May 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Ah, Stu-3.142...

I see that you've finally realised that Heartland is a propaganda machine for fossil fuels corporations and right wings ideologues.

Next time though you might want to explicitly emphasise this so that sensible people don't mistake you for an idiot.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 06 May 2014 #permalink

Stu kicks off with a bunch of corporate stu-ges. Apt.

And best ignored.

Seems so. And I note that Patrick Moore is listed as 'Founder, Greenpeace'.

Usual suspects. Meh.

And I note that Patrick Moore is listed as ‘Founder, Greenpeace’.

What, they have blatant lies and egregious inaccuracies on their web page, even after such have been refuted time and again?

Quelle surprise...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 May 2014 #permalink

Ian Pilmer's new book, "Not the Greens" has been published just in time for Dick Warburton to read prior to his decision on the RET.

I have only read the publishers summary, which is very funny. Pilmer argues that the greens are ignorant and extremist ideologues. Here is the punchline:

This book argues that unless the greens live sustainably in caves in the forest and use no trappings of the modern world, then they should be regarded as hypocrites and treated with the disdain they deserve.

I guess by similar logic one shouldn't purport to be a geologist unless one lives under a rock.
Oh wait - figuratively counts too, doesn't it?

It's interesting that Plimer's book is unable to distinguish "modern" from "sustainable", or "sustainable" from "living in caves".

Someone who makes such a basic logic error probably isn't going to do very well with the more complicated sciency stuff. But various and sundry useful idiots will be fooled by it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 May 2014 #permalink

t’s interesting that Plimer’s book is unable to distinguish “modern” from “sustainable”, or “sustainable” from “living in caves”.

Back in the day Plimer (that is, a quarter of a century ago) would have failed students who engaged in that sort of egregious confabulation of ideas. Even then he was regardeed by most of my contemporaries as an arrogant prat, but and least he had some scientific integrity.

I've seen little sign of any integrity since he started his climatological denialism.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 08 May 2014 #permalink

I had Plimer as my 1st year Geology professor at Newcastle Uni. To think I respected him then. sigh.

Should have posted this here rather than in the April thread:

Lest there is any doubt as to how the filthy rich undermine the welfare of others two strands emerging throw more spotlights on this issue:

Barack Obama’s emissions plan comes under new line of attack

and

Show Me the Money: Meet the Multimillionaire Squeezing Missouri’s Schools..

Do these selfish idiots, if they have offspring, not realise that no amount of ‘fortress’ mentality will be able to prepare those offspring for the upheaval that will result from the continuation of BAU aided by impoverished education?

Voldemort, if he had been reality, was this evil and existed in much the same way – sucking the life force of others. Was JK more than a little prescient and perceptive?

Plimer!! Somebody just cough? There is a pillory waiting to be used by the likes of he, he may have to join a queue though.

Lionel @#12.
Has it occurred to you that well over half the world's population would consider you as 'filthy rich' and would like nothing better than to have your lifestyle?

2Pid @#13
Has it occurred to you that your comment is utterly vacuous?

Bill@#14.
Are you claiming that, along with you and me & everyone else who comments here, Lionel would NOT be considered enormously privileged and wealthy by well over half the world's population?
Or in other words - filthy rich.

Stu2

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what Lionel said, or are you being stupid as per?

What is the difference between a plutocratic elite and the rest of us?

Premise 1: Equating "vacuous" with "false" requires either a weak grasp of the English language or weapons-grade stupidity.

Premise 2: Stu2 has reasonably well-developed English language skills.

Conclusion: I'll pick door number 2, thanks BBD.

That's got to be the feeblest attempt at verballing I've read since...oh, probably the last time I read something by Stu2.

I'm still unable to detect any actual content in his missives.

2stupid @ #13

Go find a copy of The Little Earth Book by John Bruges and pay particular attention to pages 59-61. But then you could rearrange your cognitive framework, which is badly distorted, by studying the whole of that small book.

There are plenty of other texts that could help with the specific issue here but I cited the above in the interests of simplicity. Your simplicity.

Expect the unexpectd such as this:

Millions of Birds Terrorize Kentucky City

The blackbirds and European starlings blacken the sky of Hopkinsville, Ky., before roosting at dusk, turn the landscape white with bird poop, and the disease they carry can kill a dog and sicken humans.

Alfred is grinning in his grave.

Sorry to interrupt your service - the chanting is rather beautiful, er, in its own way - although there definitely don't appear to be as many of you as there were! Anyway, alas and alack, I bring bad news. Another traitor to the Cause! Yes, I'm sorry but another "dirty yellow-bellied rat" has jumped the 'Ship of Fools' and I must ask you, Brothers and Sisters, to pray for his soul to fry in perpetual global warming, er, when it comes, that is!

Mind you, this particular rat is not much of a scientist, not like you brainiac swots here. He is merely a climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction, so, heh, what does he know? Anyway, he's managed to get through the barbed wire and over the broken-glass topped wall which surrounds our beleaguered little Chapel and now he has joined - whisper who dares! - the GWPF!!!!!!!!!

His name is Lennart Bengtsson and he used to be such an enthusiastic 'Warmer' that he actually believed in Mann's hockey 'schtick'! Well, I mean, let's be honest, not many of us believed in that back in the day, did we?

By David Duff (not verified) on 09 May 2014 #permalink

...which surrounds our beleaguered little Chapel...

Now here is the hypocrite who was crowing about how forlorn our 'religion' (a most inappropriate term as ours is from understanding and note raw belief) was because of e.g. Climategate.

One more going emeritus joining up with the ever more shrill ranks of the GWPF amounts to nothing in the grand scheme of things where as extreme weather event after extreme weather event, in a pattern which yells 'climate change', the truth is dawning on more and more from the US to the UK and to Asia.

The 'emperors' of the GWPF (no not the foot-soldiers like Peiser) are becoming accutely aware of their nakedness, hence the need to clutch at straws to clothe their shame.

Listen to the opening of this album to realise what we have lost:

Johnny Cash - Ride This Train,

had this on vinyl LP in 64 and my elder daughters wore it till daylight was showing through. Now listening to a CD on Linux box.

Quoth Lennart Bengtsson:

I know some of the scientists in GWPF and they have made fine contributions to science.

Who and what did he have in mind? Because as regards climate science I am at a loss to know. Here's the GWPF academic advisory council. You tell me, Duffer. I'm all ears.

Prof. Bengtsson continues:

Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the majority of models.

Ah. Well, for all his credentials in meteorology Prof. Bengtsson knows less about climate sensitivity than I do. I know (and real climate scientists know) that you cannot derive a robust estimate of TCR, let alone ECS, from a short period of "observational" data that is both uncertain and includes estimates of aerosol forcings and is highly sensitive to transient variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake.

And that's the charitable explanation for his mistake. The uncharitable one would be that he is claiming that the recent, transient slowdown in the rate of surface warming is indicative of low S.

Now that would be a far more serious and fundamental error. Let's hope that's not what he meant.

Either way, Prof. Bengtsson is clearly out of his depth.

Duffers who don't know what they are talking about are fooled. The rest of us are simply bored.

Its informative to note which blogs are pushing this Bengtsson puffery, the usual suspects.

It is almost as if Bengtsson is Lindzen's new mouth piece.

Is anyone else getting periodic audio off this page - which loops and if not stopped results in huge downloads?

Lionel

Yes, all the political blogs pushing a man who claims:

My interest in climate science is strictly scientific and I very much regret the politicisation that has taken place in climate research.

Radiative physics is political. Who knew?

Or perhaps we witness the usual firehose projection at work.

BBD my link at #23 may be suspect, it was to a YouTube page but now in it goes somewhere else with a 'Firefox prevented this page from automatically redirecting to another page.' message.

Hum!

Is anyone else getting periodic audio off this page

Nope, not this page, But what I have noticed this week is that if I'm taking a break from, say, Guardian comments (who tolerate far more denial-stage-one-cretins per day than we do here) the page might reload and some gormless ad will start blaring or looping the first few seconds.

It's a fucking pain.

As is El Duffo who cranks along with his decrepit, rank, public school wannabee version of decayed Moncktonfish humour while saying nothing except "please defer to the wrong authority like me 'cos |I haven't a fucking clue except rich people's interests should be kow-towed to".
It's like Monty Python never happened.
God, imagine having to listen to that after a dinner. What's his trading name - Queasy-Sycophant-on-Wheels?
You Eat it, I'll Make You Barf It?
A loathsome creep who hasn't yet realised that his projected 'avuncular' manner is to a 21st Century adult, a similar foul, creepy, exploitative imposition as Savillismm or Harrisism.
Hopefully when Peak Oil bites hard, there'll still be enough of the braver, non-turncoat Duffers to keep the boilers of the Peoples Community Warming Grid well fired up.

BBD @ # 16
I think that some perspective is sorely missing here.
Lionel has attempted to use an analogy from Harry Potter (of all things) and also used highly emotive terminology such as "filthy rich', "impoverished education", 'sucking the life force of others' etc. . .to paint a highly simplistic and melodramatic 'black hat/white hat' picture of the world.
However, in answer to your specific question to me:
What is the difference between a plutocratic elite and the rest of us?
Considering that this would probably be an accepted definition of a 'plutocratic elite' -
- an elite or ruling class whose power derives from their wealth:-
I would argue, from the perspective of well over 50% of the world's population who do not enjoy the privileges that Lionel, you me etc. . . enjoys (including the time or the means to construct emotive and melodramatic comments on blogs), that their answer to your question (assuming by the 'rest of us' you mean people like Lionel commenting on this blog) would be :
"not much".

2Stu

I think that some perspective is sorely missing here.

Couldn't agree more, old chap.

2 Stupids isn't parsing the difference between 'power' and 'wealth' for some inexplicable reason, or comprehending that while the residents of a western project or arrondisement or sink social housing estate might be materially 'richer' than the inhabitants of a third world village, they're powerlessness to direct their possible futures may be equally limited.
Most social studies show that inequality within social groups regardless of circumstance or some imposed 'universal scale' are corrosive to the common good.
Essentially, 2Stupid is re-iterating Plimer's dumb and arrogant point again for him. Who's surprised at that?.
.

Couldn't agree more. All that 2Pid is contributing to is discussion on whether 'Libertarian' (US Corporate Variant) ideas can rightfully be placed somewhere on the autism spectrum.

