December 2013 Open thread

BBD @ # 21,
It wasn't necessary to answer your question because you inadvertently hoisted your own petard and answered it yourself.
Betula's original question was something like:
How can it be a conspiracy if they say that's what they want to do?
I agree with that. It's not a 'conspiracy theory' any more than your (and Lionel's) statements were.
You even said so yourself:
"Bearing in mind that something demonstrated in evidence is not a conspiracy theory.”
And yes, before Lotharsson chimes in, they are not the exact same words.
There is suspicion and extreme doubting of motives on both sides and it doesn't really have a great deal to do with humanity's ability or aspirations to control the weather or the climate.
But anyway, happy new year to one and all. If nothing else, it's probably reasonable to assume that 2014 will still roll through and humanity will still be muddling along, kicking and screaming, through to 2015 and beyond.

... I find it interesting that you can’t seem to poke holes in what you believe to be a conspiracy theory...

It's a real giveaway when Betula resorts to The Black Knight Defense.

"'Tis but a scratch!"

"Come back here, I'll bite your legs off!"

As for getting a lot of things wrong, please enlighten me sir. Methinks you are a little too self-confident for your own good.

BWAHAHAH! You're an arrogant ass, a hypocrite, and sometimes almost as conspiratorial minded as the nutcases. Mostly I now ignore you. I certainly will ignore anything from you telling me how to behave.

I never said that the world warms uniformly. Where Ianam gleaned this from me is anyone’s guess.

You have a severe reading comprehension problem, you imbecile, unless you're now David Duff impersonating Jeff Harvey.

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.

Your outbursts, you blithering moron, are a result of your hyper-reactivity, your neurotic and paranoid need to defend against perceived criticisms that never occurred ... unless you're David Duff posing as Jeff Harvey.

gives the impression that I don’t understand the difference between climate and weather

Only if you insist, you dunce ... but that was neither my intent nor my belief ... are you really so stupid and so paranoid that you think it could be?

But compare your "After Britain has just had one of its warmest (and wettest) ever Decembers, I thought we’d seen the last of old Duffer" to BBD's graph and his statement "This November was the 345th consecutive month when global average temperature exceeded the C20th average" -- which are about global/i> temperature and a trend, and are directed to the ebola virus, not to Duff. As I explained but you are too dense or unwilling to read, your observation about Britain's December cannot be expected to have any effect on Duff's behavior. The main reason, of course, is that he's a stupid fucking intellectually dishonest write-only troll who is impervious to any input. But the the other reason is that it doesn't matter how warm or wet this December was in Britain, that has no bearing whatsoever on Duff's argument, which is that if it is ever cold anywhere, global warming must be false, because he takes global warming to imply that it's warm everywhere. Here it is as a reductio ad absurdum proof:

If there is global warming, then it's warm everywhere.
I saw snow out my window.
Therefore it's not warm everywhere.
Therefore there's no global warming.

The argument is valid, but it's not sound because the first premise is idiotic (but not uncommon among "skeptics").

Now along you come with
"After Britain has just had one of its warmest (and wettest) ever Decembers"

It's a valid point against some arguments, but not against the Dufus's. The only problem with his argument is his idiotic misunderstanding of what global warming is, and your point has no bite there.

You're a fine ecologist, I'm sure, but you suck at logic, reading comprehension, and human psychology.

Come on now Ian, grow up. You're calling me an 'arrogant ass' after some of the stuff that you say on here? Now that IS rich.

Yesterday you claimed I 'get a lot wrong', and that intellectually honest people should accept that', but when I ask you to detail the 'lot', you go off onto a childish rant that I am hyper-reactive. The only examples I can glean were when I was accused of downplaying warming (in explaining that it is one major anthropogenic stress but that there are others) and my criticism of Obama (where I explained that the US has undergone a slow motion coup-det-tat in which corporations now determine policy). I am not really criticizing Obama but the entire political culture which is beholden to corporate power. As for other human-mediated environmental threats, I think I am a little more qualified than Ianam to comment on them. Global warming is serious, and I have never said that it isn't. What I have said is that if society mitigates warming but ignores the continued effects of deforestation, habitat loss, invasive species, changes in the chemical environment, overharvesting, other forms of pollution, etc., then we are seriously screwed as well. To say that one threat is far greater than others is the sprint of folly IMHO.

As for birch brain, note how he thinks its fine to conflate weather and climate ('oh the irony') but when others do it they are called out as hypocrites. Most importantly, I've detailed numerous biotic proxies showing beyond doubt long term warming in various parts of the planet, but barky tends to ignore those and focus on pedantics.

Is it warming? Beyond any reasonable doubt, yes. Nature proves it. Are humans the primary driver? Also yes, beyond any reasonable doubt. The debate should now be focused on mitigation.

You’re calling me an ‘arrogant ass’ after some of the stuff that you say on here? Now that IS rich.

Tu quoque fallacy, you cretinous jackass.

As for other human-mediated environmental threats, I think I am a little more qualified than Ianam to comment on them.

Strawman fallacy, you moronic dolt.

Fuck but you suck as a human being. Over and out.

