paragraph directly quote what they said if it directly contradicts you.
I can't believe I had to write that. I have six dogs, and the only one of them who wouldn't understand this is 17 years old and senile as all hell.
Obvious and stupid lie. I already explained why there is no answer for this, let alone one I readily have. This is a whiny, tone-trolling failboat short-bus gotcha attempt. The only question remaining is who the fark you think you are fooling by asserting it is not.
Just so we're clear, I called you a child because you lack the comprehension skills I idealistically assume adults have. I implied you do not have a job because you found it reasonable to demand of me I keep up with 50 governments, and the only reason you would do so is if you felt I have the same amount of time on my hands you do, which would suggest you have no job.
On the other hand, maybe you were simply suggesting that one could keep up with 50 wildly differing governments on their spare time, which is even farking dumber.
From your comment, actually, the latter is almost certainly the case.
Please stop trying to tone troll on the side. You are too farking stupid to pull it off.
Okay, the cupcake wants details.
Russia is out for obvious reasons. France, Italy and the UK are far too corrupted by big money. Germany has way too many issues of its own. The Netherlands and Belgium are too racism-driven at the moment. Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Iceland and Greece are still complete bubble-burst trainwrecks. I cannot speak to any of the former Soviet-influenced nations. I do not know enough about Scandinavian politics to have an opinion.
Australia, Canada, NZ? I could not even begin to have an opinion.
All I know is that almost every single country I just mentioned has by almost any rational measure a better standard of living on average than the US has.
Have you ever been out of work and without health coverage? Have you ever experienced stabbing pain in your kidneys during such a period?
I have. And only in the US would I not and did I not go to a doctor. This kind of goes back to the "pursuit of happiness" part. It's hard to pursue anything when you're in bed hoping the pain will pass, because the only outcomes are A) getting better on your own, B) going to a doctor and going bankrupt or C) dying like a farking dog.
You have no argument from me that the US health care system is in a bit of a mess.
Oh goodie. Thank you for confirming that your name is not, in fact, Stu. Other than being multiple-stroke impaired the only reason you would call ME "Stu 2" is that you are yet another farking sockpuppet. And too stupid to cross the street unaided... but we already knew that part.
Moron.
However, do DID catch me. Ice extent is up, and so is snow cover.
As predicted by many scientists. Precipitation will go up.
I was thinking more along the lines of
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif
I wasn't trying to "catch you" Stu (1)
Sorry about the typo.
I was just wondering why you thought it was the wrong graph.
Apparently it wasn't?
Stu 2, me on the other hand wonders about the text-wise difference between Laden's claim and IPCC's.
I'm sure Stu will care to elaborate. ;-)
More childish musings from Betty:
"I’ve got the solution…..increase development. What we do is, we take money from developed countries to help develop other countries. Trust me, it will work".
Where on Earth does Betty thinks a lot of the "wealth" from the developed nations originates? From thin air? As has been said innumerable times, every developed nation on Earth fosters an ecological deficit - in other words they consume more per capita resources and produce more per capita waste than those contained within their own land masses. They depend therefore on resources originating elsewhere to maintain their prosperity as currently defined. The US alone consumes resources at the rate of 4 Earth-like planets. Read George Kennan's now infamous 1948 post war memo and the agenda becomes abundantly clear.
How do they get these resources? Through economic coercion and outright theft (the plunder and looting I alluded to earlier). This is hardly rocket science. But people like Betty appear to think that western economies are sustainable, or that the wealth we have accumulated (and concentrated upwards to the ruling elites) is somehow based on fair trade and just economic practices, and damn the evidence.
Like hell you weren't . Can you clowns go at least one post without an obvious lie?
Oh, this is precious. You addressing me by your own handle is now a "typo"? Hey, that excuse would have worked if I was "Sfu" or "Sxu". But no. You typed in the name, then you hit the space bar, then you hit 2. That's not a typo. That's you getting your sockpuppetry confused.
So who are you? You are not a new user. You are a sockpuppet. Whose?
Because rather than showing the preferred shill graph of measured ice extent (which shows an increase for Antarctica -- as expected, but it sure looks good if you want to argue against ice loss in bad faith), it showed the modeled graph of ice volume (which shows a loss on both poles, as expected).
What you have proven is that Greg Laden's tweet is wrong. Something nobody disputed. (Olaus, predictably, is happy as a clam for no good reason over this).
Anyway.
Whose sockpuppet are you, you pathetic little weasel?
@Jeff: I actually think "Confessions of an economic hitman" should be required reading at this point.
Once again Stu, you are peppering your comments with wildly inaccurate assumptions and accusations that are completely irrelevant.
The typo error was quite a simple mistake. Every time I log in to post a comment here I type in Stu 2 as my name. I just made an error and did it again when I answered to you of the same name.
But, if you want to argue it means something different and sinister you go right ahead.
But yes, Laden's tweet was incorrect and Watts did refer to the correct graph .
Whatever makes you sleep at night, precious.
Whose sock puppet are you?
At the conclusion of an exhaustive review of the available evidence, the committee concludes that the answer to this question is "no".
Sloth...."You pretended for days that I had alleged there was a conspiracy when I was lampooning you claiming one"
So we agree then. The goal to redistribute the worlds wealth is not a conspiracy theory, and you never said it was. You were just claiming I said it was with your use of good old lampoonery..
Sorry for the misunderstanding, and thanks for taking my side on this one Sloth. Finally, a bit of honesty from a Deltoidian. And I have to admit, that lampooning stuff was a riot..
Would it be ok for me to use you as a reference should the word conspiracy reappear?
Betty, you weasel!
You are the one who thinks that there’s a conspiracy within the UN to redistribute wealth using fabricated claims about AGW as a pretext.
That is a conspiracy theory which is promoted by misrepresenters with political and financial motives to deny the scientific evidence.
Stop weaselling and pay your taxes like a good boy.
And note, fellow Deltoidians, that Betty's #46 confirms my #45 response to Stu's question at #41.
;-)
Now here is a light on the real conspiracy that Betty & co' should be worried about, unless of course they are amongst those who have benefited most by unconventional fossil fuel extraction including by hydraulic fracturing aka fracking:
The Peak Oil Crisis: A Review of Richard Heinberg’s ‘Snake Oil’
Note this:
Now reading this book having finished 'Fracking the UK' by Alan Tootill. If you live in the UK and are unsure about the impacts and benefits of fracking you need to read these.
Why do you think our GideonGeorge Osborne is so keen on fracking and can smirk whilst the other half of the Janus face Dave 'slick' Cameron makes out as a spiv..
From that 2009 Mail article:
Aargh!
Why do you think our GideonGeorge Osborne is so keen on fracking and can smirk whilst the other half of the Janus face Dave 'slick' Cameron makes out as a spiv..
From that 2009 Mail article:
Of course this fracking bubble is the latest version of the frauds the investment bankers perpetrate on society. Not convinced:
The End of growth-Richard Heinberg
Special Briefing: Attacking Fracking's Achilles Heel -- Economics
it is all part of the same coin that is driving the world's climate over the edge.
And now they are arguing over where to put a new runway in the South of England. Same with new giant handling facilities at sea ports. We should not be expanding such trade but quite the reverse.
Does anyone else find it ironic that development by rich nations is found to be the root cause of potential future catastrophic scenarios that will affect poor nations the hardest, and yet, at the same time, it is used as the justification for redistributing the worlds wealth from rich nations to poor nations in order that the poor nations may become more developed?
No, Betty -- only morons like you do.
Would you actually care to address anything? There's a bunch of stuff up there just dying for your insightful commentary.
8,10,14,16... have at it, hoss.
Betula: MDG number 7 is "Ensure environmental sustainability"
"8,10,14,16… have at it, hoss"
Well, let's see dude...
#8. You are just dense. Global Justice is the correct answer.
#10. Because the people had Hope and wanted Change. They were led to believe there would be a redistribution of wealth and an end to corruption. How'd that work out?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fernando-espuelas/hugo-chavez-is-no-hero_…
#14. You state..."I don’t understand, by the way — isn’t one of the “arguments” “we shouldn’t do anything because poor countries are building coal plants anyway, so there’s no point"
I don't recall that argument so it doesn't warrant a reply.
#16. This is directed at Stu2. It's not a question to be addressed...it's a wish list.
TB
I don't think Betty's really got his head around any of this.
"unless of course they are amongst those who have benefited most by ̶u̶n̶c̶o̶n̶v̶e̶n̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶f̶o̶s̶s̶i̶l̶ ̶f̶u̶e̶l̶ ̶e̶x̶t̶r̶a̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523726/Web-green-politicians-t…
Betula: MDG number 7 is “Ensure environmental sustainability”
And the financing comes from where and is justified by what authoritative consensus?
Stu
Thanks for the writing above. Wonderful. Still laughing. Keep it up!
#58 Oh fuck off Betty. You've had your crack of the whip. All previously explained.
Anyway what about #47? When are you going to own up to being a conspiracy theorist? Which you most certainly are.
"When are you going to own up to being a conspiracy theorist?"
When there is a hyperthermal.
Betty
Come on. You are the one who believes that implausible claims about AGW are being used to justify wealth redistribution. That's a conspiracy theory and I would like you to have to moral courage to admit what you are doing here.
Just admit it.
Come on, Betty, or it's going to hurt...
Okay, Betty. Time's up. We do it the hard way.
Whew. You can practically hear the tinfoil rustling.
Loads more where that came from and I've got all evening...
ianam @ # 61
” which makes it clear that deliberative global governance is a form of democracy, it is not a “benevolent dictatorship”. ”
As I said earlier ianam, if you want to call it something other than ‘benevolent dictatorship’ you are welcome to do that.
It's easy to go back to the immediately earlier comments to see how dishonest this is (2Stupid previously denied that my comment was *about* deliberative global governance) but why even bother when the sack of shit's dishonesty is so entirely predictable and expected.
ianam @ # 66
The point remains that it appears most of the commenters here believe in some sort of trustworthy, benevolent global dictatorship.
You are welcome to call it as many different names as you like but the mainstream research (fully accessible as it is mostly funded by government grants) usually calls it 'deliberative global governance' or 'global governance'. 'Deliberative democracy' is a related term in some of the research.
But as Jeff Harvey comments, that is not what most would believe is a true democracy as it would clearly be managed from the top down.
Calling it a different name is just calling it a different name; it doesn't change the basic concept.
I note that BBD has negotiated a full circle and is once again attempting to argue that this is a conspiracy theory and once again making references to tin foil hats.
The comments and references by Lionel @ # 49, 50 & 51 would be a better fit for the definition of a conspiracy theory.
In an attempt to forestall more irrelevant abuse however, I don't disagree that institutions such as banks and multinational corporations and big government bureaucracies and big NGOs very often end up being the financial beneficiaries of or, the winners in most global activities.
No, that's consistency. And you have not addressed the elephant over there. Betty is inarguably indulging in conspiracist ideation. You have a problem.
* * *
"2Stupid". Wish I'd thought of that...
No, we don't, and this has been clearly explained to you. So why are you repeating nonsense?
More tinfoil-rustling from Betty:
Stu2: that is a huge leap you've made there. As I pointed out a while back, agreements between sovereign nations are all that's necessary.
Barney...
"Okay, Betty. Time’s up."
I didn't know I was supposed to be sitting around the computer all day on a timer.
" We do it the hard way"
BARNEY PLEASE DON'T!.... No! ....No! Anything but the...
Let me get this right. By posting what I already posted, this is supposed to bother me? Strange, because it didn't bother me when I posted it.
If you disagree with what I wrote....prove it wrong.
@ # 71
How is that theory about 'agreements between sovereign nations' working ?
According to Jeff Harvey; it isn't.
There is no 'leap of faith' and there is no 'conspiracy' about the research etc on 'deliberative global governance'. It's very easy to find, it is an academic funded research program and is funded by different Governments around the world.
BBD @ # 68 and 69.
What is the 'elephant' and if you don't believe in 'global governance' or 'deliberative democracy' or whatever else you would like to call it (although Jeff Harvey's term - managed from the top down- is a good description) , what is the political and social mechanism that you do believe can deliver the MDGs?
Betty
The problem here isn't specifically whether I disagree with what you wrote but that you have yet to acknowledge that it is a conspiracy theory.
Since it clearly is, you have only two options:
- Admit that you are endorsing a conspiracy theory
- Stink to high heaven of intellectual dishonesty
It's up to you. And so far, you are choosing the hard way.
Let's review:
And:
This is a conspiracy theory wherein the IPCC is complicit in misrepresenting climate science in order to enable global wealth redistribution.
You wrote it, so you are a conspiracy theorist. Why do you refuse to acknowledge what is obviously the case?
2Stupid
Oh FFS. Go home.
BBD @ # 75.
Maybe you could consider answering the rest of the question @ # 73 ?
So you're still being obtuse, or thick, or both.
I never said there was a conspiracy which is different from saying that someone else is advancing a conspiracy theory. One may dub a claim a conspiracy theory which almost always implies that one does not agree with the claim, whereas claiming that a conspiracy exists generally is an agreement with a claim.
Ask a high school student for help with English, please.
I am still not taking your side on this one, as has been explained several times. I do not agree that the goal is to redistribute wealth and the means to achieve it is ginning up false concerns about climate change by producing fraudulent scientific work.