Chek @ # 32.
Are you disagreeing with that definition of a 'plutocratic elite' that I supplied in order to help answer BBD's question?
-an elite or ruling class whose power derives from their wealth:-
It is a simple but easily accessible and widely accepted definition of that term. It was neither my personally concocted definition of 'plutocratic elite' nor any attempt to parse differences between power and wealth.
Please feel free to offer an alternate but equally accessible, accepted definition if you don't like that one.
Please also bear in mind that the discussion was prompted by Lionel's comment @ # 12 which I still argue is overly melodramatic and attempts to use a rather laughable comparison with the Harry Potter series.
Your comment here:
'they’re powerlessness to direct their possible futures may be equally limited.'
In reference to:
residents of a western project or arrondisement or sink social housing estate :
Is demonstrating a similarly narrow perspective IMHO.
I of course agree that standards in our western democracies are not perfect, egalitarian or even particularly fair but I would still point out that well over 50% of the world's population would very much envy your lifestyle Chek and very much envy the choices that you do have Chek (including having the time and the means to argue with people on a blog)
In fact, they would probably consider your lifestyle not particularly dissimilar to that definition of a 'plutocratic elite'.
If you don't think that's true then can I suggest, with respect, that you consider travelling to some of those underprivileged countries, and if you have any daughters or female companions I would also suggest that you don't take them with you to places like Nigeria, and start talking to them and honestly comparing your lifestyle choices and many other of your choices (such as what you might have for dinner tomorrow night or which university you will attend) that you can take for granted - with the choices they have available to them.
Bill @ # 33.
An leap from or a comparison of a definition of 'plutocratic elite' to :
‘Libertarian’ (US Corporate Variant) ideas ' ???
As I mentioned at a previous thread, word usage and definitions can often be positively Orwellian by some of the commenters here.
Here's a fairly widely accepted definition of the term Libertarian:
lib·er·tar·i·an n. 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. 2. One who believes in free will. [From liberty.] ...
I don't know about you Bill, but I don't think that bears much resemblance to a definition of 'plutocratic elite'.
I would however agree that heads of and/or owners of monopolies (including govt bureaucratic monopolies) and other large multinational corporate business leaders can often exhibit behaviour that would indeed fit the definition of 'plutocratic elite'.

Stupid

The plutocratic elite rules us and so the world. Read what chek wrote at # 32 again.

What frightens me about your incomprehension is that I think it might be unfeigned.

Lionel has attempted to use an analogy from Harry Potter (of all things) and also used highly emotive terminology such as “filthy rich’, “impoverished education”, ‘sucking the life force of others’ etc. . .to paint a highly simplistic and melodramatic ‘black hat/white hat’ picture of the world.

So another ignorant 'interpreter of interpretations' doesn't like an analogy. Surprise, surprise for such is typical of dimensionally limited brains, even if that way from absorption of propaganda, i.e. inappropriate nurture, rather than nature, that is born with limits. That of course does not rule out both conditions in the effect.

Maybe the righteous one could tell me what I meant by 'impoverished education' for I don't that think there is coincidence here.

This blog has been hacked.

Every fourth time (approx) that I come to the page, I get a bizarre audio stream and a massive unending download.

Professor Ian Pilmer as "an outspoken critic of stupidity" feels he is on a winner with his latest book. He expects the punters to buy it. He summarizes some of his argument in a friendly interview.

Are his claims made in relation to the production of alternative energy accurate? In this interview, he makes no reference to climate change, although claiming to be an "environmentalist", of the non-caving dwelling kind.

Why is that the "right" have become so anti-science. Professor Pilmer is important, as a geologist and scientist, he is an important "ideologue".

wmmbb asks:

Why is that the “right” have become so anti-science.

I refer you to Lord Stern:

"The problem of climate change involves a fundamental failure of markets: those who damage others by emitting greenhouse gases generally do not pay," said Sir Nicholas.

"Climate change is a result of the greatest market failure the world has seen. The evidence on the seriousness of the risks from inaction or delayed action is now overwhelming. We risk damages on a scale larger than the two world wars of the last century. The problem is global and the response must be a collaboration on a global scale."

This is not the sort of thing free marketeers want to hear at all. So The Science Must Be Wrong - because the market could never be, could it?

Sodding html. Let's try again:

wmmbb asks:

Why is that the “right” have become so anti-science.

I refer you to Lord Stern:

“The problem of climate change involves a fundamental failure of markets: those who damage others by emitting greenhouse gases generally do not pay,” said Sir Nicholas.

“Climate change is a result of the greatest market failure the world has seen. The evidence on the seriousness of the risks from inaction or delayed action is now overwhelming. We risk damages on a scale larger than the two world wars of the last century. The problem is global and the response must be a collaboration on a global scale.”

This is not the sort of thing free marketeers want to hear at all. So The Science Must Be Wrong – because the market could never be, could it?

BBD @#37

Every so often I see this under the Firefox toolbar,

‘Firefox prevented this page from automatically redirecting to another page.’

I have been looking at the page using Console, Inspector, but don't know enough to pick out the fleas. Might be something to do with the GoogleSyndication add's.

Check your browser settings.

Lionel

I've been through the page code this afternoon, and I have carried out a number of system scans with various adware and malware detection kits and the best I can come up with is *maybe* Adobe Shockwave is dumping audio intermittently when I access this page. Maybe. It is something of a mystery, but no doubt it will resolve. I have made some alterations to the browser page permissions which have resulted in the longest - so far - cessation of the problem in a week. But it is still far to early to say if the patching has achieved anything.

Even as I write, the apparently fully loaded page has just spontaneously gone back into "connecting" mode, and it will stay that way until it is manually reloaded.

Something *very* odd is going on.

Thanks and thanks, BBD. for the quote and the reference.

Seven years, perhaps more, is a long time for a scientist of the stature of Professor Pilmer to be in denial. If he is part of the 3% - and good luck to him - he needs to present compelling arguments that will persuade an expert audience, in relation to the measurement of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or whatever else is so unreliable as to be not useful. The distinction between an "ideologue" and a scientist is clear.

As per Thomas Kuhn climate science seems to be within the existing scientific paradigm, unless system science and its's tools represents in effect a changed paradigm.

wmmbb

he [Plimer] needs to present compelling arguments that will persuade an expert audience

He's absolutely failed to do that with Heaven and Earth, which was nonsense from start to finish. And which was absolutely panned from start to finish, eg here. Ian Enting's debunk is probably the most detailed.

Yet Plimer is making a noise and some people are still listening to it. A sorry state of affairs.

BBD, It might be an idea for you to uninstall Adobe Flash Player and Shockwave and reinstall those.

And have you tried c*o*m*b*o*f*I*x (without the asterisks)?
Available from Bleeping Computer

Disclaimer - SUBS (the author) does not recommend using it without guidance from one of their malware experts on the forums, but I've used it dozens of times on infected systems to good effect.
Check :
1) reg (registry) loading files Windows startup files - Google anything you don't recognise. A Hijack This scan will let you disable and delete anything suspicious.
2) R flies - do the same. These load when your browser starts
3) locked files in the report, do the same..
And then do a follow up clean-up with Malwarebytes and you should be clear.

This looks a bit like some 'conspiracist ideation' might be occuring here :-)
"The plutocratic elite rules us and so the world"
"This blog has been hacked"

Correction to #45
The HiJack this scan comes AFTER checking through
Step 2) R files

Not sure anyone apart from you is ideating any connection, smileyface modified or not.

And yes, hi-traffic sites (scienceblogs,as a whole, not necessarily Deltoid specifically) are frequently hacked.
Bot armies don't make themselves y'know (although after a certain point they actually do).

Chek

Thanks and happily, we are working along the same lines of thought. And 8 hours now without bollocks... Might be nailed.

2Stu

This looks a bit like some ‘conspiracist ideation’ might be occuring here :-)

“The plutocratic elite rules us and so the world”

Plutocratic elites *do* rule the world.

* * *

Isn't it perennially amusing how spokespersons for libertarinanism never seem to recognise that they are apologists for the very thing they decry?

Spokesperson for libertarianism?
Apologists for the very thing they decry?
:-)
That 'conspiracist ideation' looks like it's still occurring.
To use your own terminology BBD.
Go back and read what was written.
Then please demonstrate how my comments in your summation above have led you to conclude:
a) I am a spokesperson for libertarianism &/or
b) I am an apologist for plutocratic elitism.

2Stupid, please understand that the purpose of trolling is to derail, using pedantry or other means.
Also, please remember that your history precedes you.

I think your problem, 2Pid, is that you are 'debating' with neurotypicals. YOU clearly think you're making insightful, incisive points; WE see incoherent, barely-relevant vacuities.

The very fact that we see you as a far-Right corporate apologist pseudo Libertarian is only an indicator of what a poor communicator you are if, in fact, you're something else.

You've already denied repeatedly that actual Libertarians™ * are corporate stooges, this denial being one of the key hallmarks of that very breed.

As is claiming that any reference to their very-evident domination of the global polity is 'conspiracy ideation' (used in the conventional, pejorative 'that's just an unfounded persecution narrative' sense, not the technical sense).

The claim that the Murdochs, Kochs, Rineharts etc. of this world do not have a grotesquely disproportionate capacity to influence political agendas - particularly on the basis that some folks somewhere see all westerners as absurdly rich - is so dumb it's not even worth unpacking.

If that wasn't what you were saying; well, again, your communication skills clearly don't make the grade, but I'm also afraid your rationalization for posting what is otherwise a total irrelevance would equally be dull, dull, dull.

*US patent pending

And the tale gets more so...

Bob Ward is a legend, and a 'Serengeti strategy' deployed against him can only serve to further raise his prominence and influence à la Mike Mann.

Bill @#53 and Chek @#52
I do not usually find that I have trouble communicating.
In actual fact, as Frank D pointed out earlier, there is little amiss with my grasp of the language or my ability to employ the written language to communicate.
However, very perversely, from your comments above, I could easily be forgiven for questioning your comprehension abilities.
Let me be crystal clear.
This is NOT and has NEVER BEEN anywhere close to anything I have ever argued at this blog:
"The claim that the Murdochs, Kochs, Rineharts etc. of this world do not have a grotesquely disproportionate capacity to influence political agendas"
They DO INDEED have some capacity to influence all sorts of agendas, including political agendas and it IS INDEED related to their personal wealth. Your attempt to imply that I have argued otherwise is nearly as laughable as Lionel's attempt to explain the world with an analogy to JK Rowling's invention of the magical world of witches and wizards in the Harry Potter series. While I don't disagree that the story is somewhat allegorical, Lionel's attempted analogy was lacking in perspective, overly simplistic and melodramatic (particularly his white hat/black hat portrayal)
Let's not forget, for those who are familiar with this highly successful series, that Voldemort was not the sole perpetrator of evil. Wasn't he aided and abetted by numerous members of the Ministry of Magic and wasn't the references to said ministry perhaps a damning portrayal of government and bureaucracy in our modern world? Even more particularly, couldn't it be interpreted that JK Rowling was, through allegory, criticising Government and Bureaucracies and their tendency to stifle education, obstruct development and progress and curtail personal liberty (or maybe Lionel would prefer 'impoverished education") ?
This next part of your comment is inappropriately juxtaposed with the first part, as my original comment was prompted by Lionel's comments about the 'filthy rich'.
here:
" – particularly on the basis that some folks somewhere see all westerners as absurdly rich – '
I will also draw to your attention to the fact that your flippant and dismissive comment about "some folks somewhere' actually refers to well over 50% of the world's population who would indeed very much envy your lifestyle Bill and Chek and your lifestyle choices and who would not see much difference between the lifestyle you enjoy Bill and Chek and your own personal perspectives of the 'plutocratic elite' or as Lionel originally commented the "filthy rich".