Except that I will point out this hypocrisy:

What I have said is that if society mitigates warming but ignores the continued effects of deforestation, habitat loss, invasive species, changes in the chemical environment, overharvesting, other forms of pollution, etc., then we are seriously screwed as well. To say that one threat is far greater than others is the sprint of folly IMHO.

Say it all you want but it isn't true, and everyone else here other than the deniers recognizes that. Your instance on this claim and your repeating it here out of context is not in any way a HO, it's you being an arrogant pigheaded ass.

...

"It wasn’t necessary to answer your question "

Yes it is.

Look Ian, I have no beef with you and I support your posts. I apologize for jumping off the handle. But as the late Stephen Schneider once said, we are not involved in a scientific debate with respect to GW. The science is in. What we are now involved in is a veritable mud wrestling match with a sordid bunch of liars for the most part who are driven by their own political ideologies. We can talk science, science, science all day and we'll get people like barky making utterly vacuous points about research ships trapped in the Antarctic.

This morning an article in 'Business Investments or some such US corporate rag that I saw on Fb ran the headline, "Global warming scientists forced to admit defeat" because of the research ship trapped in the Antarctic and because a few locations in Wisconsin experienced record cold temperature readings on December 31st. Of course this is all bullshit, but the deniers do it ALL THE TIME. And they will continue to do it and out 'unbiased' (I choke on those words) corporate media will continue to spew out nonsense like this. It all plays into the public's mindset about uncertainty and the state of the so-called debate. As I said in my last post, the scientific debate is OVER and has been for at least the past 10-15 years. But for those politically driven deniers, it will never be over. They shift their goalposts all the time: its not warming, oh yes, then it is warming but its due to the sun, then its not warming again, then it is but humans have nothing to do with it, then we are entering a Little Ice Age, etc. etc. etc. And the media laps it up. Controversy sells, and since many of the major news media also depend on corporate advertising (or are owned by media giants with direct connections of the relevant industries), then of course their ultimate aim is to dilute the information to ensure that nothing changes, at least in terms of our addiction to fossil fuels. As Walter Lippmann famously said in the 1920s, the aim of the ruling elites is to 'manufacture consent' for policies that may be quite abhorrent for most but which enrich the privileged classes. More recent PR gurus know that the aim of corporate PR is to 'manage the outrage' and that control of the media is the way to do it. Hence why the media coverage of GW and other environmental threats stinks for the most part. Even when acknowledged, little or no mention is made of the serious policies needed to mitigate GW. That's because it will conflict with the profit-making agendas of the corporations who either own or advertise in the media. Check any newspaper or magazine, and articles discussing GW on one page are inevitably followed by full page advertisement spreads for SUVs or cheap holiday flights to warm countries. Our media is psychopathic. I detail this in many of my lectures.

So i have to admit it. They've won. Corporations now run US policy, and have a major influence on policy over here as well. Nothing short of a major series of widespread calamities is going to shake us from our current course. And again, no amount of empirical evidence will do, not so long as we are utterly beholden to the whims of a global economic system hell-bent on short term profits for a tiny elite at the expense of long term sustainability and social justice.

"Betula’s original question was something like:
How can it be a conspiracy if they say that’s what they want to do?
I agree with that. "

However, you do not prove the conditional "if" clause.

Would you agree it is a conspiracy if they DO NOT want to say that is what they do and you have to discover it is what they are doing?

Yes?

Then given that HI hide their contributors, Pat Michaels lied about the funding amounts he gets from the fossil fuel industry, and so on, it IS a conspiracy, right?

"Look Ian, I have no beef with you and I support your posts. I apologize for jumping off the handle."

This is something inane does.

Pops on, pops off at all and sundry about how they are the ONLY sane man about, then bitch when people don't agree or even disagree with him.

I agree and these are points I have made many times. So since we are not involved in a scientific debate, why do you and others here put so much energy into scientific debates with these idiot trolls? It's utterly useless. It's far more useful to do something like what I did ... to point out what Dufus's reasoning actually is and thus why offering counterexamples is useless.

"So i have to admit it. They’ve won. Corporations now run US policy, and have a major influence on policy over here as well."

It's a failure in the capitalist system. Built in to it.

Money == Politicial power

Democracy, one man/one vote should be a system that breaks that equation and money merely becomes money, since no matter how much you have, you still get only one vote.

But a system based on capitalism has those with capital lauded as "successful" and therefore their insights are "valid" and presupposed to be true merely because the mantra is that success==more money.

So the business leader gets asked for input on policy whereas they don't get a homeless person to give their opinion in "balance".

Because one having money and the other not must mean that the wealthy one is more right in their attitudes.

This corruption is built in to a capitalist system.

Wow lies as usual and inserts himself into other people's conversations just to stir up trouble. Fucking asshole.

Jeff, stop whining. You started it! Show Ianam your CV and get a grip, will ya!

Is it impossible for fear mongering portentologists to stay united?

But Wow too gets some things right:

Money == Politicial power

I pointed out to some capitalist system programmers years ago that capitalism is like a process scheduler that gives timeslots to processes proportionally to how many timeslots they already have. The programmers couldn't deny it so they just ignored it.