Ask a high school student for help with English, please. (That is on the presumption that you are having comprehension difficulties rather than being mendacious which I suspect is generous.)
I'm not sure anyone here believes this.
Governance is not the same as Government no matter how fervently Monckton tries to gull his audience into believing it. Dictatorship is a form of government.
You haven't been gulled by Monckton into that belief, have you?
Stu2,
Our democracies ARE already managed from the top-down; nowhere is this more apparent than in the US. And there's no point in trying to make my views appear to be exteme, as when for example you say that I say that ‘agreements between sovereign nations’ aren't working'....
You almost package that statement in some kind of candy coating. Nation states aren't sovereign, at least those in the south. Rules of trade and commerce are made by the developed nations in the north (the 'quad') and yet we fiercely protect our own markets, whilst tearing those of the weaker undeveloped nations open. Read Michael Parenti's quite outstanding opus on Imperialism (2010) and the agendas become abundantly clear. Also, as Stu mentioned, John Perkins book, 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man' makes quite disturbing reading. But there are plenty of sources. Mark Curtis details recent British history quite well in 'Web of Deceit' and 'Unpeople', whereas Patrick Bond's 'Looting Africa: The Economics of Exploitation' is an eye opener. Historian Greg Grandin details how the US has traditionally plundered the wealth of Latin American countries in 'Empire's Workshop', and how it has used this model more recently for its global economic designs. Anything by John Pilger and Naomi Klein also put the current global situations in some sort of perspective.
As it is, you write as if my points are somehow dredged up out of thin air.
"I don’t think Betty’s really got his head around any of this"
BBD, you sure aren't kidding. He has the audacity to try and question of of Hugo Chavez's many election victories - verified by the Carter center as completely authentic no less - and turns a blind eye to the supreme court coup that put Bush into power in 2000. Gore won Florida for sure, and almost certainly would have taken his home state of Tennessee as well as Ohio but for 'voting counting irregularities'. And besides, the entire US government is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the banks and corporations.
Talks about pot, kettle, black.
Stu @ comment # 35
Sounds like you had a kidney stone there Stu , (outcome A)
I agree that health is one thing socialism should have a very big hand in., but how, in a country whose very philosophy is capitalism (and guns) .
Anyhow, keep well and Merry Xmas. PS. feeding 6 dogs equals heavy on pocket -- could have bought you a bottle of diclofenac tabs for the kidney stone. Only one of man's best friends required Stu. ; )
Barney,
I have a few questions for you.
How do we justify taxing carbon? And how do we make it so the rich nations pay the carbon tax and the poor nations receive it?"
Wouldn't it be nice, if we could find some sort of official organization that is the sole authority, a world authority if you will, one that we can point to and say…..”Look! The debate is over!"..."This group of experts, made up of some scientists and other people lobbying for representing their countries, but all with the same ideological mindset, have proven beyond any doubt, that hypothetical future catastrophic scenarios will most likely definitely occur if the rich don’t pay what are they are morally obligated to pay!”
But where can we find such an organization?
Betty I have only one question for you:
When the fuck are you going to admit that you are endorsing a conspiracy theory?
Just how fucking intellectually dishonest do I need to make you look before you see the wisdom of owning up to what you are doing here?
More rending tinfoil:
Note the "faux", Betty. Fake, false, contrived, made up, falsified etc.
You are a conspiracy theorist. Now man up and sodding well admit it.
Sigh.
Negotiated agreements between sovereign states. See above. Read the fucking words you moron.
Then go home.
Betty has effectively conceded that he has no answer to the scientific case for AGW, and has retreated into to repeating his fave conspiracy theory of the poor, victimised right-wing, yet again.
I'm not sure even the Ebola virus can be that dumb.
Ebola doesn't have pretensions to intelligence.
The point remains that it appears most of the commenters here believe in some sort of trustworthy, benevolent global dictatorship.
The point remains that you are (blatantly, obviously, clearly) a lying sack of shit.
What is the ‘elephant’
Oh FFS. Go home.
Truly. That 2Stupid can't parse simple English is enough reason to ignore him ... but there are so many more.
And now another data point on climate related ecosystem shifts:
Right Whales Go Wrong Way, Is Climate A Factor?.
and
Also what happens to other species reliant on the lower strata of this food chain species that cannot move geographical area?
Answer, the fall in numbers and may even become extinct. But that will not be official recognised for 50 years. We can be sure that there are many now extinct species not yet declared as such.
@Mack:
Medicare for all. There. Everyone is covered and we save 30% instantly.
Any other headscratchers, moron?
Let's see. Betula's linked to a pathetic six degrees of separation hit piece (in the Daily Mail, for crying out loud).
Gee, I wonder what the proportions are.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/07/fossil-fuel-subsidie…
Seems all those Green grifters are in the wrong racket.
Any other poorly researched tripe you care to share?
True story of the wonderful capitalist US health care system:
We have had the same doctor for years. My company did not switch providers or plans from 2012-2013, but they did change who was in and out of network. I stupidly failed to check this (I mean, really -- how could I not have dug through the 400 page booklet!), took my wife in for surgery (interestingly, the provider didn't say squat about network changes). The insurance covered it, discovered the provider was now out of network and fully clawed back their entire contribution.
Think of how many levels of fail this demonstrates. I am out $9000. Someone at insurance company is getting paid to screw me out of that $9000. I am appealing to my provider, where someone is getting paid to complain to yet another person in another department of the insurance company. Who is getting paid.
Most medical institutions in the US have more administrative people than medical. This is all waste.
Here's another true anecdote.
I wanted some Zovirax (acyclovir, glycerine, filler, 5g tube). My PCP could not confirm right away whether my insurance covered it, and quoted me the raw price: $693.
I am not kidding you. That is not a typo, that is not a joke, I made him show me. The other one (name escapes me, name brand of the other antiviral) was in the $800 range.
Good thing I AM covered. It wound up costing me $5.
Cost in Europe, where Zovirax (no, not generic acyclovir, full-on brand-name 5g tubes) are OTC?
$8. No, seriously.
I guess what I am saying is that we could do with some benevolent government to cut some of this out.
Speaking for the US, it seems denialists are unaware of the concept of "consent of the governed".
Ah, but doesn't Bishop Limbaugh make it absolutely clear to the flock that they are living in the best of all possible worlds?
Yes, where you can have organ pains when you don't have health insurance and sleep on ice packs hoping it will all go away.
I've never felt so much in "pursuit of happiness".
And in the damned if you do, damned if you don't category:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148.
Of course! ;-) That is a necessary function of a defender of entrenched privilege, paid to help convince those disadvantaged by said entrenched privilege not to engage in any kind of thought or actions that might lead to upsetting the very nice apple cart the 0.01% currently have control of.
(One might entertain an analogy between rich countries exploiting poor countries, and the rich within a country exploiting the poor within it...)
Bloody hell, Stu.
Luckily the ice packs only lasted a day. Of course, it was my own damned fault for not getting COBRA coverage for only $1100 a month (on $293 a week unemployment).
"because that is what this is really all about, the redistribution of the worlds wealth…. compensation that is due, not for faux futuristic catastrophic scenarios, but for plundering the poor"...
Barney....."Note the “faux”, Betty. Fake, false, contrived, made up, falsified etc"
The scenarios are based on incomplete models full of uncertainties...
"However, climate change violates the postulates of predict-then-act on two related counts. First, climate change is associated with radically diverse decision contexts, geographic scales, and time scales. It comprises many different types of policy problems involving many different types of actors, and thus is not even theoretically optimizable (Jaeger et al., 1998; Arrow et al., 1996). Second, climate change is associated with conditions of deep uncertainty,
where decision-makers do not know or cannot agree on: (i) the system models, (ii) the prior probability distributions for inputs to the system model(s) and their interdependencies, and/or (iii) the value system(s) used to rank alternatives.
http://www.cetesb.sp.gov.br/userfiles/file/mudancasclimaticas/proclima…
And Barney, I noticed you didn't mention the plundering. You do agree that we need to redistribute the wealth from rich nations to poor nations to compensate for plundering, don't you? A simple yes or no will do.
Oh, lookie here.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-1018-7
You'll have to do better than what looks like a 15 year old paper with a borked link Betty.
And they're paying you almost a billion for this incompetent, ineffectual garbage?
See the dishonest little fuck Betty wriggling desperately as it tries to avoid admitting the truth.
See it obfuscate, then try and answer a question with a question. God you are vile, Betty.
Let's recap, shall we?
This is a conspiracy theory wherein the IPCC is complicit in misrepresenting climate science in order to enable global wealth redistribution.
You wrote it, so you are a conspiracy theorist. Why do you refuse to acknowledge what is obviously the case?
The same conspiracty theory with different words. You wrote it, so you are a conspiracy theorist. Why do you refuse to acknowledge what is obviously the case?
A third iteration of the conspiracy theory involving the UN and the IPCC. You wrote it, so you are a conspiracy theorist. Why do you refuse to acknowledge what is obviously the case?
Why, why, oh why, Betty? Whatever can be the problem here?
"Why, why, oh why, Betty? Whatever can be the problem here?"
The problem seems be that the only answer you have is to repost the questions. In and of itself, that's answer enough for me.
BBD.
here is a definition of 'conspiracy theory' for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
"A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more people, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through deliberate collusion, an event or phenomenon of great social, political, or economic impact. In recent decades the term has acquired a derogatory meaning, and a careful distinction must be made between the derisive use of the term and reference to actual, proven conspiracies."
You appear to have fallen into the trap of using the incorrect 'derogatory meaning' and therefore the 'derisive use of the term'.
As posted here many times, there is no conspiracy and no need for tin foil hats.
Betula's original question was valid.
Eh? That's your best effort?
Betty, you are well and truly stuffed.
2Stupid
You appear to have fallen into the trap of accepting an unsupported claim that a conspiracy exists as evidence of an actual conspiracy. You would make a piss-poor lawyer.
But Betty says there is. Quite unequivocally, for all that he is too craven to admit it. So why haven't you taken this up with him?
2 Stup - having got no answer to the scientific case for AGW, Betty has flapped his arms and squawked uncertainty, and when that doesn't wash he insinuates the science is merely a front for wealth redistribution. The whole time he's been here, finally putting his High School Debating textbook to some use..
He's a mouthpiece for the paid US denial industry - witting, unwitting or most likely, just witless. .
It's fun watching Betty refuse to admit that all he's got left is a conspiracy theory.
Life is good at troll-free Reddit: http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-de…
ianam: I think that's a poor example -- it still allows for a "moderators are paid stooges" copout. I much prefer, as an example, what happens at Ars: stooges get the snot downvoted out of their pathetic screeds, they resort to whining and (commonly) get banned for repeatedly violating the posting guidelines,
You know, good old free market democracy. *snicker*
It's moments like these when I wish that Tim Lambert was still active in the blogosphere:
https://twitter.com/doyleclan1/status/414749989445705728/photo/1
*headdesk*
Good grief!
Ground hog day! You lot just go round and round and around in circles.
Not proving much and not achieving much.
:-)
Merry Christmas Deltoids.
The world will move on in 2014 despite all the ranting here.
Chin up everyone. . . it's not all bad you know.
As are the majority of medical decisions, an awful lot of combat decisions, a whole bunch of professional decisions, and practically every significant governmental policy decision. And yet they must still be made.
Did you have an actual point? Or did you think you had one, other than throwing up more stupidity to try and evade previous questions that you can't or won't answer?
That's a really pathetic attempt.
Firstly, the most basic fail: the derogatory meaning is not incorrect, because correctness is defined by usage. And as your quote points out, the derogatory meaning is in common usage. If you can't get that right, there's not much hope for your other "logic", is there?
Beyond that, your claim that "...there is no conspiracy..." is clearly counter-factual on either definition you proffered, because Betula has been implying that large numbers of scientists have colluded to falsify their research findings and refuse to point out the falsification by others, in order to justify the (by implication otherwise unjustifiable) "redistribution of wealth" that gets Betula so worked up. The public is not privy to proof that this Great Falsification Conspiracy has been going on (obviously!) because it would fail to meet its aims if the public knew that it had happened, so that covers the first definition. And the claim that there is a Great Falsification Conspiracy is not supported by examining the evidence, so that covers the derogatory definition. (You don't seem to realise that both definitions can simultaneously apply to a given conspiracy theory...)
Nothing you wrote changes the fact that Betula's claims rely on there being a Great Falsification Conspiracy, nor have you successfully distracted from observations of that fact, and observations that Betula is ducking and weaving to try and avoid the issue.
Smarter trolls, please.
From the post about reddit:
...and Lotharsson wins one (1) Interwebs.
Thanks Stu. It will take pride of place on my mantelpiece.
Now to find a mantelpiece ;-)
Good choice, and much more practical than displaying it on either your earpiece or codpiece.
And a Merry non-secular Xmas to you and all at Deltoid.
Merry Christmas to all of us.
I'm including everyone. I want every single one of you to have a good day. I live in hope that goodwill - just a smidgen will do - and good sense will prevail in the coming year.
But for now, just enjoy whatever you do for this day. (I have to finish loading up all the gifts and goodies now and remember to get ice on the way to daughter's house. First Xmas dinner with prospective in-laws!)
Pleasant Christmas one and all.
Spare some thoughts for those who are not going to enjoy such this year, the refugees and beleaguered in Syria and back home in the UK all those without power and/or up to their ankles in flood water.