What is I about toy-town ibertariasauruses that they cannot comprehend collective action and the organisation required to achieve common goals?

If x million kids need to be educated every year, y million sick people need to be medical treated and z million people need to be watered and seweraged then collective organisation is necessary. The alternatives are even more grossly inefficient than what we have

The only basic requirement left for the 'free market' in most civilised countries is for food, and what a shit job they're making of it. Basic foods adulterated with sugars and fats, colossal wastage, an obesity crisis and millions still starving.

Not to mention the pressures caused by agribusiness - the favoured monocultures reducing our global ability to withstand blight, reliance on petrochemicals to induce fertility and devastation of natural habitats vital to other non-human organisms.

And we haven't even touched on industrial scale marine devastation from surface to seabed. All in the cause of 'free-market' food, run by companies mainly concerned with quarterly balances rather than prospects a quarter century from now.

couldn’t it be interpreted that JK Rowling was, through allegory, criticising Government and Bureaucracies and their tendency to stifle education, obstruct development and progress and curtail personal liberty (or maybe Lionel would prefer ‘impoverished education”) ?

It seems that 'stifling and obstruction' is exactly the approach of such fake libertarians as Heartland seeking to impose their free-market garbage and anti-scientific agenda on the education system as was exposed by the Gleick Affair.

Stifling what children are allowed to lean in support of producing obedient consumers and obstructing science inconvenient to that end.

You stick with your toy-town, university compiled dictionary definitions Cammy, because the real face of modern 'libertarianism' is to destroy democracy in favour of unchallenged corporate power. Corporate power being the last relic of feudalism in the western world.

Chek @ # 57,
That would have to be one of the best constructs of a straw man argument that I have seen in quite some time.
I am of course assuming, through context, that rant was directed at me even though you seem to have coined yet another name from Stu 2?
It's a bit too cryptic for me however.
Perhaps you just made an error?

couldn’t it be interpreted that JK Rowling was, through allegory, criticising Government and Bureaucracies and their tendency to stifle education, obstruct development and progress and curtail personal liberty

Fuck Nell, in Stu2's world Atlas Shrugged was a Harry Potter prequel.

In actual fact, as Frank D pointed out earlier, there is little amiss with my grasp of the language or my ability to employ the written language to communicate.

Stu2 agrees with my syllogism: that Stu2 was being stupid, as per.

We've already established Stu2's economic chops on previous threads, where he has owned up to thinking that things that contributed to problems are the solutions to those problems, and its okay to distort the market to make rich people richer, but not okay to correct market distortionsif that will stop them becoming richer still.

Really he's just GSW with a dictionary.

2pid, let me put it this way, survival is not a consumer choice, and free market ideologies don't have the conceptual framework for dealing with existential threats.

The only large scale existential threats western democracies have had to deal wioth have been wars, and the response (for the majority, not the profiteers) was enforced socialism which was largely tolerated because most people believed that 'we're all in this together'.

There is no individual-based ideology that can cope with the current perilous situation we're in. Except of course, denial.

Anyone remember the deniers' favourite one about CO2 being plant food, and the more the better?

Not so, according to a newly published paper in Nature.

Dietary deficiencies of zinc and iron are a substantial global public health problem. An estimated two billion people suffer these deficiencies1, causing a loss of 63 million life-years annually2, 3. Most of these people depend on C3 grains and legumes as their primary dietary source of zinc and iron. Here we report that C3 grains and legumes have lower concentrations of zinc and iron when grown under field conditions at the elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration predicted for the middle of this century. C3 crops other than legumes also have lower concentrations of protein, whereas C4 crops seem to be less affected. Differences between cultivars of a single crop suggest that breeding for decreased sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration could partly address these new challenges to global health.

I worry about Brother Chek. He actually mentioned "Peak Oil" [sic] and doesn't seem to realise that we all agreed not to mention that particular red herring again seeing that we have already passed at least three 'absolutely definite dates' for it to occur and still the lovely stuff gushes forth in abundance.

I mean, if he keeps reminding people of our, shall we say, little lapses, they might notice that it's not getting any warmer - and then where would we be?

By David Duff (not verified) on 11 May 2014 #permalink

Duffer

they might notice that it’s not getting any warmer – and then where would we be?

Since OHC is increasing rapidly, "it" - correctly defined as the climate system IS getting warmer.

You have had this pointed out to you innumerable times now, so you must be knowingly repeating misinformation.

That makes you a liar.

Y'know Duffer I despair thatanyone can ber sold and so stupid. I used to presume that the acquisition of wisdom was one trade off for loss of youth, but that's obviously not so.

If oil is so 'abundant, then why have the prices of the oil we burn (red line) and the o0il we eat (black line, wheat prices)
more than doubled since 2000?

And if, as you parrot, it's not getting any warmer, then who's stealing all the polar ice?

#51

Go back and read what was written.
Then please demonstrate how my comments in your summation above have led you to conclude:
a) I am a spokesperson for libertarianism &/or
b) I am an apologist for plutocratic elitism.</blockquote

Ah, more dishonest evasions from a liar. Ever heard of lying by omission, Pid?

Why do you never comment to criticise the other vermin here like GSW who denies the fact that plutocratic elites have created and covertly funded a denial industry? Never. Not once. Ever.

Answer me that.

Sometimes it's what you don't say that identifies you as an apologist for libertarianism and plutocratic elitism. And a liar by omission.

Why do you instead shit on to me about "conspiracist ideation" just like GSW and others have done? Don't you understand that these childish attempts to delegitimise me place you firmly on the side of the scum who are subverting democracy for personal gain?

You are a lackey, and apparently 2Stupid even to recognise the fact. Lick the boot until you can see your face in the shiny toecap and wake up.

Sodding html

Go back and read what was written.
Then please demonstrate how my comments in your summation above have led you to conclude:
a) I am a spokesperson for libertarianism &/or
b) I am an apologist for plutocratic elitism.

Ah, more dishonest evasions from a liar. Ever heard of lying by omission, Pid?

Why do you never comment to criticise the other vermin here like GSW who denies the fact that plutocratic elites have created and covertly funded a denial industry? Never. Not once. Ever.

Answer me that.

Sometimes it's what you don't say that identifies you as an apologist for libertarianism and plutocratic elitism. And a liar by omission.

Why do you instead shit on to me about "conspiracist ideation" just like GSW and others have done? Don't you understand that these childish attempts to delegitimise me place you firmly on the side of the scum who are subverting democracy for personal gain?

You are a lackey, and apparently 2Stupid even to recognise the fact. Lick the boot until you can see your face in the shiny toecap and wake up.

Try that again with working links

Y'know Duffer I despair that anyone can be so old and so stupid. I used to presume that the acquisition of wisdom was one trade off for loss of youth, but that';s obviously not so.

If oil is so abundant, then why have the prices of the oil we burn (red line) and the oil we eat (black line, wheat prices)
more than doubled since 2000?
And if, as you parrot, it's not getting any warmer, then who's stealing all the polar ice?

...they might notice that it’s not getting any warmer – and then where would we be?

In 'cloud [initial mistype as 'clod' - prescient or not?] cuckoo land, like you. Talking of cuckoos when was the last time you saw or heard one in this country of ours - England?

Just so happens this evening's BBC edition of 'Countryfile' included a section on the way that nature is already responding to 'climate change', also an interview with Richard Betts at the Met' Office who explained clearly what is really happening and at an increasing rate with a truly frightening look ahead to projections out to the end of the century where global temperatures are concerned.

But we have already been there and explained this to the likes of you using many examples from the scientific community. Only the ideologically deranged can keep banging on like the Duffers of the world. Use that Daily Fail instead of Andrex and preferably before reading it as it pollutes your brain cell.

On a stick ... 3rd time lucky.

Y’know Duffer I despair that anyone can be so old and so stupid. I used to presume that the acquisition of wisdom was one trade off for loss of youth, but that’;s obviously not so.

If oil is so abundant, then why have the prices of the oil we burn (red line) and the oil we eat (black line, wheat prices)
more than doubled since 2000?
And if, as you parrot, it’s not getting any warmer, then who’s stealing all the polar ice?

...and still the lovely stuff gushes forth in abundance.

Doh! You just cannot grasp multidimensional realities can you.
Why do you think they are converting Alberta into a form of Mordor and fracking for tight oil and adopting crazy schemes such as coal bed methane extraction?

Get a frigging clue you clod!

You know, Brothers, for 'brainiac swots' you do seem to have a lot of trouble writing English and publishing it. I worry for you.

However, so-called 'peak oil', this is from 2011:

"This is actually the fifth time in modern history that we've seen widespread fear that the world was running out of oil. The first was in the 1880s, when production was concentrated in Pennsylvania and it was said that no oil would be found west of the Mississippi. Then oil was found in Texas and Oklahoma. Similar fears emerged after the two world wars. And in the 1970s, it was said that the world was going to fall off the "oil mountain." But since 1978, world oil output has increased by 30%.

Just in the years 2007 to 2009, for every barrel of oil produced in the world, 1.6 barrels of new reserves were added. And other developments—from more efficient cars and advances in batteries, to shale gas and wind power—have provided reasons for greater confidence in our energy resiliency. Yet the fear of peak oil maintains its powerful grip."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240531119040606045765725529…

The more the price goes up, the harder those pesky oilmen search for new ways to extract more of the stuff. Equally, the more the oil producing nations engage in warfare the less of the stuff is around - but of course, it's still there, it still exists, it's just waiting for better times.

Unlike Pte. Fraser's gloomy prognostication, 'we are not all doomed'!

By David Duff (not verified) on 11 May 2014 #permalink

Duffer you fail to grasp that 'peak oil' means that demand outstrips supply, therefore the price increases. It's quite straightforward. However much is found, it's not enough to meet demand, hence the doubling in price in 12 years. You might (though I doubt it) ponder that.
And this is happening when geological exploration is far more sophisticated than the 1970s. Finite resources are by definition finite.