Ianam, its clear that you are a totally intolerant person and I'm glad I don't know you personally. Sheesh. You love to hurl ad homs left, right and center; makes me wonder how you deal with those with whom you have minor disagreements at home or work. I guess telling them to 'fuck off'', and that they are 'moronic, pigheaded asses' or 'cretinous asses' who 'suck as human beings' is par for the course for you. I've never called you anything remotely like this, and indeed despite some of the insane antics of the deniers I have never quite sunk to this level in repeated posts. You make Jonas seem polite. Evan Olaus. You've sunk to and beyond their level. Congratulations. If I lectured students and at conferences in the same way that you write I'd be thrown out of science in seconds. If you want to get people on your side, calling anybody - let alone those who with whom you share many views - the stuff you do is a great way to be isolated. People have been banned from this site for being a lot less insulting than you.

When you say this, "Say it all you want but it isn’t true, and everyone else here other than the deniers recognizes that", you are expressing your own opinion as fact. Pretty arrogant really, and completely at odds with what most of my scientific peers are saying. I'd like to ask you what professional background gives you the acumen to be able to say that GW by far exceeds other environmental threats posed by human actions.

Please list the experts opinions on this. I wait with baited breath. I have said that GW is a major environmental threat but there are others and I am qualified to comment on them, no strawmen required.

Olaus, no need to show my CV. You've apparently got lots of copies of it around your house, so you can do that,

You make Jonas seem polite.

Prissy tone troll. Just fuck off, you pathetic hypocrite. What a waste of my time. Goodbye.

Jeff and Ianam calling each other names. :-) Little Napoleon even calling ianam "intolerant"! :-D

Priceless, but logical.

Like the old good commie cult the climate scare shaking tent fall apart:

A portentologist having a talk with a fellow:

"I'm a good portentologist"

"I'm also a good portentologist"

"But not as good as I"

"Phh..I'm a better portentologist than you!"

"I'm THE PORTENTOLOGIST"

"No! I am!!!"

"You don't care enough about the climate"

"No, you are the one sacrificing our children"

"Denier!"

Etc... ;-)

"Prissy tone troll", "Fuck off", "Pathetic hypocrite". Yawn. Your vile ad homs never end.

Pot. Kettle. Black. You are just a nasty person, whatever your views are on GW. And if I was sitting on the fence on this issue people like you might just push me into the dark side.

Well done.

Olaus, I have not called Ianam names. Check the posts. Its rather one-sided.

Nothing changes the fact that you are a simple minded fool though. And if you knew anything about science, you'd realize that we never agree about anything. My colleagues and I often have differing views about the research we do here. That's why we have peer-review. Its just too bad that you inhabit a world of brainless clones who all are lovely-dovey and agree on just about everything that downplays GW and other environmental threats.

One last point Olaus: your 'commie cult' comment tells us exactly where you are coming from.

Well done. You dolts just cannot help but wear your extreme right wing hearts on your sleeves. Is it any wonder that the vast majority of scientists think you are a waste of time?

"Wow lies as usual"

And, as usual, inane wallows into the same territory as the Slug Horde (note how Olap Dog rushes to Inane's "aid").

"why do you and others here put so much energy into scientific debates with these idiot trolls? "

Why do you put so much energy into bitching about people doing so?

Dear Jeff, you radicals always know that you are correct, and that those not siding with your belief system are the enemy. That's why you come out as extremely intolerant. You can't stand diversity and different opinions. Consequently you always need to fabricate your own reality where the illuminati always try to destroy mother nature. You have to have enemies, real or not doesn't matter. Your self image needs it.

Climate science turns into portentology as soon as your authoritarian kind enter the stage. And out goes science and in comes shouting, ranting, name calling, etc.

And regarding commies I have friends loving Cuba and Chaves, that hate what you Deltoids have done to climate science, and in extention, the environment.

Woof woof, Olap.

Why do you put so much energy into bitching about people doing so?

I post here a small fraction as much as others, you lying jackass. When I do I have occasionally made that point but I haven't put much energy into it. But why make it? Because it's a valid point and it isn't pointless to make it, unlike with trying to sway the trolls, you idiot.

And, as usual, inane wallows into the same territory as the Slug Horde (note how Olap Dog rushes to Inane’s “aid”).

Willful logic fail and mischaracterization, you dishonest imbecile. Olaus rushes in whenever there's any dissension because he's a shallow stupid troll who pretends that such dissension somehow disproves AGW. And you know that, you dishonest fuckface.

if I was sitting on the fence on this issue people like you might just push me into the dark side

You're as bad as Olaus ... ianam is vulgar -> AGW is false. What an intellectually dishonest fuck you are. And you and Wow just love those tu quoque fallacies -- "ianam does something bad too, mommy!"

Now, according to Olaus, I am a 'radical' (I guess because I support >95% of my peers who believe that humans are the main drivers behind GW; that makes me 'radical'). I am also intolerant (I guess because it seriously pisses me off that, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence and views of the vast majority of scientists, little or nothing is being done to mitigate it).

The Olly really digs a hole for himself. He think that I am suggesting that the 'illuminati are trying to destroy nature'. He tops that off by saying he has friends in Cuba who hate what 'we Deltoids' have done to climate science and the environment. God only knows what 'we have done' on a tiny innocuous web site with no influence on policy whatsoever, but there you go. That's Olly's world.