Due another dose before the week is out, quit a few tiles off roofs around here as it is, but been there before in 87 and 91.
"Since the 1980s, sustainable development has moved from being an interesting but sometimes contested ideal, to now being the acknowledged goal of much of international policy, including climate change policy. It is no longer a question of whether climate change policy should be understood in the context of sustainable development goals; it is a question of how"
Yes Barney, how?
"By framing the debate as a sustainable development problem rather than only as climate mitigation, the priority goals of all countries and particularly developing countries are better addressed, while acknowledging that the driving forces for emissions are linked to the underlying development path (IPCC, 2007, Chapter 17 and 18; Yohe, 2001; Metz et al., 2002; Winkler et al., 2002a)"
But how Barney?
"For a development path[2] to be sustainable over a long period, wealth, resources, and opportunity must be shared so that all citizens have access to minimum standards of security, human rights, and social benefits, such as food, health, education, shelter, and opportunity for self-development (Reed, 1996). This was also emphasized by the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002 which introduced the Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture, and Biodiversity (WEHAB) framework."
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-1-1.html
Very honorable indeed. But how do we sharing the wealth Barney? Any ideas?
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/environmentandenergy/p…
"A global tax on gas or carbon-based fuels is the next step"
Oh c'mon Barney, where do you get this crap?
"750 billion in revenue from a global carbon tax, as
cited by Sandmo, is taken from a Foreign Affairs article 5 by Harvard Professor Richard N. Cooper"
"Cooper, in turn, said the source of the $750 billion figure is an OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) study"
http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/rpt.glbl.gas.tx.pdf
But what does OECD have to do with anything?
"The OECD's work is intrinsically linked to supporting the MDG effort, specifically through work related to financing the MDGs, building a global partnership for development, and supporting strategic areas contributing to progress in the MDGs."
http://www.oecd.org/dac/theoecdandthemillenniumdevelopmentgoals.htm
But who would oversee such....?
http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/
But what does the IPCC have to do with...?
"Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, is now making the case for a carbon tax, to give clean energy a market advantage against fossil fuels. "An extremely effective instrument would be to put a price on carbon", he says"
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2102367/the_ipcc_has_spo…
But what does he have to do with the MDG's?
"The Chairman of the IPCC, Mr Rajendra Pachauri, will discuss the impacts of climate change and how they constrain the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals"
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press/flyer-25-09-UN.pdf
But, but, but...Barney, what does scientific proof about the possible future have to do with MDG's or redistribution of wealth? Oh sure, all the same players are involved and they all have the same goal, but this is clearly a crazy coincidence....
What about all the scientific evidence that may possibly lead to catastrophes if we don't act now? What about the scientific proof that the future is set....how do you explain that?
Iamamoron #9
It's been common knowledge for ages that the only way for alarmiztas to win debates is with the help of delete buttons. What's new?
“Environmental alarmism is by now a well established phenomenon with nearly a four decade long history. In that time, we’ve been on the receiving end of doomsday predictions as diverse as holes in the ozone layer, overpopulation, resource wars, acid rain, a new ice age and the most successful one of all, global warming.
Since there has been no upward change of global temperatures in over the last decade and a half, that scare had become embarrassingly untenable. In response, the alarmists switched from screaming about global warming to hyperventilating about climate change. That was an explicit admission that their specific prediction of a looming thermogeddon was wrong, which is why skeptics should never use the term climate change but keep on sticking it to them with reminders about the global warming us humans were supposed to be causing, which never actually materialised."
"The advantage about the rebranding away from a specific threat to a vague umbrella term, was that there are potentially a myriad of things which could be blamed on climate change, because climate does actually change. If it got colder, fine, that’s climate change in action. If it actually got hotter, that’s climate change as well. Whether it got wetter or drier, either could be attributed to climate change. It’s a wonderfully flexible scare.
For example, the by now famous computer models of the UK Meteorological Office (UKMO) predicted a drought for 2012 that might stretch into 2013. Suddenly hose pipe bans were declared and a lockdown of precious water in reservoirs was initiated at the start of the year. After the wettest summer, autumn and winter for years, with attendant flooding and loss of life, what few gullible people left who had any confidence in the UKMO’s predictive powers, finally decided they were totally incompetent. Seemingly believing everyone is suffering from Alzheimers, the escape clause now being used by the UKMO is to blame climate change for one of the wettest years on record. It’s a win win piece of nomenclature."
"The really big advantage of the name change is that not having to prove a specific thing – that the world is heating up – you can cherry pick your proofs of climate change occurring. Any change, real or otherwise, will do.
There appear to be five generic types of bogus proof that man-made climate change is occurring.
The first type is studying some really obscure organism, like for instance the South Pacific Snailbat, that nobody has researched in any detail before and concluding their population is in decline because of man-made climate change. It’ll nearly always be a decline, because nobody is interested in population increases, as it wouldn’t gel with their worldview of us humans always damaging the environment. There’s no real longterm data on the species, though usually some sort of historical proxy is found, which indicates a decline. While the layman might think proxy measurements are reliable, they rarely are. It’s all a matter of interpretation, and in some cases, just cherry picking the right hockey stick shaped example which appears to back up the conjecture being made. For lack of a better name, we’ll call that type of proof a Snailbat. We must save the snailbat.
It’s a very versatile sort of proof. You can do a snailbat on pretty much anything organic, from insects right up to sequoia trees."
"The second type of proof is the computer model predicting something untoward is going to happen. It’s nearly impossible to get across to someone who’s never tried their hand at computer modelling, how limited a domain of problems are actually amenable to modelling. I had a go at that a few years back and a link to the piece is below. The critical factors in any model are the physical nature of the problem, how complete your understanding of the problem is and the parameters, otherwise knows as guesses, built into the model.
If you don’t really comprehensively understand the problem, no computer, no matter how powerful, is going to help you solve it. Climate is the result of the interactions between an undefined set of systems, many of which would be technically classified as non-linear complex systems. The mathematical reality is that any type of non-linear complex system cannot be modelled for predictive purposes anyway.
Just to illustrate to you how a lot of very clever, motivated, hard-nosed and financially competent people can walk themselves over a cliff by having blind faith in computer models, consider the case of the hedge fund firm Long-Term Capital Management. They had a couple of Nobel Prize winning economists on board, a battalion of financial analysts and another battalion of software developers. They built a shiny computer model of their own business area and started using it to place their bets on the derivatives market. They bet heavy too, confident in how good their models’ predictions were. There was no way they could lose money."
"The models were wrong. In less than five years, they went from an enterprise with assets of 130 billion USD and a trading position of 1.25 trillion USD, to going broke. It was so big a disaster, that there were genuine fears it might bring down the whole of the derivatives market, which forced a 4 billion USD bailout by the industry itself. A lot of supposedly very smart people lost a lot of money, because of that insidious idea that if a computer predicts something is going to happen, then it must surely be going to happen.
While no reasonable person would believe anyone can foretell the future for decades ahead, it always amazes me how readily they accept that a silicone chip contraption somehow can. If we don’t know how to predict the future, we can’t program a computer to predict the future. Forget computers, forget science, forget math, it’s actually as simple as that.
Computers can’t predict the future.
If you’re a fan of the director Stanley Kubrick’s work, you’ve probably seen his movie 2001 a space odyssey. Although there are other themes in it, one of them is a supercomputer called HAL predicting things which actually didn’t happen. The crewmen believed HAL and suffered the consequences. Put too much uncritical faith in computer predictions and you’ll inevitably end up pleading with HAL to open the pod bay doors. Just tell the suckers that HAL says we’re heading for an eco-disaster, and they’ll believe it. That variety of proof, we’ll call a HALsays."
"The third type of proof is what can only be called a Scarem. Whatever extreme weather event comes along, attribute it straight away to climate change and scare the pants off them. It doesn’t matter if there’s not a single shred of scientific evidence to back up that assertion. The legacy MSM can always be relied on to run with an extreme weather event story and all you have to do is volunteer that opinion to them as a climate expert, irrespective of your qualifications, if any. That’s how tropical storm Sandy magically mutated into a Frankenstorm, as far as the ordinary person was concerned. Scare them, scare them again and keep right on scaring them.
Next up would be the dark side of proofs. Global warming must be real because skeptics of it can’t be right. They have to be wrong because you’ve got some sort of proof they’re all either insane, conspiracy nuts or child molesters. They’re even the sort of people who should be executed. In all good taste and as a tender mercy to you good reader, I won’t dwell too long on this bottom feeding type of so-called science paper, except to lump them all into the general category of LewPapers, as a hat tip to one of their pioneers. Climate science has truly fallen before the onslaught of its own internal post-normal Visigoths. They own its ass."
"Finally we have weird sorts of Tammany Hall polls masquerading as a proof. There are simply too many ways of rigging polls or post-processing the numbers to yield the desired result, and every one of those techniques is actively used. The whole thrust of them is to give the impression that the threat is real and people are really weally worried about it. By and large, they’re ignored. In a previous article, I compared them to those elections dictators periodically have, which always come out with a 99% vote in their favour. I suppose the apposite name for this stripe of beastie is a DicPol or perhaps more appropriately a DickPol, when you look at the sort of people behind them.
All of these proofs can be used in various combinations. Just mix and match as required and cook to taste but always take with a pinch of salt. For instance, based on a previous study of them, a new computer model predicts the endangered Snailbat will become extinct in less than a decade unless something is done to mitigate the impact of climate change on them. Of course, when you write it up for your paper, add in a lot of ass-covering caveats but you know the media will skip them all when your sensational research hits the front page. Sure, you’re going to have a squabble with the skeptics but that’ll all happen in the aftermath of the desired headlines and never be reported on anyway.
You follow it up with a DickPol showing how outraged people are at the desperate plight of the poor suffering snailbat and demanding action. The finishing touch would be to get Greenpeace to launch a Save the Snailbat campaign.
If that little lot doesn’t get you more research funding, nothing will."
"#22
pentaxZ
December 26, 2013
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
“Environmental alarmism is by now a well established phenomenon with nearly a four decade long history. In that time, we’ve been on the receiving end of doomsday predictions as diverse as holes in the ozone layer, overpopulation, resource wars, acid rain, a new ice age and the most successful one of all, global warming.
Since there has been no upward change of global temperatures in over the last decade and a half, that scare had become embarrassingly untenable. In response, the alarmists switched from screaming about global warming to hyperventilating about climate change. That was an explicit admission that their specific prediction of a looming thermogeddon was wrong, which is why skeptics should never use the term climate change but keep on sticking it to them with reminders about the global warming us humans were supposed to be causing, which never actually materialised.
The advantage about the rebranding away from a specific threat to a vague umbrella term, was that there are potentially a myriad of things which could be blamed on climate change, because climate does actually change. If it got colder, fine, that’s climate change in action. If it actually got hotter, that’s climate change as well. Whether it got wetter or drier, either could be attributed to climate change. It’s a wonderfully flexible scare.
For example, the by now famous computer models of the UK Meteorological Office (UKMO) predicted a drought for 2012 that might stretch into 2013. Suddenly hose pipe bans were declared and a lockdown of precious water in reservoirs was initiated at the start of the year. After the wettest summer, autumn and winter for years, with attendant flooding and loss of life, what few gullible people left who had any confidence in the UKMO’s predictive powers, finally decided they were totally incompetent. Seemingly believing everyone is suffering from Alzheimers, the escape clause now being used by the UKMO is to blame climate change for one of the wettest years on record. It’s a win win piece of nomenclature.
The really big advantage of the name change is that not having to prove a specific thing – that the world is heating up – you can cherry pick your proofs of climate change occurring. Any change, real or otherwise, will do.
There appear to be five generic types of bogus proof that man-made climate change is occurring.
The first type is studying some really obscure organism, like for instance the South Pacific Snailbat, that nobody has researched in any detail before and concluding their population is in decline because of man-made climate change. It’ll nearly always be a decline, because nobody is interested in population increases, as it wouldn’t gel with their worldview of us humans always damaging the environment. There’s no real longterm data on the species, though usually some sort of historical proxy is found, which indicates a decline. While the layman might think proxy measurements are reliable, they rarely are. It’s all a matter of interpretation, and in some cases, just cherry picking the right hockey stick shaped example which appears to back up the conjecture being made. For lack of a better name, we’ll call that type of proof a Snailbat. We must save the snailbat.
It’s a very versatile sort of proof. You can do a snailbat on pretty much anything organic, from insects right up to sequoia trees.
The second type of proof is the computer model predicting something untoward is going to happen. It’s nearly impossible to get across to someone who’s never tried their hand at computer modelling, how limited a domain of problems are actually amenable to modelling. I had a go at that a few years back and a link to the piece is below. The critical factors in any model are the physical nature of the problem, how complete your understanding of the problem is and the parameters, otherwise knows as guesses, built into the model.
If you don’t really comprehensively understand the problem, no computer, no matter how powerful, is going to help you solve it. Climate is the result of the interactions between an undefined set of systems, many of which would be technically classified as non-linear complex systems. The mathematical reality is that any type of non-linear complex system cannot be modelled for predictive purposes anyway.
Just to illustrate to you how a lot of very clever, motivated, hard-nosed and financially competent people can walk themselves over a cliff by having blind faith in computer models, consider the case of the hedge fund firm Long-Term Capital Management. They had a couple of Nobel Prize winning economists on board, a battalion of financial analysts and another battalion of software developers. They built a shiny computer model of their own business area and started using it to place their bets on the derivatives market. They bet heavy too, confident in how good their models’ predictions were. There was no way they could lose money.