Equally, the more the oil producing nations engage in warfare the less of the stuff is around – but of course, it’s still there, it still exists, it’s just waiting for better times.

I missed this classic of head-in-the-sand denialism.

Duffer you seem to assumer it's some sort of coincidence that nations situated on oil lakes 'engage in warfare'. Don't you think that there may be a reason related to scarcity behind the aggression? Just as in Central Africa, the sole source of certain rare earth metals vital to the electronics industry, conflict is caused by the presence of their resources.

How can you not know this?

No massive new and cheaply accessible oil fields to scale with the ones found during the second half of the C20th have been discovered for a while now. Hence, ultimately, the interest in Alberta's tar sands and other "unconventional" sources.

Economically recoverable oil reserves are finite and depleting and the cost of extraction is rising as the process becomes more challenging. This partly explains the price signal and demand vs supply completes the picture.

One must face the facts. Argument over the The era of cheap oil is over and costs can only rise during the course of this century. Commenters concerned by the plight of the developing world and the disadvantaged citizens of the developed economies should ponder this.

As the fatuous ignorance of Duffer is still fresh, let's burst his ill-informed fuckwitted ignorance, even though it's been done so many times already, one wonders why the punch-drunk stupid fuck keeps coming back for more.
The main discoveries in recent history have been
1)Kashagan field, discovered in 2000s is believed to hold 38 billion barrels
2)Prudhoe Bay field in Alaska was about 13 billion barrels.
3)Ferdows, Iran is almost always discussed in combination with Mound and Zagheh, and together they represent reserves of 31 billion barrels of oil
4)Santos/Campos, Brazilan oil field containing about 123 billion barrels of oil
8)Ghawar, Saudi Arabia Ghawar’s size has been estimated at 162 billion barrels of oil, but there has been no independent verification since 1975.

Meanwhile, 32 billion barrels a year are used globally.

Perhaps that explains why maths are not the strongpoint of the British elite and their fawning, cringing, Daily Fail reading supporters.

Re#56

You see, what we must remember is that because of the circles 2Pid moves in, he's not really talking about our world.

In his world JK's not-well-known-here sister Ayn published a series of novels that became a huge hit among the Breitbart/IPA set; Harry Potter and the Torch of Liberty, Harry Potter and the Rent Seekers of Doom, etc. that culiminate in his final spectacular showdown with the forces of darkness - the despised and fearsome Regulators.

Same planet, different worlds, eh, 2Pid?

This cultural divide also explains other behaviours. Among the IPA set it's completely normal, when confronted with comprehensive refutations of your 'arguments', to simply repeat them ad nauseam, because anyone who might dispute what you've said clearly simply hasn't heard you, otherwise they'd believe what you believe, and can only stand to benefit from hearing your original claim for the umpteenth time...

BBD @ # 65 & 66.
I am surprised that you have not noticed that I generally don't engage on this blog using personal comments or calling people names like liar, stupid, delusional, intellectually dishonest etc.
Despite your assertions otherwise, I was not attempting to engage in some sort of conspiracy to delegitimise you personally over your interpretation of 'conspiracist ideation'. I was questioning the interpretation as it did not appear to be correct.
It's OK BBD, people make mistakes all the time, it doesn't mean that you are being personally attacked, personally victimised or 'delegitimised' when those errors are pointed out.
I do not regard you or GSW or anyone else as some sort of personal enemy. What would be the point of that?
One of your concluding remarks:
"Don’t you understand that these childish attempts to delegitimise me place you firmly on the side of the scum who are subverting democracy for personal gain?"
Is just simply nonsense.
Just because you get questioned does not therefore automatically mean that I am on some nefarious 'side' that subverts democracy and/ or that I deny that humans impact environments and/or that I don't care about these things.
That's pure nonsense BBD and likely reveals more about you than anyone else.
Can I suggest, with respect, that your oft demonstrated tendency to pass character judgement based on your own personal judgement of what you personally imagine you can read between the lines, actually bears a remarkable resemblance to your original misinterpretation of the term 'conspiracist ideation' ?
As a further note BBD, can I also suggest that you look back over your comments, thread after thread after open thread and consider who may be one of the more obvious suspects when it comes to making unjustified personal accusations, personal abuse and launching attempts to 'delegitimise' others?

Cammy, instead of your endless dialogue about dialogue, why not try something next time of interest to others, outside of your own preening self-regard which seems to be top of your list?

Chek,
Once again, only from context, I will assume that little piece of personal abuse was directed at me? I don't know why you have now used 'Cammy' twice to refer to me.
You may have noticed that BBD asked me a question.
Are you claiming that I have no right to answer direct questions?

Stu2

Answer the question:

Why do you never comment to criticise the other vermin here like GSW who denies the fact that plutocratic elites have created and covertly funded a denial industry? Never. Not once. Ever.

Answer me that.

Why do you instead repeatedly invoke the "conspirasist ideation" rhetoric as an avoidance tactic?

Of course this is a rhetorical question, but let's see: can you think?

BBD.
I answered your question @ # 77.
Perhaps the issue you might be having is that my answer to your direct question to me was not what you believe my answer should be? (rhetorical or otherwise)
Let me try again.
In summary.
I don't automatically assume that you or GSW or anyone else who comments here are vermin or liars or in denial or- to quote you- "firmly on the side" of any real or imagined conspiracies from whatever 'side' that may be real or imaginary.
Neither am I even slightly interested in 'delegitimising' anybody in particular, including you.
Therefore BBD, I don't see any intrinsic value in encouraging personal abuse and personal comments or in fuelling overly emotional, exaggerated, melodramatic behaviour based on a concept of 'sides'.
Or perhaps even more simply.
I don't consider you or GSW or anyone else as my enemy.
I hope that helps?

Chek, my little Deltoid Brother, do calm down, dear!

If you scaremongers have been wrong five times in recent decades, why should we believe you now?

"Just in the years 2007 to 2009, for every barrel of oil produced in the world, 1.6 barrels of new reserves were added. [...]
Overall U.S. oil production has increased more than 10% since 2008. Net oil imports reached a high point of 60% in 2005, but today, thanks to increased production and greater energy efficiency (plus the use of ethanol), imports are down to 47%.
Things don't stand still in the energy industry. With the passage of time, unconventional sources of oil, in all their variety, become a familiar part of the world's petroleum supply. They help to explain why the plateau continues to recede into the horizon—and why, on a global view, Hubbert's Peak is still not in sight."

Hubbert, by the way, was one of the first scaremongers and almost everything he predicted was wrong!

By David Duff (not verified) on 12 May 2014 #permalink

That's how you do it in denierland folks - not one supported fact, and an invitation to 'have faith'. Oh, and then accuse your questioner of being the one belonging to a faith cult.
Projection all the way down the line.

Try 0.5 barrels, dork. And try not channeling Daniel Yergin.

Oil as we knew it peaked in 2006. Get over it. All the rest is 'unconventional' (i.e. Mordor), cornucopian absurdity, and/or creative accounting.

If you scaremongers have been wrong five times in recent decades, why should we believe you now?

Only to somebody who has his head up his fundament and cannot understand multiply faceted problems.

Ever heard of 'the law of diminishing returns'?

This is kicking in across many aspects of resource supply and to the expense of the environment.

Ask yourself why BP felt it necessary to drill in deep water offshore, cut corners with cost and then persist in refusing to acknowledge the extent of the damage that they caused with that Deepwater Horizon sea bed gusher. Just as Exxon have still to fully fess up and pay up after Exxon Valdez. These two are just at the head of a long list of disasters here's another and recent one, one of many just over the past twelve months.:

Fracking Well Leak Spills 1,600 Gallons Of Oil Drilling Lubricant Into An Ohio Tributary,

now look around over there and you will find reports on fracturing oil and gas pipelines, derailing oil-trains most leading to loss of life for some, reduction in quality of life for others due to damage or pollution. Then there is the slow ticking time bombs of peoples health affected by the 'nasties' in the spillages.

Your are being either stupidly ignorant or dishonest on this question, you chose!

2Stupid the Liar

I answered your question @ # 77.

No you didn't. You engaged in some self-justificatory and utterly dishonest twaddle.

GFY.

Let's try again.

Ever heard of lying by omission, Pid?

Why do you never comment to criticise the other vermin here like GSW who denies the fact that plutocratic elites have created and covertly funded a denial industry? Never. Not once. Ever.

Answer me that.

Sometimes it’s what you don’t say that identifies you as an apologist for libertarianism and plutocratic elitism. And a liar by omission.

Answer the fucking question this time.

chek

2Stu's whiny, tone-trollish style is very reminiscent of "chameleon". And the "dunno what you mean" denial stank of dishonesty. I think you might be on the money there.

2Stu’s whiny, tone-trollish style is very reminiscent of “chameleon”.

IIRC I made that observation months ago, but the reference I used went over Stu 2's head. Come to think of it, an awful lot went over chameleon's head too ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 May 2014 #permalink

Odd how the deniers and climate liars are so fond of their sock puppets. Or perhaps not so odd. Running a sock is just another manifestation of a dishonest personality.

BBD.
Your question was answered.
It was a direct question to me about why I don't personally attack others.That was my answer to that particular question.
If you don't like the answer - there's nothing I can do to help you.
If you want a different answer - consider asking a different question.
But thanks for sort of explaining why Chek was referring to me
as Cammy.
I now realise why it made no sense.
I guess it must be yet another one of those imagined conspiracies that what you would possibly call 'both sides' seem to be enamoured with?

Being Chebbie would explain the lack of content in the posts. Also fits with being so galactically smug about their own incomprehension.

And with being dull indeed. So here's something more interesting.

Bill @ # 93.
Here's some content just for you :-)
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2235…
Yet paradoxically:
Rainfall data Southern Australia:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&…
A BoM report on decreasing winds/storminess:
http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2011/alexander_hres.pdf
And look what this person has done!
Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/08/Leading-climate-sc…

I don't believe Stu 2 is Chameleon, but I wouldn't rule out that they hang out at the same places at times.

Mind you, the dodgy sources that Stu 2 uses could be responsible for that impression.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 May 2014 #permalink

Lotharsson @# 95.
Other than the link to the story about Bengtsson, what do you find dodgy about those sources @ # 94 L?
2 were from BoM & 1 from Nature.

Stu 2, Bengtsson has given an interesting and rather revealing interview on Der Klimazwiebel (I'll let you find it yourself). In it he expresses concern about the politicization (his word) of climate science, and then expresses his own opinion on various policy decisions, including his own preference for adaptation against climate change. Interesting, no? Being worried about politicization and then come with political opinions and joining an obviously political thinktank.