I never said that corporations are deliberately trying to destroy nature. Of course they aren't 'trying'. But economic activities, based on the prevailing economic system underlying the Washington Consensus are harming nature just the same. As an analogy, I don't deliberately try and step on insects when I go for a walk (Heaven forbid, they are my bread and butter!) but I do inadvertently step on many anyway. One has to separate intent from the by-product of human actions that are not intentional but harmful just the same. And the fact is - like it or not - current economic policies are harming nature at an ever increasing rate. We are metaphorically undermining systems that sustain us in a myriad of ways, and the greatest benefits of this are accrued by a relatively small proportion of the world's population (<20%) and within this number those with the power to drive the economic systems are doing best of all, meaning the ruling elites. These dinosaurs are only programmed to think in short time frames which equate to short-term profit margins. Hell, many of them are well aware that the planet is heading for an abyss but they try not to think too much about it.

As for Olly's small number of buddies in Cuba, well this statement is so utterly ridiculous in its own right that it does not deserve a polite response. It is beneath contempt.

Olly, if you want to debate with the big boys, you really need to learn a little bit about the way the world works. Your last post was so utterly naive and banal that I felt the need to hand you a lollipop before I responded.

Olaus, I have not called Ianam names. Check the posts. Its rather one-sided.

Stupid dishonest hypocritical fuck. Calling me intolerant, saying that I've sunk lower than the trolls -- these are no less calling names than saying you're a dishonest jackass. The semantics are the same, it's just a different vocabulary. The difference is that my claims are true and yours are either false or hypocritical ... you are no more tolerant of disagreement than I am.

Ianam, I thought you'd gone. My bad.

Listen Ian, and get this straight: you calling me all sorts of insulting names is intolerant. Look up the word. And I would far rather be called intolerant by someone than the shitty names you call me. I've been called everything under the sun since I took Lomborg on back in 2001 so your words would normally bounce right off me. But we are supposed to be on the same side then you start out this whole thin by accusing me of intellectual dishonesty and that other posters should recognize that. Thanks a lot. I return the comment and the next thing you know I am a 'fucking this and that and whatever'.

I can give every bit as good as I get from you. As I said, check out my name on Google with Lomborg and I have been called everything under the sun by anti-environmentalists and climate change deniers. But you do appear to be intolerant of anyone who disagrees with you. And now you have Olaus in your corner. Well done.

Now, according to Olaus

Who the fuck cares?

The Olly really digs a hole for himself.

No, because he's a cretinous lying sack of ignorant slime who will slither in any direction he pleases. Trying to treat him as rational participant subject to reason is moronic and futile.

Olly, if you want to debate with the big boys, you really need to learn a little bit about the way the world works.

No, of course he doesn't -- he's a denier troll, and the way they operate has nothing to do with how rational people operate. Olaus will continue in his troll ways, and the sum of all these troll actions by all these trolls spells inaction. You said it yourself above ... we've lost. And if there's still hope, it certainly isn't through this silly attempt to persuade Olaus not to be a vile sack of shit ... it's his nature and it isn't going to change.

Ianam and Jeff, one could get the impression that you guys are debating who can detect most sea ice loss in the Antarctic region. ;-)

And I don't deny the CO2-hypothesis. That's part of your own imagination ianam (and Jeff's of course). Without such inventions your narrative won't work and your wite horse and shining armour get stained.

:-)

Listen Ian, and get this straight: you calling me all sorts of insulting names is intolerant. Look up the word.

My name isn't "Ian", moron, and the definition of "intolerant" is not "calls people insulting names". I call you a dishonest jackass because you are one. This has nothing to do with tolerance or intolerance, you dishonest jackass.

I can give every bit as good as I get from you.

Yes, I know, hypocrite. But I don't care. I'm certainly not going to stop calling you a dishonest jackass just because you're capable of displaying dishonest jackassery.

And now you have Olaus in your corner.

Wrong, you stupid dishonest fuck. Read what I wrote to Wow in #30. Both of you are pathetically dishonest sacks of shit.

Ianam, I thought you’d gone.

I had. I came back. So sue me, dolt.

Watch out ianam, the "I'm done with you"-phrases are Jeff's refuge when faceplanting. He could sue!

And the antarctic sea-ice busters are getting help, it appears. Good! :-)

Woof Woof Bark, Olap.

""Why do you put so much energy into bitching about people doing so?"

I post here a small fraction as much as others,"

I didn't ask whether you put more or less effort in, inane.

I asked why do you put so much effort into bitching about what other people do?

"When I do I have occasionally made that point but I haven’t put much thought into it."

FTFY, inane.

ianam

So since we are not involved in a scientific debate, why do you and others here put so much energy into scientific debates with these idiot trolls? It’s utterly useless.

That is a logic fail right there, it is not a waste of time arguing with the trolls because whilst we are doing that the lurkers learn about the more reliable sources of information and what they say. The occasional lurker is moved to post which backs up this reasoning. Besides we can all learn things from each other, no one person can follow each significant development in this campaign without intelligence (used in the information gathering sense).

However, it will become a waste of time if you continue to put lurkers off by foul mouthing Jeff, and others, at every turn simply because you fail to understand the full implications of the points he makes.

It is clear to most of us that Jeff has considerable knowledge about how the biosphere works and can become disrupted by the multiple pronged assaults we humans are making on same.