The models were wrong. In less than five years, they went from an enterprise with assets of 130 billion USD and a trading position of 1.25 trillion USD, to going broke. It was so big a disaster, that there were genuine fears it might bring down the whole of the derivatives market, which forced a 4 billion USD bailout by the industry itself. A lot of supposedly very smart people lost a lot of money, because of that insidious idea that if a computer predicts something is going to happen, then it must surely be going to happen.
While no reasonable person would believe anyone can foretell the future for decades ahead, it always amazes me how readily they accept that a silicone chip contraption somehow can. If we don’t know how to predict the future, we can’t program a computer to predict the future. Forget computers, forget science, forget math, it’s actually as simple as that.
Computers can’t predict the future.
If you’re a fan of the director Stanley Kubrick’s work, you’ve probably seen his movie 2001 a space odyssey. Although there are other themes in it, one of them is a supercomputer called HAL predicting things which actually didn’t happen. The crewmen believed HAL and suffered the consequences. Put too much uncritical faith in computer predictions and you’ll inevitably end up pleading with HAL to open the pod bay doors. Just tell the suckers that HAL says we’re heading for an eco-disaster, and they’ll believe it. That variety of proof, we’ll call a HALsays.
The third type of proof is what can only be called a Scarem. Whatever extreme weather event comes along, attribute it straight away to climate change and scare the pants off them. It doesn’t matter if there’s not a single shred of scientific evidence to back up that assertion. The legacy MSM can always be relied on to run with an extreme weather event story and all you have to do is volunteer that opinion to them as a climate expert, irrespective of your qualifications, if any. That’s how tropical storm Sandy magically mutated into a Frankenstorm, as far as the ordinary person was concerned. Scare them, scare them again and keep right on scaring them.
Next up would be the dark side of proofs. Global warming must be real because skeptics of it can’t be right. They have to be wrong because you’ve got some sort of proof they’re all either insane, conspiracy nuts or child molesters. They’re even the sort of people who should be executed. In all good taste and as a tender mercy to you good reader, I won’t dwell too long on this bottom feeding type of so-called science paper, except to lump them all into the general category of LewPapers, as a hat tip to one of their pioneers. Climate science has truly fallen before the onslaught of its own internal post-normal Visigoths. They own its ass.
Finally we have weird sorts of Tammany Hall polls masquerading as a proof. There are simply too many ways of rigging polls or post-processing the numbers to yield the desired result, and every one of those techniques is actively used. The whole thrust of them is to give the impression that the threat is real and people are really weally worried about it. By and large, they’re ignored. In a previous article, I compared them to those elections dictators periodically have, which always come out with a 99% vote in their favour. I suppose the apposite name for this stripe of beastie is a DicPol or perhaps more appropriately a DickPol, when you look at the sort of people behind them.
All of these proofs can be used in various combinations. Just mix and match as required and cook to taste but always take with a pinch of salt. For instance, based on a previous study of them, a new computer model predicts the endangered Snailbat will become extinct in less than a decade unless something is done to mitigate the impact of climate change on them. Of course, when you write it up for your paper, add in a lot of ass-covering caveats but you know the media will skip them all when your sensational research hits the front page. Sure, you’re going to have a squabble with the skeptics but that’ll all happen in the aftermath of the desired headlines and never be reported on anyway.
You follow it up with a DickPol showing how outraged people are at the desperate plight of the poor suffering snailbat and demanding action. The finishing touch would be to get Greenpeace to launch a Save the Snailbat campaign.
If that little lot doesn’t get you more research funding, nothing will.
The Snailbat, HALsays and Scarem proofs rely on the very understandable but very erroneous human perception that the environment not only shouldn’t change, but also something strange is happening if it is. Too much of environmental thinking on all sides is unconsciously based on something I called the steady-state environment delusion in a previous piece. There’s a link to it below, but the following paragraph from it summarises the essence of the idea.
We look at our world and the universe with human eyes and more importantly, with a human lifespan. In terms of the latter, we see an apparently ageless and unchanging view but it’s a false impression. When looked at through the eyes of “deep” time, it is dynamic, violent and forever changing. There is no ideal static harmonious state which must be maintained. There never was and there never will be either.
The reality is that the Earth’s climate, like the entire universe, has always, is, and will always change. The fundamentally dishonest thing about all these proofs, is the insistence that we’re the cause behind any change.
Any real scientific basis for the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming has by this stage been thoroughly shredded. What we’ve got coming at us in the future are; Snailbats, HALsays, Scarems, LewPapers and DickPols, because that’s all they’ve got left to use. Enjoy yourself sorting them into the appropriate categories as they come along.
©Pointman”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/the-shape-of-things-to-come…
"The Snailbat, HALsays and Scarem proofs rely on the very understandable but very erroneous human perception that the environment not only shouldn’t change, but also something strange is happening if it is. Too much of environmental thinking on all sides is unconsciously based on something I called the steady-state environment delusion in a previous piece. There’s a link to it below, but the following paragraph from it summarises the essence of the idea.
We look at our world and the universe with human eyes and more importantly, with a human lifespan. In terms of the latter, we see an apparently ageless and unchanging view but it’s a false impression. When looked at through the eyes of “deep” time, it is dynamic, violent and forever changing. There is no ideal static harmonious state which must be maintained. There never was and there never will be either.
The reality is that the Earth’s climate, like the entire universe, has always, is, and will always change. The fundamentally dishonest thing about all these proofs, is the insistence that we’re the cause behind any change.
Any real scientific basis for the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming has by this stage been thoroughly shredded. What we’ve got coming at us in the future are; Snailbats, HALsays, Scarems, LewPapers and DickPols, because that’s all they’ve got left to use. Enjoy yourself sorting them into the appropriate categories as they come along.
Pointman"
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/the-shape-of-things-to-come…
I don't think there can be a more eloquent display of the level of incompetent, ill-informed, know-nothing, fuckwitted, click-finger denialism that one billion dollars a year buys, than that kindly provided by PantieZ display above.
It will obviously take trillions more to buy even one single socially functioning moron. (champion grifter Donna LaRaspberry excepted. She's much,. much cheaper - bearing in mind you're still only getting what you pay for).
Btw PantieZ, while it might seem to you that your heroic efforts in service to the skill of copy'n'pasting and providing links is somehow in itself a worthwhile endeavour, bear in mind that you're perceived as the most cretinous of morons and nobody except your easily impressed fellow cretins such as Olap, GSW and Jonarse will be impressed.
Or indeed bother to read them.
I don't think pentaxZ realises that the more he posts the less credible he becomes.
Then again, there's an awful lot he doesn't realise.
Er Pentax you quote Since there has been no upward change of global temperatures in over the last decade and a half, that scare had become embarrassingly untenable. In response, the alarmists switched from screaming about global warming to hyperventilating about climate change.
Do you know that the IPCC was set up in 1988, so predates that "last decade and a half". Do you know what the CC in IPCC stands for? Hint: it isn't global warming.
They're called 'zombie arguments' TB.
Not only because they get slaughtered (as you just did above) yet rise again and again, but also because of their enduring appeal to the brain-dead.
#33 Pentax: I posted the same comment there about two hours ago. Funnily enough it hasn't appeared yet...
Turd...
"Do you know that the IPCC was set up in 1988, so predates that “last decade and a half”. Do you know what the CC in IPCC stands for? Hint: it isn’t global warming"
"global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming. He said: "global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming."4 Hansen's testimony was very widely reported in popular and business media, and after that popular use of the term global warming exploded"
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
So yes, hyperventilating about climate change was going on for a long time until the brain dead Hansen started screaming about Global Warming. When the warming wasn't responding to the screams, the hyperventilating started again....
Betty wriggles and writhes but does not answer the question:
Lets try again.
This is a conspiracy theory wherein the IPCC is complicit in misrepresenting climate science in order to enable global wealth redistribution.
You wrote it, so you are a conspiracy theorist. Why do you refuse to acknowledge what is obviously the case?
The same conspiracty theory with different words. You wrote it, so you are a conspiracy theorist. Why do you refuse to acknowledge what is obviously the case?
A third iteration of the conspiracy theory involving the UN and the IPCC. You wrote it, so you are a conspiracy theorist. Why do you refuse to acknowledge what is obviously the case?
Thus an ignorant denialist pillock on the internet describes one of the world's pre-eminent climate scientists.
Oh Pentax: did you think that I wouldn't read the rest of that link? How silly of you... it continues... Hansen's testimony was very widely reported in popular and business media, and after that popular use of the term global warming exploded. Global change never gained traction in either the scientific literature or the popular media.
But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.
Radiative physics and paleoclimate behaviour. Keep up, Betty.
If you wasted less time regurgitating conspiracist claptrap and more time studying the actual science you claim is being used to defraud the developed world, you would post less horse-shit on the internet and the world would be a fractionally better place.
And yes, I know you are copy-pasting your paranoid fantasies from elsewhere and that you have never so much as looked at the primary materials you reference because you aren't even an original conspiracy theorist, just a sheep.
Teh Stupid has come back with a vengeance, eh TB?
Did it ever go away?
Ah, no. You've got a point there.
Hyperventilating Betty only gets his 'facts' from the trash heaps of denial where they do memes, not science and therefore wouldn't inform their congregations of pointy heads, fake marines and paranoids that Gilbert Plass' "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change" was published in 1956.
Fumbled smear attempts on James Hansen are far more important than acknowledging established fact to such trash.
Hyperventilating Betty and all the rest of the deniers here are completely unable to explain how we get out of a Snowball Earth, what causes hyperthermals, and how orbital forcing triggers deglaciation unless GHGs are efficacious forcings and feedbacks net positive.
Completely unable. So we get all this crapola about the IPCC instead. If you ask me, it's just an attempt to divert attention away from the very public, very comprehensive and very painful failure of the deniers here to address the above points.
As I said earlier, it's fun watching Betty finally reduced to denying that a conspiracy theory is all that he's got left.
Because that is what this is really all about, the redistribution of the worlds wealth….compensation that is due, not for faux futuristic catastrophic scenarios, but for plundering the poor.
Could it be that the IPCC is a tool of the U.N. used to justify the needed financing of the MDG’s, and later the SDG’s….. with many members having similar ideologies with a taste for global justice through wealth redistribution?
But how do we justify taxing carbon? And how do we make it so the rich nations pay the carbon tax and the poor nations receive it?
We need some sort of official organization that is the sole authority, a world authority if you will, that we can point to and say…..”Look! The debate is over! This group of experts, made up of some scientists and other people lobbying for representing their countries, but all with the same ideological mindset, have proven beyond any doubt, that hypothetical future catastrophic scenarios will most likely definitely occur if the rich don’t pay what are they are morally obligated to pay!”
But where can we find such an organization?
Betty, we know that you are a conspiracy theorist. You have made that abundantly, redundantly plain.
The question to you was: why won't you admit this?
Or this? You skipped lightly over #49, Betty.
I'm pretty impressed with this one as a conspiracy theory, though. It's not like shapeshifting alien lizards concealing themselves from the rest of us and working in the mysterious background. This one's Gi.Gan.Tic. and done completely out in the open - in universities, insurance companies, publications, 1000s of government agencies on various continents, and in UN negotiations which are hardly the most private or discreet environments one can think of.
I've chaired more than enough meetings to know that getting majority agreement, on anything, is often a bit much to ask. How someone thinks that you can get nearly 200 individuals to unanimously concur on the words of a document like the IPCC report is a bit of a mystery. Getting almost 200 countries to do that is waaaay beyond anything I'd ever dream of.
Anyone who thinks that all the countries who have obviously different motivations and wildly divergent demands in relation to climate are somehow secretly agreeing to advance covert unexpressed intentions ... is a conspiracy theorist.
"Anyone who thinks that all the countries who have obviously different motivations and wildly divergent demands in relation to climate are somehow secretly agreeing to advance covert unexpressed intentions … is a conspiracy theorist"
Really? But what if they aren't covert or unexpressed intentions?
You do agree there is a need for climate justice don't you Adelady? That is, you do agree that the rich developed nations have created this problem and the poorer nations will bear the brunt?
And do you believe that in the future, "when affected countries demand assistance from the rich countries of the world in helping address climate-related disasters such as floods, it will not be for a request for charity but for compensation, appealing to their moral responsibility, if not their legal liability, to make good the damage and destruction for which their activities have, directly or indirectly, been partially responsible." ......don't you?
http://www.scidev.net/global/climate-change/editorials/bangladesh-flood…
And would you agree that the best instrument to do this would be a carbon tax, right?
So, would you agree that "one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”?
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-t…
And you do agree there is a need for Global Justice, don't you Adelady? That is, you do believe that the rich developed nations have only become rich and developed due to the plundering of the poor nations resources? Correct?
And it is the moral obligation of the rich nations to help the poor nations, right?