Sadly I don't think Bengtsson even realizes the cognitive dissonance of his own decision, and the fact that he is just concerned that *his* political opinion isn't heard loud enough. He also doesn't realize that he's just aligned himself with serially wrong people like Ian Plimer and Bob Carter.

BBD.
Your question was answered.

Liar.

Why do you never comment to criticise the other vermin here like GSW who denies the fact that plutocratic elites have created and covertly funded a denial industry? Never. Not once. Ever.

Answer me that.

Sometimes it’s what you don’t say that identifies you as an apologist for libertarianism and plutocratic elitism. And a liar by omission.

Answer the fucking question this time.

Stop lying and stop being evasive.

* * *

And look what this person has done!
Lennart Bengtsson

Who cares what he has done? He is clueless. Why don't you read the thread before posting redundant inanities like this?

Here's another question for you to evade.

You refused to criticise GSW's frantic evasiveness on the April thread when I repeatedly asked him a simple question. He, like you, had much to say about imaginary conspiracies by way of avoiding answering a direct question, so you had better make your own position clear.

Do you deny that it is a matter of fact that corporate vested interests created and now covertly fund a denial industry?

Yes or no.

Answer.

To assist your obviously woeful powers of recall, let's briefly review the April thread. Remember this? And this? You are still playing that game. Still. And you wonder why you are treated with contempt.

Now, following on, watch GSW wriggle and dodge and act like the vermin he is and never answer the question. Be sure and read to the end. Notice how you said not one fucking word? Spot that too?

Now, let's see if you sink lower than GSW did in desperately trying not to admit the truth about the denial industry.

You've been wriggling desperately over the thorny question of why you never, ever criticise the other vermin here, and now this too.

Oooh. Pressure.

It will intensify.

Sodding html.

Let's briefly review the April thread. Remember this? And this? You are still playing that game. Still. And you wonder why you are treated with contempt.

Now, follwing on, watch GSW wriggle and dodge and act like the vermin he is and never answer the question. Be sure and read to the end. Notice how you said not one fucking word? Spot that too?

Stu 2, what papers has Bengtsson published to demonstrate that (say) the consensus is significantly flawed?

Or is this another amazing coincidence whereby someone who is paid by a contrarian lobbying group professes to be a contrarian without actually being able to demonstrate good reason for that position from the scientific literature?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 May 2014 #permalink

Other than the link to the story about Bengtsson, what do you find dodgy about those sources @ # 94 L?

I didn't say they were dodgy.

But while we're there perhaps you could explain in your own words what the Nature article conveys and why you think the two BOM links are "paradoxical", with special reference to your choice of South Australia and South Australia alone?

Or failing that, maybe ask your cut-and-paste source to comment?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 May 2014 #permalink

And then you can answer the questions put to you on the previous page.

Stu 2, what papers has Bengtsson published to demonstrate that (say) the consensus is significantly flawed?

Bengtsson is confused about physical climatology. See his remarks on sensitivity:

The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C in spite of the simultaneous increase in greenhouse gas forcing by 2.5-3 W/m2.

He ignores the fact that this the transient response and he ignores the substantial increase in negative aerosol forcing that offsets the increase in CO2 forcing. Basic errors.

I am concern that this as well as the lack of ocean surface warming in some 17 years has not been properly recognized by IPCC.

WTF? Which data set is he using? And more disturbing still, further confusion about SSTs and what they tell us. SSTs are somewhat indicative of the amount of energy leaving the ocean; they do not tell us much about the amount entering it. The metric of interest there would be OHC.

Yes, please do answer the questions Loth asked; so, do tell us what you (or, I suppose, whoever you're neurally outsourcing from - we'll check!) makes of the information you've presented.

It seems increasingly clear from his various public comments that Bengtsson believes that the recent slowdown in the rate of increase in surface temperatures indicates that sensitivity is low (note that reference to a 17 year period above). He has made the same basic errors that characterise "sceptical" commentary:

- He has used an uninformatively short time-scale.

- He cherry-picked the 1989 El Nino as the start point.

- He has mistaken transient variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake for low S (see England et al. 2014)

- He has ignored the effects of variability in TSI (solar output; volcanic aerosols; anthropogenic aerosols).

And on the back of this catalogue of basic errors, he's jumped into the arms of the organised denial machine. Note that the GWPF is linked with libertarian/right wing lobby groups in the US and Europe, and has refused to disclose its funding.

Even ignoring the arguably false characterisation of changes required (given how long they have been mooted) Bengtsson is also advocating a failure in risk management by saying that:

However, before radical and hasty changes to the current energy system are implemented, there must be robust evidence that climate change is significantly detrimental.

I do not wait until I possess robust evidence that I will have a bad crash before applying the brakes in my car. But that's essentially what Bengtsson is arguing for here.

Meanwhile fellow GWPF member Richard Tol has recently corrected his analysis of the likely impacts of climate change eliminating almost all possibility of net benefit thus arguably making the case for mitigating the risk even stronger (although Tol attempts to spin it the other way).

Bengtsson appears to be putting forth a number of opinions outside of his area of competence, but that won't stop his claims being employed in fallacious appeals to authority - that disregard the much greater authority on the other side of the ledger.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 May 2014 #permalink

Bengtsson is just one more climate revisionist. Paid denier who knows better and is actually poor at his spins.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 May 2014 #permalink

Lotharsson.
Your comment# 95 immediately followed the links I posted.
BBD.
I of course agree that representative organisations , think tanks, unions and all types of NGOs and advocacy groups receive donations.
Who would deny that?
I donate to a couple of charity organisations, an animal welfare
organisation 2 unions and also to a representative organisation connected the industry I work in.
Your question pertains however to the existence of something you call a 'denial industry'.
While I don't disagree that there are some groups who advocate against the carbon tax or a global ETS , I don't agree that 'denial industry' is what they're called nor that they are the root of all evil in the world.
That does not mean that I am therefore 'firmly on the side' of any organisation.
I quite often disagree with the advocacy of the union I belong to and also the industry advocacy group I am a member of.
Also Lotharsson.
That was one example of BoM data from Southern Australia.
If you look through the site you will find the others.
The paradox is that the BoM data indicates rain has increased and winds have decreased with SW Western Australia being the only exception.

Stu2, the apologist for the denial industry.

Stu2 the apologist for plutocratic elites subverting democracy.

Stu2 the serial liar.

Since all this has been brought up before when you were active on the April thread, I don't believe you are unaware of the evidence.

So you are exactly as describe above.

Still, I want to see if you will crawl lower than your fellow vermin, eg GSW.

So, a test:

Brulle (2013):

Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

Do you deny these matters of fact?

Yes or no?

If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

Note well:

Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

Which brings us to Donors Trust:

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising “wedge issue” for hardcore conservatives.

The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.

Do you deny these matters of fact?

Yes or no?

If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

For the record, these are the two questions 2Stu has yet again refused to answer (see evasions above):

1/ Why do you never comment to criticise the other vermin here like GSW who denies the fact that plutocratic elites have created and covertly funded a denial industry? Never. Not once. Ever.

2/ Do you deny that it is a matter of fact that corporate vested interests created and now covertly fund a denial industry?

Yes or no.

2Pid attempts to flay us with a wet lettuce. Nearly as pointless an opponent as the Chebbie he so-closely resembles...

Bengtsson left the GWPF.
--
Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

With my best regards

Lennart Bengtsson

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 14 May 2014 #permalink

Oh dear, Bengtsson called the whaaambulance.

Are we not all terrible for making a scientist so uncomfortable with belonging to the GWPF.

We should be ashamed of ourselves for throwing such an ill light on the GWPF, a fine upstanding and honest group of earnest people who are trying to engage in an honest debate about how little we know about the workings of climate and that we should not be attempting to reign in the use of fossil fuels until all the science is in.

So Lionel, we felt a twinge of moral conscience and maybe even a touch of, may I say the word, pity - and we cannot allow it. Not at all.
Shit alors.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 14 May 2014 #permalink

Cued in by Bengtsson's utterly unapologetic letter in which he refuses to acknowledge his own foolishness in this matter and instead distastefully plays the victim, the yahoos are howling about oppression.

Sod. The. Lot. Of. Them.

They are not the victims here.

No. The perpetrators in a way that is becoming actual.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 14 May 2014 #permalink

Well I figured that would happen BBD, hence my piss take.

I wonder if he means 97% of the "community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.."
And can he really be that clueless of what the GWPF are about?

chek - with this, with climate revionism, with me, it is: guilty until proven beyond any doubt otherwise. Because the only alternative explanation is senility. The choice be his.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 14 May 2014 #permalink

I also find it difficult to believe that Bengtsson would have walked in to the arms of the GWPF without appreciating their true status.

But then ivory towers can tend to blinker.

BBD. @#10 11 & 12.
Can I suggest, yet again, that if you don't like the answers that it may have something to do with your questions?
Try asking a different question .
I also note that while you are very happy to dish out criticism you are not demonstrating any ability to consider criticism of your own comments.
You are stuck in some type of 'groundhog day' on this issue.
Try & move on. Your interpretation of some if the literature is overly melodramatic and positively Orwellian.

Try asking a different question .

Try answering the questions you were originally asked.

Your wriggling intellectual dishonesty is sickening.

* * *

1/ Why do you never comment to criticise the other vermin here like GSW who denies the fact that plutocratic elites have created and covertly funded a denial industry? Never. Not once. Ever.

2/ Do you deny that it is a matter of fact that corporate vested interests created and now covertly fund a denial industry?

Yes or no.

Try & move on. Your interpretation of some if the literature is overly melodramatic and positively Orwellian.

I don't want self-serving lies. I want ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS YOU ARE BEING ASKED.

See final line below:

Brulle (2013):

Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

Do you deny these matters of fact?

Yes or no?

****If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.****

Can't you fucking read?

It won't answer. But then again, it's not worth the pixels it's printed on.

Yet they whine when called vermin.

Meanwhile in the real world atmospheric CO2 levels have broached the 400ppm level in April 2014. At 401.33 ppm it is 2.97 ppm higher than at the end of April 2013.

Can I suggest, yet again, that if you don’t like the answers that it may have something to do with your questions?

If you have not provided any answers how can they be liked, or not. You never do make sense do you. What a devious twerp you are.

Say hello to El Niño, maybe.

Could it be a case of, 'Holy shit Lieutenant!'?

If this comment is accurate Brandon Shollenberger claims to have been the one who stole/hacked/spirited out data from Skeptical Science website.