When a poster makes repeated crass statements drawing on the denial myths so often debunked here and elsewhere then they rightly draw down abuse on their heads especially after their intellectual (maybe too strong a descriptor) dishonesty has been repeatedly exposed.

Jeff happens to bring a deeper perspective to the discussion by drawing on his obvious backgrounding in the history of political (or religious) control mechanisms as exemplified by this from his #11 above:

As Walter Lippmann famously said in the 1920s, the aim of the ruling elites is to ‘manufacture consent’ for policies that may be quite abhorrent for most but which enrich the privileged classes. More recent PR gurus know that the aim of corporate PR is to ‘manage the outrage’ and that control of the media is the way to do it. Hence why the media coverage of GW and other environmental threats stinks for the most part.

In short, we all have different backgrounds and have enjoyed, or endured, a variety of different life experiences and thus cannot be expected to agree on all things all of the time. But that is no excuse for 'going off on one' just because you disagree. A straightforward argument backed by politely put points of view works better than vitriolic rhetoric any time.

Try not to alienate your allies else you will become isolated yourself with your own points of view being totally ignored. How will that work for you?

To hide Jeff''s lack of fig leave Lionel reach out with an olive branch. Good, naked people ought to be covered up.

I'm with you all the way Lionel! Keep up the good work!

#6 “After Britain has just had one of its warmest (and wettest) ever Decembers, I thought we’d seen the last of old Duffer”

Personally I interpreted that to mean that as Duffer only pops up when he can see that it's cold outside, that he wouldn't pop up whilst it stays warm in his area.

Duffer pops up when cold outside.
It's not cold where he lives.
Duffer won't pop up.

Clearly the fact that he did pop up shows that his behaviour is more complicated.

"Both of you are pathetically dishonest sacks of shit"

This is exactly the same kind of comments I have received from anti-environmentalists over many years. I am used to it. I have better things to do than to engage in a to and fro with a clearly embittered individual. I get the impression that he's smashing up his house in rage every time somebody says something that he doesn't like.

Given Ianam's enmity for GW deniers, one wonders why Olaus would run to his aid so quickly. But its hardly surprising. Most of the anti-environmental crowd hate scientists. You see, we are their weal point; their Achilles heel. Whenever a survey is published suggesting that the rank and file of the scientific community by and large agree that humans are forcing climate in ways that could have serious repercussions down the road, note how the contrarians either (1) try and counter that by putting up surveys of their own in which they try and scrape up every name they can find of scientists, no matter how obscure or unpublished, who express doubt over the science underpinning GW, or (2) engage in smear campaigns in which a few well known or prominent scientists are attacked; these scientists, part of a large body of consensus, are thereby 'isolated' from the others in an attempt to make it appear is if they are a few outliers. Look at the horrific treatment meted out to James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Ben Santer, Michael Mann and a few others.

Olaus, Jonas and others with no scientific pedigree at all spew arguments that are primarily gleaned from blog sites set up and run by mostly non scientists (or those on the academic fringe). Much of what they write is not found in scientific journals. Indeed, when they do rarely cite the primary literature they are usually cherry picking and most importantly distorting the findings of the scientists who did the research. John Abrahams details that quite nicely in his devastating rebuttal of Monckton (not that this is difficult).

Ianam and I disagree on some details - for instance, the threats posed by other anthropogenic stresses besides GW. One read of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) reveals that combined human activities are seriously undermining ecosystems and the services emerging from them that sustain human civilization. Climate change is important, but to say it is much more important than the others, as I said, is pure rubbish. Few scientists would agree with it. If Ianam or anyboyd else can provide scientific proof bolstered by prominent scientists that GW dwarfs all other environmental threats, then by all means show me. But by disagreeing with Ian on this I am, in Ian's combined phrases, a "fucking lying, hypocritical, pathetically dishonest sack of shit' et al. ad naueseum.

And Olaus laps it up. I am sure Betty will, as will Jonas et al. But I hark back to my main point. I'd like Olaus to say exactly what scientific arguments I have ever put forward on Deltoid that are wrong. Back it up empirically. Nothing I have said is really remotely controversial among most scientists. NO the real reason Olly hates me writing in here is because I am a scientist. End of story. And because I have the bonafides to back it up. People like me are a threat to the deniers because we are the ones trained to examine the causes and consequences of global change. My guess is that Ianam can spew out any bile he likes and he will be mostly ignored; he is anonymous and probably is not a scientist. But not me; by waiving anonymity and for being a scientist I am in the front line much like many of my colleagues are. When Olly pines on about 'intolerance' he is of course being totally hypocritical; as I said earlier, the vile treatment meted out to many scientists who have raised the alarm over the past 30 plus years has been nothing less than appalling. This includes various smears up to death threats and other forms of intimidation. SLAPPS have been used by industries in attempt to silence dissent.

Lastly, I'd like to thank Lionel, Bernard, Wow, BBD and others for support on here. I write in as an ecologist and not as a climate scientist. I have never underestimate the serious repercussions of GW; instead I place it in the context of a suite of human assaults across the biosphere. I can discuss the ecological effects at both organismal and systemic scales. Olly and his band of acolytes can barely tell a dung beetle from a giraffe, and yet they try (feebly I will admit) to give the impression that their opinions are 'balanced' and 'rational'. The anti-environmental lobby has been doing this a long time.

ooops weak!!!!