Would you agree with this statement?:
“We need rich countries to transfer money to poor countries, to be sure, and in much greater quantities than they presently do. But these transfers should not be considered charity; they should be considered a form of justice. Franz Fanon puts it best: “Colonialism and imperialism have not settled their debt to us once they have withdrawn from our territories. The wealth of the imperialist nations is also our wealth. Europe is literally the creation of the Third World. The riches which are choking it are those plundered from the underdeveloped peoples. So we will not accept aid for the underdeveloped countries as ‘charity’. Such aid must be considered the final stage of a dual consciousness – the consciousness of the colonised that it is their due, and the consciousness of the capitalist powers that effectively they must pay up.” (from Hardley's link at #45 pg 7)
And the best way to do this is with a carbon tax, correct?
And you are well aware of the Millennium Development Goals, am I right?
And you know these honorable goals are the baby of the United Nations, the same United Nations that formed the IPCC, correct?
And you are aware of the funding needed to accomplish these goals?
And would you agree that this funding needs to come from rich nations in the form of a carbon tax?
So it would appear that a carbon tax would solve many problems and grant many wishes....climate justice, global justice, development, catastrophes, the apocalypse etc..
But how do we justify taxing carbon? And how do we make it so the rich nations pay the carbon tax and the poor nations receive it?
We need some sort of official organization that is the sole authority, a world authority if you will, that we can point to and say…..”Look! The debate is over! This group of experts, made up of some scientists and other people lobbying for representing their countries, but all with the same ideological mindset, have proven beyond any doubt, that hypothetical future catastrophic scenarios will most likely definitely occur if the rich don’t pay what are they are morally obligated to pay!”
But where can we find such an organization?
PentaxZ's, betula's, and other trolls' amnesia is notable, and should concern each of them as it is also quite significant.
You see, it's not as if they haven't been told about Frank Luntz's involvement of the promotion for political reason of the term 'climate change' over 'global warming'. Even on Deltoid there's been a long history of such education:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/13/climate2/#comment-3651
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/09/bolt2/#comment-3608
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/28/inhofes-war-on-science/#comm…
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/02/open-thread-11/#comment-44818
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/20/97-of-active-climatologists-…
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/06/firedoglake-book-salon-on-ja…
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/01/the-empirical-evidence-for-m…
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/09/monckton-interviewed-by-adam…
More reminders here of their clinical stupidity:
http://www.webcitation.org/6MByuw8Ii
PentaxZ's, betula's, and other trolls' amnesia is notable, and should concern each of them as it is also quite significant.
You see, it's not as if they haven't been told about Frank Luntz's involvement of the promotion for political reason of the term 'climate change' over 'global warming'. Even on Deltoid there's been a long history of such education:
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/13/climate2/#comment-3651
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/09/bolt2/#comment-3608
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/28/inhofes-war-on-science/#comment-15526
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/02/open-thread-11/#comment-44818
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/20/97-of-active-climatologists-ag/comment-page-2/#comment-50604
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/06/firedoglake-book-salon-on-jame/comment-page-1/#comment-73881
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/01/the-empirical-evidence-for-man/comment-page-13/#comment-85818
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/09/monckton-interviewed-by-adam-s/#comment-118843
More reminders here of their clinical stupidity:
webcitation.org/6MByuw8Ii
@# 53 Adelady:
precisely!
Even though it is clearly not a conspiracy (as several people, including Betula, have pointed out with supporting links) Jeff Harvey and others have demonstrated it isn't working anyway,precisely for the reasons you have outlined.
here:
"How someone thinks that you can get nearly 200 individuals to unanimously concur on the words of a document like the IPCC report is a bit of a mystery. Getting almost 200 countries to do that is waaaay beyond anything I’d ever dream of. "
I'm not sure what you're saying Stu2. All those countries did agree on the words. The big issue is whether they are persuaded or driven by some over-arching but never admitted conspiracy to do so. I don't think they are.
A lot of them would rather have the problem just go away and not bother them, but they have no argument against the scientific findings they're working with. So some stick to arguing just to water down the bare scientific statements as much as they can get away with while the rest try to hold the line. (Because they know that the scientific stuff is too tentative in its projections of future scenarios and watering them down as much as the others prefer would make them completely unrealistic.)
"Betty, we know that you are a conspiracy theorist. You have made that abundantly, redundantly plain.
The question to you was: why won’t you admit this?"
There's a conspiracy by Betty to hide the conspiracy!!!
Adelady at #53...
"How someone thinks that you can get nearly 200 individuals to unanimously concur on the words of a document like the IPCC report is a bit of a mystery. Getting almost 200 countries to do that is waaaay beyond anything I’d ever dream of. “
Stu2 at #56....."precisely!"
Adelady at #57..."I’m not sure what you’re saying Stu2. All those countries did agree on the words"
Classic Deltoidian Dementia.
#59 , in which Betty takes careful aim, a long run-up and soundly gives himself a flying kick in the teeth.
Too thick to live, too stupid to go away and too dumb to keep quiet. Classic Betty 'bola bile.
Notice how none of the deniers will touch #49?
See how they misdirect with silly conspiracy theories while the fact that they have no scientific argument is doggedly ignored?
That's denialism, folks. That and nutty tinfoil conspiracist ideation of course. Watching Betty flatly refuse to admit that his conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory is an absolute treat. Behold an intellectual dishonesty that goes beyond parody into something rich and strange.
Watching Stu 2 pretend that Betula hasn't advanced a conspiracy theory by resolutely ignoring the part that is a conspiracy theory, despite several people explicitly pointing the conspiracy in that part out to him, is also an "absolute treat", albeit in a rather sad and ironic sense of the term.
"Notice how none of the deniers will touch #49?"
What's the matter Barney, can't discuss the present?
Why don't you try and help Adelady solve the mystery?....
It would appear that a carbon tax would solve many problems and grant many wishes….climate justice, global justice, development, catastrophes, the apocalypse etc..
But how do we justify taxing carbon? And how do we make it so the rich nations pay the carbon tax and the poor nations receive it?
We need some sort of official organization that is the sole authority, a world authority if you will, that we can point to and say…..”Look! The debate is over! This group of experts, made up of some scientists and other people lobbying for representing their countries, but all with the same ideological mindset, have proven beyond any doubt, that hypothetical future catastrophic scenarios will most likely definitely occur if the rich don’t pay what are they are morally obligated to pay!”
But where can we find such an organization?
Sloth...
Let's discuss conspiracy theories...
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/04/06/rajendra-pachauris-conspiracy…
I wonder what it must feel like to be absolutely dependent on obvious lies and nonsense? I'm sure that it can't be very nice.
Betty knows that he is proposing a conspiracy theory and Stu knows it too but like Betty, is forced to pretend otherwise, revealing himself to be as intellectually dishonest as Betty himself.
This can't be doing much for the self-esteem.
Because there isn't one, Betty. But there *is* a conspiracy theory. Why don't you admit that what you propose is a conspiracy theory when it clearly is and denying it makes you look like a stupid and desperate liar?
@#65 that is of course Stu2, not the real Stu.
What's the matter Betty, can't discuss the science?
Threat reported from link at #64
Other commenters please note that Webroot SecureAnywhere has blocked access to Nofrakkingconsensus on the basis of malware threat. This is really quite unusual.
The fact that - as pointed out before at #34 - that Dr Pauchuri can point to around one billion dollars a year funding to the climate change denial effort means he's not talking about a 'theory', but bought and paid for organised fact.
Another massive fail for Bettybola.
Reminds me of the classic denier plaint of "but i'm not funded by the energy industry" - which is trivially true. What the sheep seem unable to grasp is that the denier talking points they endlessly spew out wherever they go were mostly written by people who *are* funded by the fossil fuel industry.
They never seem to grasp that they are useful idiots, but I suppose inability to recognise that you are being used is a prerequisite here.
The excruciating spectacle of watching Bettybola clownshoe his way through a circus ring of denial filled with giant mousetraps and sundry buckets of paint perched atop stepladders in pursuit of his stupid, long lost arguments is, for all the inevitability of his swollen fingered and paint splattered finale, strangely compelling.
Every once in a while most governments have a budget where they set taxes. Remind me again why we need a big hoax to justify a new tax...
Why?
You are merely linking to a piece on a known denialist site to dodge the central element of your current conspiracy theory in order to continue to refuse to admit that it is a conspiracy theory: your implication that zillions of scientists (and governments and civil servants around the world) are ALL colluding to publish false science...
...so very very carefully and remarkably constructed so that all of the falsehoods are consistent with each other(!)...
...and yet so cunningly falsified that their divergence from reality is practically impossible to demonstrate (even by other highly qualified scientists)...
...in order to advance a set of political and sociological goals.
Take your meds.
Sloth..
"your implication that zillions of scientists (and governments and civil servants around the world) are ALL colluding to publish false science"
In terms of climate change, they publish science filled with uncertainties, along with statements about the need for more data and better ways to collect data.
The rub lies in the IPCC boiling down those uncertainties to where they can claim to predict an almost certain future outcome. But why they create a message that can be used to push a climate policy that just so happens to coincide with redistribution of global wealth appears to be a complete mystery and is anybody's guess.
"When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and must therefore recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions, both in the mechanisms at play and in the available data; or they try to convey what they
"consensually" think is the right message but at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter option. The result is they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message asking for urgent reaction, which is quite contrary to what the
scientific message conveys"
"What we are witnessing are successive distortions of the scientific message of the AR5 report on the Physical Science Basis: first from the report to the SPM by those who wrote
and/or amended the SPM, then from the SPM to the press by those who speak in the name of the IPCC (including the IPCC chairman) then from the press to the general public by green activists who too often behave irresponsibly in misrepresenting the findings of the work."
"Such a report must refrain from ignoring basic scientific practices, as the SPM authors blatantly do when claiming to be able to quantify with high precision their confidence in the impact of anthropogenic C02 emissions on global warming. Statistical uncertainties, inasmuch as they are normally distributed, can be quantified with precision and it can make sense to distinguish between a 90% and a 95% probability, for example in calculating the probability of getting more than ten aces when throwing a die more than 10 times. In most physical problems, however, and particularly in climate science, statistical uncertainties are largely irrelevant. What matters are systematic uncertainties that result in a large part from our lack of understanding of the mechanisms at play, and also in part from the lack of relevant data. In quantifying such ignorance the way they have done it, the SPM authors have lcist credibility with many scientists. Such behaviour is unacceptable. A proper scientific summary must rephrase the main SPM conclusions in a way that describes properly the factors that contribute to the uncertainties attached to such conclusions".
"In such a context, I consider that the IPCC scientists should feel morally compelled to produce a scientific summary of their work while refraining from giving the world a message."
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceP…
A very old retired physicist who is not competent to comment offers some readily ignorable testimony to a UK ECC 'inquiry' into a review (yawn).
In which he recommends that we consider questions raised by the 2013 NIPCC 'report' brought to us by the fossil fuel industry and the Heartland Institute.
Yawn some more.
Hey, Betty, when are you going to admit that a conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory? We can't do much more here until you touch base with reality.
In other words, the professor (who is in fact not a professor but simply Dr, retired) is another useful idiot. Still, he has an interesting-sounding correspondence address of which I am faintly envious.
There has been much vacuous propaganda from certain quarters on the amount of funding enjoyed by climate science researchers with the broadcasters of such propaganda having only the woolliest of ideas on the huge numbers of fields of research which have provided data and insight. At the same time, these purveyors of ill formed opinion appear blind to the monstrously large sums of money ploughed into the denial machine.
This wilful blindness is in spite of being pointed to sources that demonstrate proof of denial funding sources.
Now we have more such evidence as pointed out the Rabett's place where we find a timely link to more by the tireless John Mashey in an article at DesMogBlog Study Details Dark Money Flowing to Climate Science Denial. Figure 4 is very interesting reminding me of the webs one can construct using this:
web where names are added and links made, one I created some time back, I have several.
Note that one of the names in the above has recently cropped up as misleading Congress, again, as reported at the SkS article, 'More misleading Congressional climate testimony'. Are there not penalties for such behaviour?
In other words, the <ProfessorDr, retired has to resort to citing to WUWT as a font of knowledge (footnote page 6 - unnumbered, how non-academic is that FFS).
BBD, these fools don't realise how foolish they make themselves look.
Yup, I noticed that, but also his choice of two named raisers of "legitimate objections" to the validity of the IPCC process and its various conclusions: Curry and Lindzen.
So that's WUWT, Curry, Lindzen and Heartland/NIPCC.
At a quick glance, I can see that Dr Darriulat doesn't understand the difference between TCR and ECS (that'll be Lindzen fogging his brain) and does not understand that climate models are designed to examine centennial-scale climate change, not predict what will happen next decade. So it is misguided to claim that 'the models are wrong' because they failed to predict a specific transient slowdown in the rate of surface warming. Another common fake-sceptic confusion/bit of dodgy rhetoric. And there's more, but ho-hum.
But the good Doctor self-describes as:
I think not.
The slowdown doesn't disprove the IPCC predictions either: the error on the 15 year trend bandied about are too large to show the prediction wrong.
Betula's 'expert' has, according to the Web of Science, a career total of 17 publications with 62 citations and an h-factor of 3. This is less than puny; it is invisible. Yet bark brain has the audacity to question my qualifications in science, merely because I disagree with just about everything he writes. Betty has tendency to write without thinking. Pretty well all of his posts are vacuous musings.
Nor is he a climate scientist.
A lurker's quick OT note to advise how I've scored 2013 for Deltoid (rating is between 0 and 1) ...
Deltoid Regulars + 1
Betty and the Deniers - 5 Million
Keep up the great work you're doing as a bunch of blithering idiots Betty et al. You have real talent.