On that same thread Carrick argues that research participants who participated in the private SkS forum that was obviously intended to remain private thus deanonymised themselves via the hack/theft of private data - and this is a commenter who claims his concern is because "research ethics matter to me".

You can't make this stuff up.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 15 May 2014 #permalink

I followed a link to BS (how appropriate!) site a few days ago and it really is amazing. The ideation is steaming that now they've got the data (never mind how legally or not) it'll tell a different story, hoh yus!
They really just don't get it. At all.

In fact they're likely surprised that John Cook didn't come running, hopping and jumping tout suite in response to BS's kind offer not to let the cat out of the bag for 24 hours, if he had 'good reason'.

I sincerely hope that JC considered a response - a 'fuck you' in 72pt type, but I expect he just chortled to himself and let them get on with it. While forwarding copies of freely made confessions to his local computer crime unit.

BBD @#26 & 27
I have not denied anywhere that entities such as donors trust exist. They are not illegal or particularly 'covert' or even out to destroy the world as far as I am aware.
So my very basic and very simple answer, most definitely minus your melodramatic hyperbole, your personal abuse and overlaying preconceived assumptions remains unchanged -as
in :NO! I do NOT deny they exist.
I will however repeat they are not called 'denial industry', they are called 'donors trust' or GWFP or IPA etc. They advocate a different political /socio-economic agenda than what yours appears to be.

Here I am in Iceland on a volcano vacation and I see Stu2 still living in his own myopic fantasy world.

Of course there is a well-organized industry of climate change denial. If Stu2 thinks that GWPF et al. are honest arbiters merely seeking the truth, then he is a lot dumber than I originally thought. And that is saying a lot. Every post he makes he skewers himself further. There is no socio-political agenda when it comes to the veracity of scientific truth. The evidence in support of AGW is, by now, overwhelming. Against this background we have a small number of corporate funded shills who argue incessantly that either it is not true, or that the problem is exaggerated. Underlying this perspective is the view that we should not do anything about the problem. Given that these denial organizations have about as much scientific credibility as a a kindergarten class, then one has to examine why the deny the scientific facts on the ground. And that is, or should be easy. Profit maximization. Clearly to Stu2 this never enters into it. Exactly why he is a waste of time.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 May 2014 #permalink

More ridiculous denial from Stu2:

I will however repeat they are not called ‘denial industry’, they are called ‘donors trust’ or GWFP or IPA etc. They advocate a different political /socio-economic agenda than what yours appears to be.

Of course there is a denial industry, your ridiculous partisan denial of its existence notwithstanding.

Donors Trust is a vehicle to anonymise funding for same. This is covert funding by entities that are deliberately hiding their identities. If you bothered to read the links, you would now understand that funding via known energy industry fronts is declining while covert funding through Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund has increased hugely. The fossil fuel industry is hiding its funding of the denial industry.

Just because you are too intellectually dishonest to admit this does not mean that this is not what is happening. You deny but I can produce reams of evidence, eg Brulle (2013).

I asked you to demonstrate why this evidence was invalid and once again, you haven't done so because you can't.

Fact: there is a denial industry comprised of dozens, if not hundreds, of "think tanks" funded - increasingly via anonymising fronts like DT - by the fossil fuel industry.

This network of fake think tanks produces large quantities of misinformation which is fed into the MSM and parroted by deniers everywhere. This is all well-established fact and you are denying it which is why we know you are an apologist for those plutocratic elites that seek to subvert democracy by misinforming the electorate and distorting political discourse/public policy.

* * *
Let's continue with your lesson in reality and your exposure as a denier and an apologist for the worst kind of scum.

Dunlap & Jaques (2013):

Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection

The conservative movement and especially its think tanks play a critical role in denying the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), especially by manufacturing uncertainty over climate science. Books denying AGW are a crucial means of attacking climate science and scientists, and we examine the links between conservative think tanks (CTTs) and 108 climate change denial books published through 2010. We find a strong link, albeit noticeably weaker for the growing number of self-published denial books. We also examine the national origins of the books and the academic backgrounds of their authors or editors, finding that with the help of American CTTs climate change denial has spread to several other nations and that an increasing portion of denial books are produced by individuals with no scientific training. It appears that at least 90% of denial books do not undergo peer review, allowing authors or editors to recycle scientifically unfounded claims that are then amplified by the conservative movement, media, and political elites.

Do you deny these matters of fact?

Yes or no?

***If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.***

Whiny denial of matters of fact is not sufficient.

More ridiculous denial from Stu2:

I will however repeat they are not called ‘denial industry’, they are called ‘donors trust’ or GWFP or IPA etc. They advocate a different political /socio-economic agenda than what yours appears to be.

Of course there is a denial industry, your ridiculous partisan denial of its existence notwithstanding.

Here are the financial data showing the donations to various front groups ("think tanks"). Note the sources.

More matters of fact. More evidence.

Do you accept it or do you deny it?

If you deny it, then demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

* * *

Donors Trust is a vehicle to anonymise funding for the network of "think tanks" constituting the backbone of the denial industry. DT was created to enable covert funding by entities that are deliberately hiding their identities. If you bothered to read the links, you would now understand that funding via known energy industry fronts is declining while covert funding through Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund has increased hugely. The fossil fuel industry is hiding its funding of the denial industry.

Just because you are too intellectually dishonest to admit this does not mean that this is not what is happening. You deny but I can produce reams of evidence, eg Brulle (2013).

I asked you to demonstrate why this evidence was invalid and once again, you haven't done so because you can't.

Fact: there is a denial industry comprised of dozens, if not hundreds, of "think tanks" funded - increasingly via anonymising fronts like DT - by the fossil fuel industry.

This network of fake think tanks produces large quantities of misinformation which is fed into the MSM and parroted by deniers everywhere. This is all well-established fact and you are denying it which is why we know you are an apologist for those plutocratic elites that seek to subvert democracy by misinforming the electorate and distorting political discourse/public policy.

* * *

Let's continue with your lesson in reality and your exposure as a denier and an apologist for the worst kind of scum.

Dunlap & Jaques (2013):

Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection

The conservative movement and especially its think tanks play a critical role in denying the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), especially by manufacturing uncertainty over climate science. Books denying AGW are a crucial means of attacking climate science and scientists, and we examine the links between conservative think tanks (CTTs) and 108 climate change denial books published through 2010. We find a strong link, albeit noticeably weaker for the growing number of self-published denial books. We also examine the national origins of the books and the academic backgrounds of their authors or editors, finding that with the help of American CTTs climate change denial has spread to several other nations and that an increasing portion of denial books are produced by individuals with no scientific training. It appears that at least 90% of denial books do not undergo peer review, allowing authors or editors to recycle scientifically unfounded claims that are then amplified by the conservative movement, media, and political elites.

Do you deny these matters of fact?

Yes or no?

***If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.***

Whiny denial of matters of fact is not sufficient.

Jeff @#36

Against this background we have a small number of corporate funded shills who argue incessantly...

I hope you don't mind my small substitution into:

Against this background we have a small number of corporate funded shrills who argue incessantly...

I take it we all saw Nutty Lubosh go the full "Final Solution" over at Hotwhopper? If not, it's here, three comments from the top - although the frootloops are waving the torches and pitchforks over at Sou's at the moment, so it may move down the list quickly...

Could have knocked me down with a feather to see the Wudnerkind had so much anger inside. Still, that's a nice little millstone hes hung round his own neck.

Sorry about the near-identical posts above. The first comment disappeared, so I tried again and ended up with two.

* * *

Re Lubos The Mild

It's rather wonderful when the mask slips. I actually wish they'd forget themselves and go into frills-out sociopath mode more often.

Yes I saw that FrankD, not surprised at all as I have seen much similar from 'On with the Motley' over the years, only Lub'oils signature tune is more like They're Coming to Take Me Away Hahaaa! as Bernard J so accurately put it.

I think it a shame that Sou took it down, it should stand as an epitaph. Delingpole & Motley what a double act that would be, fun enough for shrink wrapped video.

Lotharsson.

That comment has been removed. I don't suppose that you have an archived copy?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 May 2014 #permalink

Sorry Bernard, didn't think to save a copy.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 16 May 2014 #permalink

Bernard J

It's in the HotWhoppery, currently third one down from the top.

Woah!

“The journal Environmental Research Letters is respected by the scientific community because it plays a valuable role in the advancement of environmental science – for unabashedly not publishing oversimplified claims about environmental science, and encouraging scientific debate.”

“With current debate around the dangers of providing a false sense of ‘balance’ on a topic as societally important as climate change, we’re quite astonished that The Times has taken the decision to put such a non-story on its front page.”

Frankly, I'm not. And do read the referee report.

Underline fail on the emphatic 'not' in the original.

Jeff Harvey @ # 36,
What nonsense here!!!!!
That is a classic straw man you are beating up:

"If Stu2 thinks that GWPF et al. are honest arbiters merely seeking the truth."

That is nowhere near close to what I think of GWPF et al or what I have tried to point out.
I don't think any of these organisations, including the ones you seem to support, are as pure as the driven snow.
There are union organisations, environmental organisations, charity organisations, political organisations, academic organisations and so on and so on that are all guilty of the same behaviour at different times.
The highly naïve and overly melodramatic black hat/ white hat interpretation that you and BBD and others here are spinning is looking increasingly ridiculous and I am starting to laugh at you.
This is really a shame because I used to like coming to this blog before it turned into an endless stream of open threads.
Also, I think if you took your blinkers off, you would discover that the indisputable fact that humans impact the globe and its climate and its environment is not denied by many people at all - mainly because that would be a ridiculous thing to deny.
The actual debate and disagreements are indeed based on political/ socio-economic agendas, with both 'sides' using science and statistics as part of their artillery.

God you're boring. I think we already understand how sophistry works sufficiently well; why don't you just sod off?

2Stupid, from the text offered, finds the transformation from democracy to oligarchy (via Donor's Trust et al.) all much of a muchness balanced by (false) equivalences and the hair-trigger self-sensitivities of any old concern troll.

But they still feel compelled to face off for the whole nine yards. Keyster's exactly the same. And Griselda and Olap would like to, but are too uninformed and stupid to reach even Cammy here's level.

Stu2, Look in the mirror, pal, because that should be enough to get you to break into fits of laughter. Your last post is an abomination. It cannot get much more puerile than the views you express here.

When it comes to scientific veracity and accuracy, there is one side (which constitutes the vast majority of the scientific community and every major national scientific organization on Earth) which view AGW as fact based on the empirical data and who argue collectively that urgent measures are necessary to mitigate it, and you have a veritable pot pourri of anti-environmental front groups and think tanks heavily funded by industries with a vested interest (in terms of maintaining profits) in denial.