Jeff:

"I’d like Olaus to say exactly what scientific arguments I have ever put forward on Deltoid that are wrong."

I'd love to but you never place any scientific arguments, only doom-and-gloom topped off with grand conspiracy theories.

Olaus, read any number of scientific journals. You can read can't you?

You are as predictable as a soap opera. You refuse to peruse through any number of scientific journals and to find out the state of the biosphere. You clearly have not read the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) ion which it was concluded, based on the empirical evidence, that 60% of critical ecosystem services have been seriously degraded; many have been lost. I've given plenty of lectures on ecosystem services and their valuation. Its just that you never read primary scientific literature. By sticking your head in the sand, you demand that I, on a frigging blog for heaven's sake, provide all of the evidence that humans and nature are on a collision course.

Debating you is like trying to win a pissing match with a skunk. Have you ever read any of the following journals: global change biology; ecosystems; ecology letters; ecology; journal of animal ecology; journal of ecology. journal or applied ecology; oikos; oecologia; biological conservation; conservation biology et al.? No. I guessed not. What is totally ridiculous is that you make my arguments and comments seem as if they are extreme or unsupported by peer-reviewed studies. How wrong you are.

Here are some key words that I typed into the Web of Science search engine followed by the number of hits:

Global Change and ecosystem services = 1063
Climate change and ecosystem services = 1763
Biodiversity and climate change = 6246
Climate change and extinction = 3362
Habitat loss and extinction = 1926
Habitat loss and climate change = 1503
Invasive species and extinction = 503
Invasive species and climate change = 1228
Biodiversity and habitat loss = 2913
Ocean acidification and phytoplankton = 280
Biodiversity and ecosystem services = 3323

'Biodiversity and climate change' articles were cited over 32,000 times last year and almost 150,000 times in total. The last category received over 17,000 citations last year.

Instead of sniping, get off you ass and read something and stop expecting it to be handed to you on a plate. You seem to think if you haven't read a field of research then there is no problem.

As for conspiracies, there is nothing of the sort. Its realpolitik. If you want to believe that we all live in happy, functioning democracies where everyone has a say, well then that's your problem. Pundits like Sheldon Wolin, Chris Hedges and others who are hardly conspiracy theorists have a very different view. Wolin's interpretation of the USA as an 'inverted totalitarian state' seems pretty logical to me. And there's hardly anything conspiratorial in arguing that corporations undermine democracy if it is in line with the bottom line. As I said, realpolitik.

Iaam to Hardley:
- "You’re an arrogant ass, a hypocrite"
- "You have a severe reading comprehension problem, you imbecile"
- "you blithering moron"
- "you dunce"
- "you suck at logic, reading comprehension, and human psychology."
- "you cretinous jackass"
- "Fuck but you suck as a human being"
- "it’s you being an arrogant pigheaded ass"

BARNEY! SHOULDN'T YOU BE BREAKING THIS UP!

Wow to Hardley:
- "This is something inane does"

Iaam to Wow:
- "Wow lies as usual and inserts himself into other people’s
conversations just to stir up trouble. Fucking asshole."

Iaam to Hardley:
-"Prissy tone troll. Just fuck off, you pathetic hypocrite"

Hardley to Iaam:
- "you are a totally intolerant person"
- "Pot. Kettle. Black. You are just a nasty person"
- "I have not called Ianam names"

Well, now that all my suspicions have been substantiated, I would just like to say.....Thanks guys and Happy New Year!

I told you Batty would lap it up. Since he's totally devoid of even a basic understanding of science, I guess this gives you a few cheap laughs. Ha. Ha,

Like Olaus, you also don't read (probably because you cannot understand) the scientific journals. I posted a number of stats above just for you. Now instead of trying to keep the debate in the sandbox, why not read a little bit and educate yourself?

BARNEY! SHOULDN’T YOU BE BREAKING THIS UP!

It's nothing to do with me. This "deputy of Deltoid" shit you are peddling is just more dishonest framing from you. As I said, I'd drop it and find another lie if I were you because - as we can very clearly see - it's rubbish.

Why have you STILL not answered my question about whether this graph shows weather or climate?

I answered all yours, sometimes for the second and third time. So, reciprocate. Or are you too dishonest for that?

Okay folks, we can now watch Betty transcend the normal limits of intellectual dishonesty in his attempts to avoid answering my oft-repeated and very simple question regarding November temperatures, weather and climate.

"Duffer pops up when cold outside.
It’s not cold where he lives.
Duffer won’t pop up."

Oooh, you wascally wabbit you! You've ruined dai's complex scheme!

What was that, betty?

I wasn't listening.

2stupid #1

What Betty proposes is a conspiracy theory because it requires that the science presented by the IPCC be "faux". Betty is quite clear about this. The IPCC - he claims - is engaged in misrepresenting the scientific basis for AGW "in order to" cause global redistribution of wealth aka world socialism.

..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.

This is a conspiracy theory wherein the IPCC is complicit in misrepresenting climate science in order to enable global wealth redistribution (please read this as many times as are necessary for you to understand it.