Cheers,
Chris W
...Betty et al.
Et al? I thought there was only one with multiple sock puppets?
Yeah, you're probably right Turboblocke. One sock for each of Mrs Palmer's daughters.
BBD @ # 77 & #81 and Lionel A @ # 79
According to your own definitions this must therefore be a conspiracy theory too?
BBD
"A very old retired physicist who is not competent to comment offers some readily ignorable testimony to a UK ECC ‘inquiry’ into a review (yawn).
In which he recommends that we consider questions raised by the 2013 NIPCC ‘report’ brought to us by the fossil fuel industry and the Heartland Institute. "
and:
Yup, I noticed that, but also his choice of two named raisers of “legitimate objections” to the validity of the IPCC process and its various conclusions: Curry and Lindzen.
So that’s WUWT, Curry, Lindzen and Heartland/NIPCC. "
and:
"Another common fake-sceptic confusion/bit of dodgy rhetoric. And there’s more, but ho-hum.
But the good Doctor self-describes as:
a neutral scientist observing the climate debate
I think not. "
Lionel A
This wilful blindness is in spite of being pointed to sources that demonstrate proof of denial funding sources.
Now we have more such evidence as pointed out the Rabett’s place where we find a timely link to more by the tireless John Mashey in an article at DesMogBlog Study Details Dark Money Flowing to Climate Science Denial. Figure 4 is very interesting reminding me of the webs one can construct using this:
web where names are added and links made, one I created some time back, I have several.
Note that one of the names in the above has recently cropped up as misleading Congress, again, as reported at the SkS article, ‘More misleading Congressional climate testimony‘. Are there not penalties for such behaviour? "
Apparently it doesn't matter which side you barrack for : the other side is calling 'conspiracy' ?????
No offence, but this sounds more like fans arguing at a football match than anything else.
In the meantime, as Adelady sort of pointed out and Jeff Harvey has repeatedly inferred, what either side wants won't happen anyway because of the politics involved.
It is however a great way to take up lots of space in the media and the blogosphere, spend lots of money whether it's taxpayer money, NGO money or the 'denial machine' money and create lots of extra CO2 (along with the hot air).
2Stupid
Why?
Don't you see, BBD?
Some say 'to-may-to', others say 'to- mah-to'.
It really is just that silly, if I'm translating #88 correctly.
BBD @ # 89
Why not?
Yes, of course they do. If they didn't do so it would not be scientific. In contrast, many of those arguing against the science express (and brook) no uncertainty, which is a dead giveaway that they aren't making a science-based case.
And as I pointed out previously almost all medical and military decisions and the bulk of corporate and governmental decisions must be undertaken in the presence of uncertainty. So the mere presence of uncertainty doesn't rebut the case for action.
Firstly, that's an incorrect characterisation of much of what the IPCC reports as the uncertainties vary widely across the different claims, but we rather expect that from you and your sources.
Secondly, those claims are backed by the scientific evidence. Key claims for which high confidence is reported are backed by strong evidence and a demonstrated absence of any serious scientific counter argument.
Thirdly and most importantly, for a few of those key claims you only need to have marginal confidence or sometimes reasonable confidence - not even reasonable or sometimes high confidence! - in order for best practices in risk management to kick in. And those best practices say that we cannot afford to roll the dice and hope that our current best understanding is wrong.
And given the accumulated scientific evidence, we have already cleared that confidence bar on key claims by a mile even if we were to throw out the IPCC synthesis reports. Out of all of your waffling here over the years, precisely NONE of it has demonstrated that we haven't cleared that bar. That is because you, like everyone else both less and more qualified and insightful who is opposing policy responses, have been unable to demonstrate this and have to settle for trying to muddy the waters instead.
"In terms of climate change, they publish science filled with uncertainties,"
Whereas religion brooks no uncertainty to the laity and make claims like "there has been a cooling trend for the past 15 years". No mention of the uncertainty in the trend when deniers like you wibble on about it.
"BBD @ # 89
Why not?"
Because it doesn't have to.
2 Stupid
FFS learn to quote, using HTML tags would be good even if only italic, but failing that quote marks are there for a purpose..
But I forget, to do so would involve expenditure of effort and that is anathema to you and your kind.
So why should we be expected to expend effort sorting out who wrote what in your lazy, content free posts?
2Stupid
What I wrote is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conspiracy theory. Yet you, most unwisely IMO, claim that it is.
So please demonstrate why and how this is the case.
This I have to see.
And what Lionel A said. FFS learn to use HTML and quote properly. It is a discourtesy to post as illegibly as you do. Get it sorted out.
Oh the irony...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/12/28/msm-glosses-over-ir…
Ah! So Betty joins the Ugly Bunch i.e. The really ugly side of Anthony Watts and his science deniers at WUWT .
No surprises there then.
Williwatts displayed similar derision towards an Arctic expedition in difficulties several years ago.
He and his back-slapping troll platoon are vermin incapable of comprehension.
The research ship became trapped when ice pushed by strong winds surrounded the vessel, according to an Australian professor who helped organize the trip.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/ship-trapped-antartica-icebreak…
Good post by Sou on the pathological malice directed by Watts at scientists. Madness everywhere you look.
"Ah! So Betty joins the Ugly Bunch"
Do you really think I would join up with the likes of Barney, who would like to watch people be beaten simply because he believes they may not share his vision of the future?
Incomprehensible!
BBD @ # 96 previous page:
" What I wrote is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conspiracy theory."
I disagree BBD.
It fits on a number of levels especially in regard to secret plans to misdirect and suspicious, tainted funding.
But please do explain why you don't think your comments and Lionel's comments could not possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as advancing a 'conspiracy theory' in a similar manner to your criticism of Betula's comments.
Incidentally, whether I choose to use HTML or not is totally irrelevant and indicates absolutely nothing at all about anything at all.
So, explain the purpose of Donors Trust to us. Bearing in mind that something demonstrated in evidence is not a conspiracy theory.
Then read this carefully.
When you have finished, explain where I veer into conspiracy theory.
Au contraire, it shows you are lazy, incompetent and/or trolling.
From your previous behavior, "all three" seems a safe bet.
ianam: I think that’s a poor example
It's a wise decision.
it still allows for a “moderators are paid stooges” copout
Stu, as I've observed before, you aren't rational about these things. Deniers will always find copouts of all sorts. What matters is what decent human beings think, not what denier sludge claims. We would all be far better off if all media organizations immediately implemented a policy of banning demonstrable lies ... the results from the organizations that have done so show this.
Yes that's correct BBD:
" Bearing in mind that something demonstrated in evidence is not a conspiracy theory."
Well done!
Oh my giddy aunt! What a shame we don't have The Australian's War on Science going any more. Though I suppose this is really the new government's war on science - now we know why they abolished the science ministry, couldn't be seen to be attacking one of their own, could they.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/31/tony-abbotts-top-bus…
I know Maurice Newman's not a scientist but he's supposed to be a business whizz kid. Surely he listens to technical experts - or at least risk management people - when important decisions are in question. Or does he read blogs that only tell him what he wants to hear even then?
Indeed. Which is why the world would be better if news organisations refused to print demonstrable lies.
FWIW, that's precisely how various elements promoting the "Right" in the US have operated for the last couple of decades. They always found something to gin up conservative outrage over whether it had a factual basis or logic to it or not. A lot of energy and opportunity cost and over-generous "compromise" was spent by what passes for the "Left" and the "Centre" in the US in attempts to avoid becoming fodder for these kinds of attacks, but it's essentially ALL wasted because the smearers simply make shit up or make crazy arguments if they think that will advance their goals.
Adelady. Newman is a tool, a useful idiot, a convenient way to inject the vicious ideas of the Minchinite Hard Right into the bear pit without having to defend the indefensible. They use Downer (that other reprehensible piece of inbred Old Adelaide Facist shit) for the same purpose. We need more tumbrels.
Betty's infantile comment was picked up on Media Lens in the UK:
"You'd cringe with embarrassment if it came out of the mouth of an 8-year-old" captures the intellectual level of most of Betty's musings, in particular his quip about the vessel trapped in ice in the Antarctic. There's nothing whatsoever ironic about this event; its just that dopes like bark-brain try and wring every bit of irony out of any orifice that they can.
Sorry to interrupt your morning service here at the Chapel for True Believers but I just wanted to express my deep gratitude for providing me with a constant source of mirth during the year. In particular, I just love the way you saved the best for last. The sight of a ship full of 'Warmers' and their acolytes from the media frozen solid in the Antarctic and having to be airlifted to safety has me rolling on the floor, banging my heels against the carpet and howling with laughter. Who needs the return of Monty Python when year after year after year you and yours provide non-stop comedy of the highest order.
Anyway, enough mirth, back to your daily service which I enjoy so much, so altogether now, and no giggling, "I BELIEEEVE! I BELIEEEVE!"
I agree with David, its a hoot.
Dai, why you talk such smack to betty?
Damn those Koch brothers! Abandon ship!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531159/Antarctic-crew-build-ic…
Please, Betula, mind your language and remember this a Chapel of True Belief! Yes, I realise that the congregation which used to overflow outside has now slowly but inexorably dwindled to a mere handful of True Believers and that even the High Priest in Residence who actually provides these premises has done a runner and has not been seen or heard of for years. (Just between the two of us, Betula, do you think he's fallen from grace and is too shy to own up?!)
David Duff, late as ever with picking up on a story, you can believe what you like but we UNDERSTAND why you are wrong, and so wrong-headed you make GWB seem bright.
Tim is around and I take this opportunity to wish him all the best and respectively request he unbans me... for the sake of free speech.
You so dumb betty.
Ice? At the poles?
So what?
Dai, do you have anything to say here, or have you merely got claims of how dumb you are to prattle on about?
Adelady,
one would think that Abbott's top business adviser would know about this,
China’s pollution problems threaten Oz coal exports
more here:
China's coal crackdown could leave Australian mines stranded Down Under
which makes that Great Barrier Reef destroying port development even more insane.
When will these tools learn that you cannot eat money and will soon come a time when a wheelbarrow load of high value notes will not even pay for a loaf of bread. Inflation, we ain't seen nothing yet. I well remember those German 'Adolf' stamps I collected as a kid, the ones with ever larger numbers overprinted in black ink on nominal the same face value stamp.
I'll bet even old 'Duffer the puffer' is unaware of why that happened let alone the likes of Birch Bark and 2 Stupid, who have both doubled down on their idiocy in spite of being shown why they are wrong.
# 8 2Stupid
This is not an answer to the question I asked you at # 5. Once again, when cornered by your own foolishness you turn evasive. I am fed up with your rank intellectual dishonesty so on this occasion will simplify the dance:
Answer me or fuck off.
After Britain has just had one of its warmest (and wettest) ever Decembers, I thought we'd seen the last of old Duffer. But no, like the '8 year old child' alluded to in the Media Lens post, he has to bring up the irrelevant story about the ship trapped in Antarctic ice.
What a clown. But all deniers are.
Of course, recall that Duffer once claimed that Obama was a Marxist..... this is the sub-benthic level of intellectual acumen we are dealing with here....
Betula, displaying signs of being worked over by the 'bark beetle':
Only incomprehensible to one who fails at following links or comprehending the message found there. Here is a reminder.
Do you not understand how stupid your remark WRT BBD is? It is flippant idiocy.
Er, Lionel, given the, um, slight embarrassment, shall we say, of all those 'Warmers' and their Guardian hacks trapped in the ice, perhaps this isn't the best time to be using phrases like "who have both doubled down on their idiocy in spite of being shown why they are wrong." Please, please, just stick to the chorus - "WE BELIEEEVE, WE BELIEEEVE"
Oh, and Jeff, my apologies, I have been meaning to drop a line here to say thank you to all of you for providing a bit of warming this December. Of course, it's not *global* warming, as any 'damn Yankee' will tell you, to say nothing of those suckers on the ship, but still, every little helps and I do so desperately want global warming to happen. Well, who wouldn't, it's much better than global cooling which I suspect (no more) might be about to happen.
El thicko continues:
So you still do not understand why this incident came about, never let learning get in the way of a 'flippant quip' is your motto, No?
Your posts will continue to be facile until you bother to delve deeper into the physics of climate change and the effects on the meteorology of the area of focus.
"After Britain has just had one of its warmest (and wettest) ever Decembers"
Hardley, how many times do we have to teach you the difference between weather and climate and that "citing monthly temperature records are meaningless when looking at longer trends"
It would be the equivalent of me stating "Madison, Wisconsin was breaking maximum temperature records by over 5 C in mid-January."
Of course, in terms of climate change, any senior scientist worth his weight in snow would consider such a statement to be irrelevant...
http://www.ecoglobe.org/nz/biodiv/biod2211.htm
By the way, speaking of timescales, it's been 12 years since that Madison Wisconsin comment and it appears that the Koch brothers have now bought the state...
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20131230/GPG0101/312300134/
.
No, no, no, Lionel, I *do* understand, really I do, it's just those twerps on the boat who don't! Please, do try and explain it to *them* and don't waste your time with me because I already know that in Antarctica it gets jolly cold, I mean, 'bits-dropping-off cold' and that's why there's lots and lots of ice so no-one with more than three brain cells - so that includes us, eh, Lionel? - would dream of going anywhere near the wretched place in a boat, of all things!
Happy arbitrary orbital milestone day.