These are simply facts. You clearly know diddly squat about any of this because you have never read any of the numerous publications which have examined this in detail. Not only have I read up on it for the past 20 years, I also give courses and lectures at universities on it, In other words, Stu2, you and I are discussing this on uneven intellectual playing fields. Until you have read the works of people like Beder, Rowell, Helvarg and many others, methinks you should keep your mouth shut.

The bottom line is that of course there is a very well funded denial industry that hates science and does everything to influence public opinion and policy on the basis of profit-driven agendas. End of story.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 May 2014 #permalink

Also, I think if you took your blinkers off, you would discover that the indisputable fact that humans impact the globe and its climate and its environment is not denied by many people at all – mainly because that would be a ridiculous thing to deny.

So why is it that the likes of Lindzen and Bengtsson try to persuade that climate sensitivity is low and are backed by others in the GWPF and the extended alphabet soup of climate science crackpot think tanks?

Why is it that the likes of Richard Tol and other economists try to push the message that climate change is not going to have a big impact on life? All these once again amongst that extended alphabet soup of climate science crackpot think tanks.

Why is it that the ragtime media of Mail, Times and their US and Oz counterparts persist in trying to skew any message coming from the scientific community or when that fails try to skewer climate scientists.

That these latter organisations have, using their underlings such as Rose and Delingpole, organised a campaign of hostility, often rabid as we see with Lub'oil, to a level where physical harm coming to those climate scientists, and more disturbingly their families, is more than a possibility.

Spare us your faux concern, it is as nothing compared to the reality.

You have to be ideological blind, stupid or dishonest to persist with this line of argument. Tough you don't like Open Threads, threads where Gish Gallops fail to get traction, maybe that is why.

****
This page, in common with wider Scienceblogs, never stops trying to load something.

Now 2Stupid will find the article on Matt Ridley's blatherings over this Bengtsson circus linked here Matt Ridley - Times Makes A Fool Of Him instructive, not least on those who are the real subjects of bullying in this now acrimonious area. Well he would if he engages comprehension skills.

More ridiculous denial from Stu2:

The highly naïve and overly melodramatic black hat/ white hat interpretation that you and BBD and others here are spinning is looking increasingly ridiculous and I am starting to laugh at you.

Some time earlier I wondered aloud whether Stu2 would sink lower than GSW when it came to blatant evasion of direct questions.

We have our answer.

Thank you, Stu2, for confirming beyond any reasonable doubt that you are an apologist for the plutocracy. Thank you for confirming that you will go as far as denying matters of fact in your tacit support of the plutocratic war on democracy.

You may now leave. Please don't return in a hurry.

Funding of Think Tanks Working on Climate Denial

1. Donors Capital Fund

Think tanks with funding from Donors Capital Fund, 2002-2011
Total: $107,889,251

Source: IRS 990 tax forms for Donors Capital Fund

2. Donors Trust

Think tanks with funding from Donors Trust 2002-2011
Total: $41,001,117

Source: IRS 990 tax forms for Donors Trust, Inc.

3. ExxonMobil

Think tanks with funding from ExxonMobil, 1998-2012
Total: $27,424,735

Source.

* * *

Jaques et al. (2008):

The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism

Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed 'sceptics’ claim to be unbiased analysts combating ‘junk science’. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find
that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.

BBD.
I am starting to become amused at and fascinated with this Stu 2 you have created who you have progressively claimed is delegitimising you, is firmly on the side of something or other, is an apologist for plutocracy, who denies that entities such as donors trust exist, who is a denier of science and on and on and on and on and on?
Apparently you have somehow 'ideated' this Stu 2 and constructed him from 'reading between the lines' and aggressively articulated him as some type of personal enemy of yours and then by some inexplicable progression of logic that, even worse, this Stu 2 is someone who wants to see the globe destroyed in the name of right wing conservatism and BAU?
All of this seems to be because you have concluded, through your 'ideation' of this Stu 2, that if he dares to EVER question your comments (putting aside the fact that you are forever asking and re asking aggressive questions that are overlayed with melodramatic and emotional preconceptions) then it automatically means something very sinister and covert about this Stu 2.
Unlike you BBD, I recognise that you are passionate about these issues and I respect your right to express your views. I also respect your right to ask questions (although I do think you could learn to ask better questions). Consequently, as previously mentioned, I don't view you or anyone else who comments here as some sort of dastardly enemy of the world.
Your insistence that you can psycho analyse me based on political positions I have not advanced that you repeatedly claim are there somewhere between the lines is starting to make me laugh out loud at you.
But anyway.
What an interesting source you have provided @ # 56.
I would point out, of course with some respect, that you have perhaps inadvertently confirmed some of my earlier comments that most of the argument has very little to do with anything other than politics. This does NOT mean that I am constructing some sort of 'conspiracist ideation' about environmental politics. I do however recognise that there is such a thing as environmental politics or perhaps to use your terminology an "environmentalist industry' or maybe even 'big environment', which far too regularly has very little to do with the environment or anything even remotely scientific.
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&jou…
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=editorialBoar…
Also BBD,
I was completely unaware that it was a requirement for people to ask for your personal permission to either stay or leave at Deltoid.
Wouldn't that be the brief for the moderator of this site?

More waffle. No answers. No demonstration that the evidence is invalid.

That's because I have not claimed the evidence is invalid.
A number of times I have questioned your personal, almost Orwellian interpretation of the material, including your interpretation of 'conspiracist ideation' .

A number of times I have questioned your personal, almost Orwellian interpretation of the material, including your interpretation of ‘conspiracist ideation’ .

But it's NOT my personal interpretation of the evidence, you clown.

Can't you fucking read?

Read the words:

Brulle (2013):

Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

Do you deny these matters of fact?

Yes or no?

If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

*******************************************

Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

Which brings us to Donors Trust:

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising “wedge issue” for hardcore conservatives.

The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.

Do you deny these matters of fact?

Yes or no?

If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

******************************************************

Dunlap & Jaques (2013):

Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection

The conservative movement and especially its think tanks play a critical role in denying the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), especially by manufacturing uncertainty over climate science. Books denying AGW are a crucial means of attacking climate science and scientists, and we examine the links between conservative think tanks (CTTs) and 108 climate change denial books published through 2010. We find a strong link, albeit noticeably weaker for the growing number of self-published denial books. We also examine the national origins of the books and the academic backgrounds of their authors or editors, finding that with the help of American CTTs climate change denial has spread to several other nations and that an increasing portion of denial books are produced by individuals with no scientific training. It appears that at least 90% of denial books do not undergo peer review, allowing authors or editors to recycle scientifically unfounded claims that are then amplified by the conservative movement, media, and political elites.

Do you deny these matters of fact?

Yes or no?

If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

*******************************************

Jaques et al. (2008):

The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism

Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed 'sceptics’ claim to be unbiased analysts combating ‘junk science’. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find
that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.

Do you deny these matters of fact?

Yes or no?

If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

* * * * * * * * *

Answer me.

The problem we have here, Stupid, is that you *are* denying matters of fact while pretending not to. It is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

Compounding this behaviour, you have repeatedly - and falsely - claimed that *my* take on the evidence is "Orwellian", but most of it has been presented without comment and speaks eloquently for itself.

Your denial of matters of fact and your dishonest refusal to answer direct questions and your dishonest attempts to claim that this is some personal interpretation of the evidence coming from me and not what the evidence clearly shows all make you an apologist for the ongoing subversion of democracy by vested interests.

As always with you, it's hard to know if stupidity or rank dishonesty prevents you from acknowledging what is obvious to the rest of us here.

- You wave away the clear evidence that

BBD.
'You are denying matters of fact while pretending not to'
Plus the accusation of 'dishonest' and/or 'false claims' no less than 7 times.
Re read my comment @ # 57.
You are ranting and posturing at your 'ideation' of Stu 2. You have constructed this Stu 2 from spurious assumptions that you believe you have gleaned from between the lines.
The real Stu 2 has answered the actual direct question minus your 'ideation' and your black hat/white hat political assumptions.
The real Stu 2 has become highly amused. I am neither your enemy nor the enemy of the environment.
You need to learn to ask better questions if you have any intention of engaging in a mature discussion. If you are only interested in behaving like a school yard bully , please continue , as you are doing a magnificent job on that score.
Have you ever heard of the term 'prisoner syndrome'?

The real Stu 2 has answered the actual direct question minus your ‘ideation’ and your black hat/white hat political assumptions.

No he hasn't.

1/ Why do you never comment to criticise the other vermin here like GSW who denies the fact that plutocratic elites have created and covertly funded a denial industry? Never. Not once. Ever.

2/ Do you deny that it is a matter of fact that corporate vested interests created and now covertly fund a denial industry?

Yes or no?

if you have any intention of engaging in a mature discussion

Good moment to take time out to ask if anyone can recall, ever, the last time Cammy engaged in "a mature discussion".

BBD.
I have answered those questions.
1. I don't believe you or GSW or anyone else here are vermin or some type of enemy of the globe. I have never been asked a direct question by GSW, but I certainly have by you .
2. No I don't deny that those organisations exist and/or that they are funded by donations. As far as I am aware they are not illegal . They exercise their right to represent and advocate as do countless other representative organisations across a wide spectrum.

David Rose and the Daily Fail strike again, this time over the Bengtsson brouhaha. Don't eat or drink before or during reading this article as it is vomit inducing vomit:

Revealed: How green zealots gagged professor who dared to question global warming.

This should have you retching in your bucket:

For several years, this newspaper has been at the forefront of efforts to publicise the highly inconvenient truth that real world temperatures have not risen nearly as fast as computer models say they should have, thanks to the unexpected ‘pause’ in global warming which has so far lasted some 17 years.

One fix for the above (maybe others can offer more elegant versions) here:

For several years, this newspaper has been at the forefront of efforts to undermine the public understanding of climate science by trying to make a case out of the false premise of 'the highly inconvenient truth that real world temperatures have not risen nearly as fast as computer models say they should have, thanks to the unexpected ‘pause’ in global warming which has so far lasted some 17 years'.

It's just another laugh.
What's after Bosnia/Serbia, tomorrow or so?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 19 May 2014 #permalink

Stu2: I have answered those questions.

As ever, Stu2 prefers to answer the questions he wishes he'd been asked, rather than the questions he was actually asked.

Fucken tedious.

Frank

I'm about done with the mendacious little shit. As usual, although it's easy enough to expose the intellectual dishonesty, it is impossible to penetrate it and get the Liar to engage in good faith dialogue. You just end up going round in circles while the Liar hides behind the most childishly obvious evasions imaginable.

And then whines when described - accurately - as vermin.