Betty wrote it, so Betty is a conspiracy theorist. Your attempt to deny this self-evident truth is futile, so you can stop now.

* * *

You have also failed to answer the questions I asked you about the covert but documented efforts by vested corporate interests to undermine climate science and paralyse public policy.

To recap, I asked you to explain the purpose of Donors Trust to us. Bearing in mind that something demonstrated in evidence is not a conspiracy theory.

Then I asked you to read this interview with Robert Brulle carefully.

Then I asked you to explain where I veer into conspiracy theory.

You have done none of these things so why the fuck are you back, still blethering dishonest and irrelevant shite at me?

"Given Ianam’s enmity for GW deniers, one wonders why Olaus would run to his aid so quickly. But its hardly surprising. Most of the anti-environmental crowd hate scientists"

Not really, the ONLY coheseive mantra of the deniers is that ANYTHING that counters, weakens or vilifies AGW is fine. Any form of hate for those proposing AGW is supported because it doesn't matter WHY it's wrong, just that it is.

As a random aside, if we're all just deputized, paid minions directed by BBD, why the massive blowup between ianam and Jeff? My, us paid commie greenie shills are just too incompetent for words.

And yes, that's another conspiracy theory from Betty. I see Stu2 has given up providing any arguments and has joined Betty in playing short-bus gotcha, with predictably comparable competence.

All we're saying, guys, is that if you were smarter you'd be paid to deny science this blatantly and repeatedly. But it's painfully obvious you're too damned stupid to even rise to Watts' level.

I thought some of the people I'm supposed to be "controlling" might have something to say about that particular conspiracy theory.

It can be summed up in two words: "dishonest framing".

Stu, I haven't ' blown up'. I do have better things to do than to stay on a site where a supposed 'ally' calls me a 'dishonest, lying sack of shit, fucking this that and the other' etc. I just did not take kindly to being told `I was 'wrong on many things' yesterday by ianam and that 'people here should recognize that'. When I responded, hardly angrily, out came the knives, big time.

My biggest sins - as far as I can see - were to once criticize the Obama regime and to argue that climate change is one of several serious anthropogenic threats to the environment. As the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment made clear, there are multiple threats to biodiversity; the massive elimination of wetlands and tropical forests are threats to be take as seriously as climate change. Which means they are ALL very serious threats. As a scientist, I am entitled to argue my corner, and virtually all of my colleagues around the world would agree with me. Ianam clearly does not. That is his prerogative. It won't shift me, though.

The real problem with the internet and blogs is that people can call others virtually anything and get away with it. They'd never ever say it directly to your face unless they were on steroids or some other drugs. I certainly have never ever seen anything like this in a scientific conference or meeting. I have seen arguments become heated, but always under some semblance of normality, but some of the stuff I do read on blogs goes way beyond the pale. People can hide behind their anonymity and throw ad homs all over the place. I know I haven't been entirely innocent in this regard, and know that what comes around goes around. But ianam went off the boil in my opinion. I have never ever called even the people I least like on here 'fucking this and that' and I never will. Sure, I say idiots and dolts etc. from time to time, but only in kind.

Essentially, I think I have worn out my welcome here. I have a helluva lot on my professional plate right now, and as I said on the January thread there's no way we can win debates with AGW deniers because they pick and choose the arguments they respond to. Look at Batty and Olly. They've been challenged dozens of times on various areas and all they have to do is ignore the points that cannot address and move on. Batty stuck with Algonquin Park for more than a year, but conveniently avoided his silly point about NA ecosystems being in a good state of health (many are most certainly NOT as evidenced by precipitous recent declines in many resident and migrant songbirds) that I easily countered. Olaus simply doesn't have a basic grasp of science to really be worth debating, especially with respect to population ecology or environmental science. That's where we are at here. The ianam jumps all over me for using a weather-related example to counter a local weather related example raised by Duff and Batty.

I can see why many of my colleagues wonder why the hell I spend toem on Deltoid. After today, I am beginning to wonder that myself. My main aim was to support the climate science community, most of whom believe that AGW is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, I intended to use my professional background to explain how GW and other human-mediated stresses affect biodiversity, from individuals to populations to species and upwards to ecosystems. Its clear that trying to engage with the likes of Olaus and Batty on this is a complete waste of my time. They try and give the impression that they are up to it intellectually but in the end they fall well short of even possessing a basic understanding and especially appreciation of ecological complexity. Everything is boiled down to the simplest common denominator. They haven't read up much at all on various subjects, such the the effects of biotic and abiotic changes on species and species interactions. Yet they spew out a veritable sea of nonsense as if they know what they are talking about, whilst being blinded by political and ideological blinkers.

Ianams vitriol was the final straw for at least awhile for me. If he thinks he knows so much about GW and its effects on the environment then Deltoid can have him. As I said, I have science to do - some involving climate-related species shifts and effects on recipient ecosystems, as well as on primary and secondary metabolism in plants and effects up the food chain. It is probably more important for me to concentrate on my 2 PhD students and 2 Masters students right now as well as on my own research and my Professorship teaching about ecosystem functions and services in Amsterdam. I've been called just about every nasty thing under the sun since I reviewed Bjorn Lomborg's book for Nature back in 2001 and to be attacked my ianam on here is a step too far in my opinion. I can take Batty's and Olly's smears, no problemo, but even they don't stoop to the depths that ianam did today.