I wonder if the scientifically illiterate physics/ecology deniers will finally learn some of the basics in 2014...?
"No, no, no, Lionel, I *do* understand, really I do"
So you're deliberately talking shit, then, dai?
"how many times do we have to teach you the difference between weather and climate"
You've never tried to do that once, betty.
Indeed the most immobile refusal to know what the difference between the two is are you deniers. Hell, you've refused every attempt to either describe or define either climate, weather or the difference.
Like with your "Look! It's cooling!" whines.
Weather, not climate, dear.
"Of course, it’s not *global* warming, as any ‘damn Yankee’ will tell you,"
Yet your back yard, if snowing, is proof that GLOBAL warming is not happening???
"Er, Lionel, given the, um, slight embarrassment, shall we say, of all those ‘Warmers’ and their Guardian hacks trapped in the ice"
What slight embarrassment?
David Duff.
I know that you're forever mired by your inability to understand even basic physics, but the Antarctic expedition issue goes something like this:
1) an icerberg the size of Luxembourg breaks off and crunches around the terminus of a glacier making sea ice soup
2) winds pile this soup around a ship, locking it in.
3) physics denialists think that the presence of such ice invalidates the fact of human carbon emissions, the greenhouse effect, global warming, and the triviality of continued ice presence at the South Pole of the planet.
Apparently as soon as a freezer is turned off all the ice turns to water.
Those rugger boys flushed your head three times and only brought it back up twice, eh what Duff?
"Only incomprehensible to one who fails at following links or comprehending the message found there."
Sorry Lionel, I don't know what came over me, but when I read this....“Ah! So Betty joins the Ugly Bunch”....followed by chek's posting of this...."are vermin incapable of comprehension"....I couldn't help but be reminded how compassionate and caring you Deltoidians are.
I couldn't help but recall the compassion of Barney back in June when he stated...."If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it".
Such a lovely bunch.
"I couldn’t help but be reminded how compassionate and caring you Deltoidians are."
Ah, rather ironic that you complain and whine about impolite, betty.
Love to dish it out, hate to reap what you sow, eh?
Betty #28
November was the warmest in the instrumental record...
The climate system is warming because of increased radiative forcing by GHGs, mainly CO2. It will get much, much warmer by the end of the century if emissions continue unabated. This is well understood both from fundamental physics and from known paleoclimate behaviour. Denying this is infantile. QED.
"but the Antarctic expedition issue goes something like this:"
A lot of time, money and resources expended, along with CO2 emitted, to discover ice in the Antarctic.
"A lot of time, money and resources expended, along with CO2 emitted, to discover ice in the Antarctic."
Ah, so that's as far as what you know goes, is it, betty?
Tell me, where did you read that the point of the expedition was to discover ice in the Antarctic?
"Tell me, where did you read that the point of the expedition was to discover ice in the Antarctic"
The ice discovered them.
This November was the 345th consecutive month when global average temperature exceeded the C20th average.
Weather or climate, Betty? Weather or climate?
Wow, you need to give Betula a few furlongs headstart.
He's not the sharpest spade in the shed, and this is why he is either completely unaware:
1) of the reason the expedition was there in the first place, or
2) why his statement is simply nothing more than that the classic straw man logical fallacy.
Or both. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and he was obviously ring-barked as a sapling.
"The ice discovered them."
What part of "where did you read that the point of the expedition was to discover ice in the Antarctic” was unclear, betty?
Your response has not answered my query.
Good luck with that, Wow. I'm still waiting for this ludicrous little man to acknowledge that his IPCC conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory.
Mind you, 2Stupid is just as bad. In fact refusal to answer questions seems to be endemic in denier-land. Must be something to do with the fact that what they peddle is a load of old bollocks.
Betty chastises me over the record mild UK December (actually all of Europe has been near record warm, but why quibble) without understanding that warm weather records are exceeding cold weather records by a ratio in excess of 5:1 over the past decade. Now there's climate for you. Moreover, I am not talking about one location (e.g. Madison WI) but a large continent.
At the same time, birch brain makes a big fuss over a ship trapped in Antarctic ice which is not only a very local event, but has nothing whatsoever to do with AGW.
I smell more than a whiff of hypocrisy....
More like the stench of insanity with Bark Brain.
Of course, it’s not *global* warming
Duff remains so stupid as to not even understand what "global warming" means ... he thinks it implies that every spot on the globe is warm. I've suggested before "planetary warming", but I think he's too stupid to understand even that.
Sou tells us that Willard Anthony has taken his nutery to a new level with this one Vessel trapped off Antarctica - it's a conspiracy, sez anti-science campaigner Anthony Watts not that the gang of idiots that includes Duff and Birch Bark will realise how silly they have been even now.
@Stu2:
Since you're running from #6 like a jackrabbit with a cherrybomb suppository, you have conceded you are lazy, incompetent and a troll.
Just FYI.
@All:
WHAT THE FARK is with the new troll fixation on "conspiracy theory or not"? It is beyond pathetic. Betula has been trying to play short-bus gotcha with this for what, four pages now? What a sad little muppet.
FACT:
There is money in green energy. Some policy makers have glaring COIs that are apparent to anyone. Millions of dollars percolate through this nefarious web.
FACT:
There is money in denialism. Energy companies and their owners go to great lengths to hide their involvement in this wingnut welfare scheme and put money in effort into changing the subject whenever they are exposed. Billions of dollars percolate through this nefarious scheme.
FACT:
AGW is real and a scientific certainty.
Oh, and I would like to introduce Stu's Law: "If you think that a scientific expedition getting caught in the ice is a valid argument in the discussion whether AGW is happening, you are a fetid, trolling moron and will be laughed out of the room."
(Random analogy time)
Crime statistics in the US have been steadily declining since tracking started in the 70s. This is not open for debate.
Deniers, essentially, are now standing over a random mugging and gleefully saying "look! look! statistics! ha! look!".
Bonus points to be awarded if the person mugged is one of the scientists compiling crime data. The Watts troll contingent would essentially stand over the victim cackling in ecstasy braying about how this one incident proves all that stupid sciency data totally wrong.
What do you mean, what? That's EXACTLY what is happening over at WUWT with a scientific research vessel getting stranded in Antarctica. Some proudly wish for them to die. For being right.
Now scroll back through this thread and watch Betula do Extreme Pretzel Reasoning to make this equivalent to some of us wishing denialist liars getting kicked in the nuts. Or being beat up. It was something like that, wasn't it Betula? I don't seem to recall the WISHING YOU WOULD DIE OF HYPOTHERMIA FOR BEING RIGHT.
Scum. Sub-standard, insensate, sociopathic pond scum. That's what you are. DIAFF.
Ah, in addition the other comments addressing this above, note that Betula has reliably failed to appreciate the point and attempted a clumsy sleight of hand in his own inimitable fashion.
Duffer is, as Duffer is wont to do, citing some regional conditions which he appears to think invalidates the scientific understanding that the climate system is warming. (Never mind that he's too stubborn to acknowledge that a warming world will still have regions that are below freezing for long periods of time, and sea ice will form on seas in those regions...)
It is entirely appropriate to skewer Duffer's idiocy by pointing out not only some other regional conditions that, if the same logic were applied, would lead to the opposite conclusion.
Now pay attention, as this concept is a bit tricky for most people until they reach early high school.
Skewering someone else's illogic does not mean that the one doing the skewering subscribes to that illogic, any more than my earlier mockery of your conspiracy theory means that I subscribe to it as you implied I did.
And finally it is even more appropriate to skewer Duff's logic based on Duff's own regional conditions. This points out that he's ignoring the lessons his own region would teach him if his logic were valid, so he has apparently worked hard to cherry pick a region that can "support" his preferred conclusions via his chain of illogic.
Stu...
"Now scroll back through this thread and watch Betula do Extreme Pretzel Reasoning to make this equivalent to some of us wishing denialist liars getting kicked in the nuts. Or being beat up. It was something like that, wasn’t it Betula? I don’t seem to recall the WISHING YOU WOULD DIE OF HYPOTHERMIA FOR BEING RIGHT."
Try to follow along Stu...I know it's tough for you:
1. I state "oh the irony"
2. Lionel links this to WUWT with this comment..."Ah! So Betty joins the Ugly Bunch"
Are you still with me?
3. Chek also thinks "oh the irony" is similar to WUWT with this statement..."Williwatts displayed similar derision", and then takes it a step further by saying they "are vermin incapable of comprehension"
Is this going too fast for you?
4. I figured if "oh the irony" is similar to "vermin incapable of comprehension", surely this statement..."If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it”...must be incomprehensible.
Almost done Stu, I know this is tough for you, but this is your big part.
5. You, being the genius that you are, take it new a whole new level. The comparison of "oh the irony" to WUWT vermin is reasonable, whereas the comparison of wanting someone beaten to vermin is unreasonable. In fact, if you can follow the order of events above, what you are saying is that the statement "oh the irony" ends up being equivalent to wishing people die of hypothermia.
Being the scholar that you are, here's a test question for you:
Choose the two that are most similar:
A. ”If the public really thought about the matter, deniers would be beaten in the streets, and I for one would not lift a fucking finger to stop it”.
B. "WISHING YOU WOULD DIE OF HYPOTHERMIA"
C. Oh the irony.
Take your time, you can retake the test as many times as you like until you get it right.
It is entirely appropriate to skewer Duffer’s idiocy by pointing out not only some other regional conditions that, if the same logic were applied, would lead to the opposite conclusion.
I don't think so. By Duff's moronic misunderstanding of "global warming", it implies that every point on the globe is warm. Thus, looking out his window and seeing that it's cold serves as a counterexample. But counterexamples to "the globe is not warm everywhere" are not possible. Jeff's "Britain has just had one of its warmest (and wettest) ever Decembers" is irrelevant and the virus's observation that it's just another example of weather is correct. Jeff gets some things right, but he gets a lot wrong, and intellectually honest people should recognize that.
And finally it is even more appropriate to skewer Duff’s logic based on Duff’s own regional conditions. This points out that he’s ignoring the lessons his own region would teach him if his logic were valid, so he has apparently worked hard to cherry pick a region that can “support” his preferred conclusions via his chain of illogic.
Let me explain again why this is incorrect.
Duff's position is that there's no global warming, there are just natural cycles and variation. So of course he does not deny that it is warm in places, and sometimes warm in his own region. Examples of warmth in his own region are thus no challenge to his chain of reasoning at all and there's nothing to be learned from them.
OTOH, when Duff looks out his window and sees snow, he validly (but unsoundly) reasons that there is no global warming. It's valid because he's a cretin who thinks that "global warming" implies that it's warm everywhere, and if it isn't warm where he is then it isn't warm everywhere and so there is no global warming. This is entirely valid (a technical term of logic) reasoning, but unsound (another technical term of logic), because his premise (that global warming implies that it is warm everywhere) is false. From a false premise, any proposition, true or false, can be derived through valid logic (this is a theorem of logic -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#The_proof-theoretic…).
Oops, I gave the proof that any proposition can be proven from a contradiction. Actually, in predicate logic, material implication is defined such that it is true whenever the antecedent is false. See, e.g., http://www.nku.edu/~longa/classes/mat385_resources/docs/russellpope.html
Duffer is, as Duffer is wont to do, citing some regional conditions which he appears to think invalidates the scientific understanding that the climate system is warming.
No, really, he's too stupid to understand that that's what "global warming" is about ... he thinks it means that it's warm everywhere (and getting warmer). The notion of a "climate system" that is warming is far beyond the grasp of his peabrain.
Duffer is, as Duffer is wont to do, citing some regional conditions which he appears to think invalidates the scientific understanding that the climate system is warming.
This is a bit like saying that an ape flinging shit at scientists appears to think that it invalidates their understanding of animal experiment protocols. But of course the ape doesn't think that because the notion of animal experiment protocols isn't part of its cognitive framework and so it can't think anything of it. Likewise, the notion of a climate system as something that can warm isn't part of Duff's cognitive framework and so he can't think anything of it. Rather, his thoughts are limited to "Me cold! So not everyone warm!".
"1. I state “oh the irony”"
What irony?
"2. Lionel links this to WUWT with this comment…”Ah! So Betty joins the Ugly Bunch”"
Yes, two events can happen in a universe, betty. why does this confuse you so?
"4. I figured if “oh the irony” is similar to “vermin incapable of comprehension”"
Ah, well, betty, this is where your problem arises: your figuring is wrong. Hope this helps.
"The comparison of “oh the irony” to WUWT vermin is reasonable, whereas the comparison of wanting someone beaten to vermin is unreasonable. "
Where were you when Glen Beck claimed that climate scientists should commit suicide? False tone trolling, dear. Damn obvious.
"Being the scholar that you are, here’s a test question for you:
Choose the two that are most similar:"
Ah, you don't seem to understand what "question" means, dear.
What you put was not a question, it was a request.
Please choose one of the following:
a) You're a moron who doesn't know what question is
b) You're a fatuous shithead who doesn't CARE what they demand is rational
c) you're paid to troll this site.
Take your time, you can retake the test as many times as you like until you get it right.
Ianam, I brought the weather up as a direct intention of using Betula's inane logic against him. Note that I pointed out the word hypocrisy. Batty kept on about a totally irrelevant example (the ship trapped in the Antarctic) and I followed suit. Moreover, as I later pointed out, warm weather records are breaking cold weather records by a hefty margin. The incredibly warm winter so far over most of Europe is part of the pattern, just as the heat waves that hit the US in 2012 and Russia in 2010 were. So you are incorrect.