I wish everyone on here good tidings for the new year - that goes even for Olly, Betula Stu2 and ianam. Certainly I appreciate the many posts of you, Stu, as wellas those by Chek, Bernard, Lionel, Bill, rhwombat Wow and many others over the years. I hope they keep up the good fight.

"Its clear that trying to engage with the likes of Olaus and Batty on this is a complete waste of my time."

And then Inane goes ballistick vomitus on you in "thanks" for it.

'cos 'e's a nice man!

Essentially, I think I have worn out my welcome here.

Not from where I'm sitting.

Which, I suppose I should finally confess is in a luxury bunker complex deep beneath the Tibetan Plateau which I share with my fellow Club of Rome associates, assorted Illuminati, our lizard overlords and a computer-based simulation of Karl Marx which they have kindly provided to guide and reassure us as we act out their grand plan.

"I thought some of the people I’m supposed to be “controlling” might have something to say about that particular conspiracy theory"

If it's this hard for you to follow posts that are right in front of you, how is it possible for you to follow scientific research?

The conspiracy theory belongs to Wow with this statement...”you’re paid to troll this site.”

An inquiry into such a conspiracy theory may ask such relevant questions as...who spends the most time on this site and who appears to be most passionate about staying on message? So much so that he would like to see people beaten if they stray from it...

It's just an interesting conspiracy theory brought up by Wow, that's all...

You think I guide Lotharsson, Jeff, Lionel, Stu, ianam, RHW, chek etc in delivering a “message"

I never said you guide individuals, in fact I never mentioned any names....that's all you. I said you guide the message, which you do. This is an open thread, and when things aren't going well, you attempt to get it back on the track you want it to be on.
A recent example would be back on pg 8 when I was discussing Chavez and you attempted to change and guide the topic with this...."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". After more discussion about Chavez you chimed in with this..."And Betty, there are those hyperthermals to explain".

Your eagerness to get off the topic and onto your message was seeping through the monitor.

More recently was your attempt at breaking up the argument between Hardley and iaam. You were acting as the self appointed moderator because we can't have friction between the messengers...

Like I said...you're too obvious.

Do you believe the Millennium Development goals can provide a pathway to social justice?

Barney answer..."You tell me"

You want me to tell you what you think?

How do we justify taxing carbon?

"Because it is a logical policy response to AGW"

By what authority?

"By what authority?" Economics: if you make it more expensive there is a market signal to seek alternatives. An alternative is cap and trade, but that is more open to gaming.

And once again, when the utter silliness of Betty's conspiracy theorising is exposed by examining the implications of his claims, he starts wriggling instead of admitting that I am clearly guiding nobody and not the "deputy" of Deltoid. Except in his fevered imaginings, of course.

This is just Betty's paranoia getting out of hand.

We've discussed the relationship between paranoid tendencies and conspiracist ideation before, haven't we Betty?

And Betty, I'm still waiting for you to explain how we get hyperthermals *without* GHG forcing and net positive feedbacks.

You have been dodging that question - and so many others - for several weeks now. Yet you think *I* am the one attempting to steer the conversation?

Too fucking funny.

So much so that he would like to see people beaten if they stray from it…

Nope. Never said that, so you are lying again Betty. I said that if people only realised what vested corporate interests (and the internet-infesting denier vermin who help them) were *doing* to their children's future they would probably beat the more vocal deniers in the streets and I wouldn't lift a finger to stop it.

That is not an expression of desire to see you beaten, Betty. Read the words. We've been through this before, which is why your incessant lying on this point is more than usually unacceptable.

Still, vermin is as vermin does.

That is a logic fail right there

No it's not, fool, even if I were wrong.

it is not a waste of time arguing with the trolls

Yes it is.

because whilst we are doing that the lurkers

There are no "lurkers" in this backwater, dolt, and even if there were this would be the least effective way for them to learn anything. These rationalizations of neurosis are pathetic.

“Both of you are pathetically dishonest sacks of shit”

This is exactly the same kind of comments I have received from anti-environmentalists

Now that is a logic fail. Anti-environmentalists say Jeff is a dishonest sack of shit (in regard to certain statements), I say he's a dishonest sack of shit (in regard to other statments), therefore ... what? Nothing other than that he again demonstrates his intellectual dishonesty and his pathetic mewling. I really do pity him for being such a neurotic mess ... I have no such pity for the vermin.

As I said, I have science to do

It's what I've been saying to you for the longest time. If I was at all instrumental in your wasting less of your time here, I've done the world a favor.

Ianam.

Yawn.

Get a life, you sad person.

"It’s what I’ve been saying to you for the longest time"

Ever thought that your demands are being ignored because they don't wish to bow to your preferences, inane?

So why bother repeating it?

Expecting a different outcome? That's insanity, inanity.

Just fucking about? That's trolling, inane.

Either case: STFU, retard.

"How do we justify taxing carbon?"

Carbon production as a byproduct of fossil fuel burning has an external cost and this needs to be paid for.

Taxing it is therefore justified.

Of course, whenever you ask a question, betty, you never want an answer.

Get a life

That I have one is why I spend so little time here.

Spend less, inane.