As for getting a lot of things wrong, please enlighten me sir. Methinks you are a little too self-confident for your own good. I suggest that you tone it down a little. You write in here as if you alone are gifted with wisdom that escape most of us 'mortals'. I don't want to quibble but some of the stuff you write is also wrong. Your take on Obama, for example, is miles from anywhere being hear reality.
Now, now peeps. Goodwill to all and similar seasonal cobblers.
And a Happy New Year...
;-)
One final point: I never said that the world warms uniformly. Where Ianam gleaned this from me is anyone's guess. Certainly polar regions have warned much faster than regions in lower latitudes, as predicted by global circulation models going back to the times of Revelle and Keeling. I've got more than enough experience as a practicing scientist to know what is going on. But certainly some events are exceptional. Right now, in the Netherlands, many wild plants are in flower - especially species in the Asteraceae - and Rumex species are actually growing and seeding. This is virtually unprecedented at this time of the year. There's plenty of evidence for a lot of primary production taking place in a season when everything should be pretty well dormant. Many of the lower elevations of the continent have been frost free for a month. This is exceptional at whatever temporal or spatial scale one views it.
Essentially, if we combine data sets over decades, then we see in much of Europe a clear pattern of more frost free days, warmer onsets to spring and longer growing seasons in central and western Europe. What's happening in the past two months is part of a longer term trend. I have lived in Europe for 30 years and this is the mildest start I have yet experienced here - and this is not restricted to Benelux or the UK. It covers a vast swath of the continent as far as Russia. If it continues, it will certainly exacerbate a range of ecological problems that can occur at short scales, such as the phenology of species interactions (e.g. the mistiming of food peaks for migratory songbirds) as well as enhance the populations of species moving up from the south, such as oak processionary caterpillars which are becoming a major health hazard in areas from which they were either once rare or not present. Several other invasive insects are heading towards northern Europe, such as the pine processionary caterpillar, which will pose a similar health hazard as its congener. Cold winters kill the egg masses of these insects, but as I said, the trend towards warmer winters is enhancing their survival to the north. The diamondback moth, perhaps the biggest pest of cabbage crops worldwide, now overwinters in Holland, something only began about 10 years ago. Winter is a major biological control agent, and warm winters like the current one are increasing the likelihood of pest outbreaks.
Happy new year to you too, BBD. I am sorry for the little outburst above, but Ianam oversteps the mark from time to time. His criticism of me was unfounded, and gives the impression that I don't understand the difference between climate and weather. I sure as hell do.... but I use weather examples to counter the hypocritical crap spun by the likes of Duff and Betula... on the one hand, Betula derides any link between GW and regional short term effects, then on the other he brings up the pathetically incorrect example of the ship trapped in the Antarctic as an example of irony, meaning in his puny lexicon that in warming world there should be less ice, not more. Pretty appalling really, given the fact that (1) its bloody cold in the Antarctic anyway, well below freezing most of the time even under warming, (2) as Bernard said: ice breaks off the main continental block, and creates an ice 'soup'that closes even and consolidates because, as I said, it is cold, and (3) that under warming, precipitation may increase, leading to a transient or local increase in the amount of ice, given that its cold there anyway.
I don't mind legitimate criticism, but to try and suggest I don't know the difference between weather and climate is beyond the pale.
Anyway, happy new year to you and other Deltoiders including Ianam. I like most of his posts, but for some reason he tends to occasionally snipe at those with whom he should see as allies.
I figured if “oh the irony” is similar to “vermin incapable of comprehension....
Wow: "your figuring is wrong"
So there is no comparison. Whew, I'm glad we set the record straight on that one.
Uh oh....trouble in Deltoidia. Infighting amongst the locals and the deputy needs to step in to keep order...
"You write in here as if you alone are gifted with wisdom that escape most of us ‘mortals"
Don't feel threatened Hardley, as long as you believe nobody is a gifted as you are, you will have your own little oak processionary cocoon to protect you.
Betty
This November was the 345th consecutive month when global average temperature exceeded the C20th average.
Weather or climate?
You didn't respond the first time so I am asking you again. Or are you going to give us another masterclass in evasiveness and intellectual dishonesty as you did with your hilarious refusal to admit that your conspiracy theory was in fact a conspiracy theory?
I hope you realise just how badly damaging that little episode was for you, Betty. I think you do, actually, which is gratifying.
"So there is no comparison."
No, you made one, but it's wrong.
Is "being wrong" something you cannot comprehend, betty?
Let's look at Novembers past and present.
Woo! Now that's climate.
Undeniably!
I wonder if our star turn at intellectual dishonesty is going to try a variant of the "it's not a conspiracy" lie and stand in front of that graph insisting that what it shows is weather.
Or perhaps Betty will go into full-evasion mode and just pretend that the awful smell isn't really there and he isn't kneeling before us, grotesque and bare (as Leonard Cohen so memorably puts it).
We will just have to wait and see!
PARTY ON!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp5mKz_uXzA
Oh! Dear!
The petulance of the long running ignoramus shows again.
And it is only the first day of a new year. Can Betty get any worse. We shall will see.
And a good new year to you BBD, did the red coated fellow with a bushy white beard throw you a copy of Falconer?
I fear wishing a happy new year would be to miss all the extra human misery that will come about as a result of the world being unable to shake off the dead hand of an economic system that loads the dice in favour of the few at the expense of the wider ecology and those who depend upon it.
Here is just one data point to support that last statement:
China Says 8 Million Acres Of Farmland Now Too Polluted For Food
with tar sands and fracking (and its deadly twin CBME - coal bed methane extraction [1] - look this one up, it is even more frightening than fracking) threatening to become rampant we are all in the firing line for altered lives - never mind weather on steroids due to climatic shifts and food web collapses.
[1] Will those Brit's who successfully 'bring home the bacon' using CBME be in line for future CBM awards?
Oh Betty. Wow already took care of your latest flailing gotcha attempt, but I'd just like to add that you really, really, really suck at this. I'm sorry, you're simply too damned stupid.
Happy New Year to you too, Lionel. I got King (3rd ed but this is fine - it is specifically what I asked for. Just something to throw in a bag when off to Cornwall etc.
Here's a little choon just for Betty while we wait for him to decide what to do next...
;-)
Hmmm. So is it weather or climate Betty?
Weather or climate?
Which do you think it is?
:-)
I've just realised that it's possible that Betty doesn't actually understand what that graph is showing but is ashamed to ask. And I really should have said at the outset - it is of course all November global average temperatures from 1880 to 2013. Just Novembers.
"PARTY ON!"
Is this similar to the nonexistent "irony" you claimed earlier?
BBD
I have been meaning for some time, like the last 17 years, to create an O'Brian space on my web but the sheer quantity of material available at some sites kinda put me off. What I now intend to do is to create a space for short reviews and content descriptions of those text books that I have collected over the years there are more than a few. I made a start before the silly season by photographing the covers (using a macro lens it being rectilinear) as an aid to identification. I am not sure about adding Amazon (.com or .co.uk) links as I am wary of aiding and abetting further death in the high street.
Lionel A
That sounds like a good idea - then such as I will not have to hassle you about book recommendations in comments on climate blogs.
;-)
Betty's gone very quiet all of a sudden, hasn't he?
:-)
Now let me pre-empt 'its darned' cold here nonsense from Bet-of-Bark-Hall (and Duff too when the JS twists like this over the UK er long) Bundle Up for New Year as Door to Arctic Is Wide Open.
I do wish Americains would start learning to think in degrees Celsius for use of Fahrenheit confuses many with an IQ that allows their brains to be messed with by the likes of Willard Anthony or TVMOB.
Wow..."you’re paid to troll this site."
You propose an Interesting conspiracy theory.
Now, it would seem that if anyone were being paid to spend time on this site, they would spend a lot of time here. Hmm, who is spending almost every waking moment on this site?
And it seems that if someone were being paid to comment on this site, they would have a purpose, sort of like a deputy of deltoid, to make sure the message is guided in a certain direction...but who?
Yes Wow, as a conspiracy theorist, you may be onto something here...
Barney,
For someone who has failed to answer my questions posed to you long ago, I find it interesting that you demand I answer yours..
Apart from the fact that it's obvious your questions are used to deflect, I find it interesting that you can't seem to poke holes in what you believe to be a conspiracy theory, other than to call it a conspiracy theory. I would think it would be easy for a deputy of your stature...
Since it's a new year, let me start fresh by asking the questions again:
How do we justify taxing carbon? And how do we make it so the rich nations pay the carbon tax and the poor nations receive it?
We need some sort of official organization that is the sole authority, a world authority if you will, that we can point to and say…..”Look! The debate is over! This group of experts, made up of some scientists and other people lobbying for representing their countries, but all with the same ideological mindset, have proven beyond any doubt, that hypothetical future catastrophic scenarios will most likely definitely occur if the rich don’t pay what are they are morally obligated to pay!”
But where can we find such an organization?
And while we are starting fresh, let me ask you a few more questions:
1. Do you see climate change as a global justice issue?
2. Do you believe the Millennium Development goals can provide a pathway to social justice?
In regards to your weather/climate question... you're too obvious. Why would you pose a question to me for pointing out a distinction to Hardley?
We all know Hardley has been conflating weather and climate for years:
1. Here from 13 years ago...“Madison, Wisconsin was breaking maximum temperature records by over 5 C in mid-January"
http://www.ecoglobe.org/nz/biodiv/biod2211.htm
2. A few years ago when he claimed to witness climate change first hand while on a 23 day trip (time scale) that involved frostbite.
http://www.nioo.knaw.nl/en/node/2137
3. And just recently at #22 on this page...."After Britain has just had one of its warmest (and wettest) ever Decembers"
Yet, as the self appointed deputy of Deltoid, you feel the need to question me for questioning the nutty professor. Like I said...you're too obvious.
Put the bullet back in your pocket Barney.
... and that Betty, encapsulates why you're an illiterate, illogical floon driven by whatever it is that fools you into thinking yourself informed.
Williwatts should be proud of his work in dumbing down, although in your case, you likely - or should that be definitely - had a head start..
Oh Betty. The smell of cooking irony meters is choking.
Because it is a logical policy response to AGW.
So developing economies with low per-capita wealth and low per-capita emissions should pay the developed economies? Be serious, Betty.
Now, back to that much-avoided question: does the graph show weather or climate?
You have provided exactly zero evidence that the IPCC is being used as a tool to promote global wealth redistribution. You simply assert it, and that is a conspiracy theory:
On second thoughts, attempting to explain their insanity to the insane is in itself insane.
Scrub the last comment, it's pointless.
"How do we justify taxing carbon?"
By giving the justification for taxing it, dear. Did you really miss it, despite all the whining about how it's being taxed from you?
"We all know Hardley has been conflating weather and climate for years:"
We know that you've been getting it confused for hears. Dai. Stu pid. Et al.
Nobody knows what you claim for the same reason nobody knows that Santa prefers jockey shorts over Y-fronts.
"Yet, as the self appointed deputy of Deltoid, you feel the need to question me for questioning the nutty professor."
No, questioning your reason for querying it.
Hell, asking what the hell your question is based on.
#88 should read: scrub my last comment.
"And while we are starting fresh, let me ask you a few more questions:"
And feel free to ask them.
However, what point is there answering them? You've consistently shown that you do not think that answering them is of any utility at all.
"You propose an Interesting conspiracy theory."
No, I proposed a question for you.
Apparently you are insisting that you really don't understand what question means.
Oh dear.
Betty whines:
"For someone who has failed to answer my questions posed to you long ago"
Ah, so you will answer the questions you've left unanswered, yes, betty?
Or is complaining only something you're allowed to do?
Sorry - I should have reposted the link to the November temperature round-up graph.
You think I guide Lotharsson, Jeff, Lionel, Stu, ianam, RHW, chek etc in delivering a "message"? Seriously? I bet they'd have something to say about that. This whole BBD-is-deputy framing is absurd. Since it isn't doing you any good, I suggest quietly dropping it for 2014...
Eh? I'm simply curious, especially now you have started being highly evasive on the point:
November-only global monthly average temperature 1880 - 2013
Weather or climate?
* * *
1/ Yes, obviously it is. How could it not be? Bizarre question.
2/ You tell me. Here they are again:
1/. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2/. Achieve universal primary education
3/. Promote gender equality and empower women
4/. Reduce child mortality
5/. Improve maternal health
6/. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7/. Ensure environmental sustainability
8/. Global partnership for development
The insane have no concept of enlightened self interest, BBD, let alone philanthropy.
Maybe the history of the US Republican right has been an experiment in reaching a critical mass of ignorant misanthropy until their perceived and filtered self-interest extinguishes them .
chek
Let's hope they are extinguished before their bony grip on the throat of the world takes the rest of us down with them. I'm not especially confident on this point. Which brings us to the point: I sense that Betty has never understood why I described him as an enemy of the species or why I said that if people realised what was being done to them and futurity by the grasping self-interest of corporate behaviour and its political enablers and the horde of useful idiots chanting the scripts then their rage would know no bounds. And I won't be trying to stop it.
Since it's New Year, let's put some music on. Eno and Byrne, from long ago.
It's the thought that counts.