The problem with Stu2 is that he is arguing from a position of complete and utter ignorance - whilst proclaiming to be enlightened. This is hardly new for anti-environmentalists and climate change deniers - what is so loathesome about then are their feeble attempts to convince otherws that their views are independently reached and that the current debate on AGW somehow pits two sides against each other who are either (1) equally equipped with empirical arguments, or else (2) are equally in search of the truth. But of course, both points are absolute bulllshit: the empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW and one side is made up of essentially honest but cautious scientists whereas the other is dominated by confident liars.

That Stu2 does not see this says everything we need to know about him. BBD sums it up well @69.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 19 May 2014 #permalink

Yes BBD it is circular or, as previously mentioned, a somewhat 'groundhog day' experience.
I find it amusing that your MO is continuing to ask the same question but expecting to have a different answer.
You clearly don't like the answer.
That is not my problem despite your 'ideated' assumptions and accusations.
As I have suggested a number of times, you could consider asking a different question or maybe ask the same question in a different way.

Jeff Harvey,
I am neither anti the environment nor in any way do I deny that the climate changes.
You must be arguing with that Stu2 that BBD has 'ideated' from something he claime resides between the lines.

...nor in any way do I deny that the climate changes.

This is the kind of mendacious evasion of the obvious intent of the writer that makes people think you're not here to engage in honest dialogue - or that you have a very serious problem with English comprehension, which seems to be a much less likely hypothesis, since this kind of misuse of pedantry has been called out a bunch of times before here.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 19 May 2014 #permalink

Mendacious evasion of the obvious intent?
That is rather cryptic Lotharsson @ # 73.
Seems like you are also arguing with that 'ideated' & between the lines Stu 2.

Stu 2, it is plainly evident to everyone else from the context that "climate change deniers" here does not mean "those who deny that climate changes".

As I said, either you have a serious problem with English comprehension, or ...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 20 May 2014 #permalink

...it's just yet more mendacious evasion from a tedious fool.

As I have suggested a number of times, you could consider asking a different question or maybe ask the same question in a different way.

No. You refused to answer the questions put to you because you are dishonest scum.

And that's the end of that. You had repeated chances to redeem yourself and repeatedly refused to take them.

Stu2, I can see that you are playing the childish game that climate change is a natural phenomenon, hence you are not a climate chqange denier. Grow up you clown. You know exactly what I mean. ANTHROPOGENIC driven CC. You know damned well that I am referring to this - change occurring well outside of natural forcings based on the infintisimally small time scales at which significant changes are occurring.

In this regard you very well are a climate change denier, given some of the garbage you are discussing here. The thrust of the argument is that CC denial is not based on science but on he perceived threat to profit maximization, hence the creation of a veritable industry of denial that finds itself through industry funded think tanks and front groups. None of these are remotely interested in the truth but in obscuring it - doing everything they can to downplay the problem in order to maintain the status quo.

Your behaviour on here is a joke. You clearly are ill-informed and have pre-determined views on the subject that are devoid of scientifc reality but clearly reflect some ill-guided sympathy for those intent on taking our planetary life support systems into the abyss.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 20 May 2014 #permalink

It s clear that the numpty brigade like to engage in sophistry whilst playing the pedantic ass against others.

Having shed light on them, let them crawl away back under their rocks whilst we can get on with making sure that important matters are well broadcast.

To whit, two (whoo) important aspects of the vanishing cryosphere have been the subject of more advanced research findings now brought to the fore at Climate Crocks.

One is More Bad News on Ice Melt: This Time Greenland

the other

Eric Rignot on “the Holy Shit Moment”, which has been the subject of much counter propaganda from the usual suspects. But they should take note of the article at the BBC, 'Esa's Cryosat mission sees Antarctic ice losses double' where we see this in a caption:

Antarctica is now losing about 160 billion tonnes of ice a year to the ocean - twice as much as when the continent was last surveyed.

So, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing, although variable and patchy at that so that is not the take home point is it, this to all those who have argued it.

To fully understand the complex issues one needs to factor in the topography and geomorphology of both the Antarctic and Greenland. There is a tool available for anyone to create their own surface transects see GeoMapApp (Java required) which can also be used to study the incidence of seismic events and much more.

The ignorantasaur offered:

Mendacious evasion of the obvious intent?
That is rather cryptic Lotharsson @ # 73.

Not the slightest attempt at differentiating participants.

Little wonder you fail to appreciate the true nature of 'conspiracy ideation', clearly a concept too subtle for your addled brain. Now that is not an Ad Hominem but a statement of fact, another concept of which your grasp is demonstrably weak.

Obvious lack of understanding of the meaning of 'cryptic'.

Excellent synopsis of the GWPF and the Bengtsson affaire here.

Notable quotes:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

- Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda, 1928.

And from the text itself:

The dent in Bengtsson’s reputation is history now. The real damage, however, is the way this story has provided a handy smoke-screen, covering up several crucial issues that were worthy of far more discussion than this sorry mess. While Bengtsson’s resignation and a follow-up story about his work being ‘suppressed’ (that even Bengtsson was quick to refute) dominated even the front page of the UK’s Times newspaper, two unfolding stories of enormous import were drowned out, if you’ll forgive the pun.

The first was the discovery that glacier decline in the West Antarctic ice sheet had passed a tipping point, from which there can be no recovery. The loss of this ice, accelerated by global warming, and the concomitant sea-level rise, can no longer be prevented. The second item of alarming news came from the opposite end of the Earth, when Phys.Org reported that “Greenland will be far greater contributor to sea rise than expected”.

This is the news that the GWPF doesn’t want you to read. This is the dire prognosis that reveals the GWPF’s agenda as a sham, a shabby trick designed to cater to the gullible and credulous, to conflate ideology with science as if by repeating ‘there is no real problem’ enough times, the ice will stop melting. True to Bernays’ “conscious and intelligent manipulation of the … opinions of the masses”, Lawson’s GWPF seeks to be a key player in that “invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country”.

It isn’t just free speech that is being abused here. It is democracy itself: Lawson exerts a perfidious influence far beyond that of any member of the public, not through merit, but through connections to an old boy’s network of the equally privileged. Lawson and the GWPF are entitled to say what they like, but when they are afforded biased media coverage and exposure that favours and gives credibility to their agenda irrespective of its merit, they fail to distinguish between free speech and cheap speech. When that happens, it isn’t only scientists like Bengtsson that will get burned.

This is what is going on. This is what Stu2, GSW etc will sink to any depth of dishonesty rather than admit.

They can deny it from the rooftops, but there can be no doubt whatsoever: they are apologists for the vested interests actively engaged in the subversion of democracy.

Oh, and be sure to note, this isn't my personal "Orwellian interpretation" of the evidence.

Once again, I am quoting someone else. Just as the author quoted Edward L. Bernays from back in 1928.

Amongst others I have been plugging Bow Ward's challenge of the GWPF (global Warming Policy Foundation) but also appreciated the probable back story to the Bengtsson affair.

Now it looks like others have noted how the GWPF, now under a new guise as the Global Warming Policy Forum (a sneaky [1] ) have drowned out the disturbing confirmation of our worst fears about the fate of planetary ice, hence my post at #79.

H/T to Lars Karlsson on Eli's 'The Third Referee Waits In The Wings' post for this excellent article:

GWPF and Bengtsson: Burning Ivory Towers provide convenient smoke screen for the melting ice

I advise the numpty brigade to note carefully the connections, modus operandi and raison d'etre of the GWPF (whatever airs and graces they may give themselves) and don't bother looking for honesty from that direction.

[1] I will leave it as an exercise for the reader as to the ethics of this devious modification of title so as to preserve the initials rather than adopting a more accurate title such as Society for Climatological Undermining Media.

Were we connecting telepathically BBD? I was stunned when I saw my post was re-empted by yours. Great minds and all that. I should be so lucky.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.(?)

Jeff Harvey @ # 78.
In that case you are misrepresenting yourself.
The argument is indeed about the politics and formation of policy and not about the indisputable fact that human activity impacts the environment.
Way back somewhere I asked you direct questions about solutions to the well known issues.
One was related to increasing population (and thus increasing consumption).
The other was related to land use (and thus increasing land degradation)
I don't disagree that corporate and government focus on profit maximation is a contributing factor but, considering the touted solution is to create a global ETS via an apparent academic belief in the existence of a benevolent global bureaucratic dictatorship is based largely on the same focus, I don't believe the real human created environmental issues are being solved by that approach.
While everyone is scrapping over that, nothing pro active is being achieved.

There are not many people I'd describe as contemptible, 2Pid, but you've earned your place as one of them.

Bill.
Your opinion of me is entirely irrelevant and so is any opinion I would have of you.
Perhaps you could consider following your own earlier advice and engage with some substance that is relevant to the issue of human impact on environment

Oh, sod off, you faux-sanctimonious turkey!

Bill.
See if this helps.
In your opinion, is the implementation of a global ETS likely to reduce unsustainable population growth or reduce unsustainable agricultural practices?

Stu2

You have just been exposed as profoundly intellectually dishonest in the matter of your tacit support for the subversion of democracy by vested interests. You have no credibility and no friends here. You are making no headway with your stunted and clumsy arguments, hobbled as they are by your support for corporate vested interest.

Why not take bill's advice and go? You are wasting your time here.

It's rather odd - almost Lomborgian - to ask whether an ETS will reduce unsustainable population growth, since I am unaware of anyone who has touted it for that purpose.

There are reasonably well known strategies for reducing population growth, and to the extent that population growth is causing problems one should look to those.

But one would be quite the fool if one were to argue that we don't need to do anything about human induced climate disruption because ... population growth. That would be almost as smart as saying that we don't have to do anything about our case of pneumonia because we don't have enough food for winter.

Similar logic applies to the mention of unsustainable agricultural practices.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 21 May 2014 #permalink

We could argue that limits to agricultural productivity are a major part of what defines a "sustainable" maximum global population. Since agricultural productivity will be negatively impacted by rapid warming and alterations in rainfall patterns, then limiting emissions may be seen as one method for increasing a "sustainable" maximum global population.

More dreary bad-faith strawman rambling from 2Pid, the absolute Pyne. Sod off.

As he did in February, Stu seems to labour under the delusion that his obvious false dichotomy is a clever argument. Trust me Stu, it just makes you look like a cock.

If you want to argue the merits of the ETS, try doing that on the basis of its efficacy in addressing the problem it is supposed to.

Stu2nd-grade sophistry: Anti-smoking campaigns don't help solve child abuse, so they're obviously a waste of money.

When asked a question he doesn't want to answer, he answers a different one. This "ETS wont solve overpopulation" is just more of the tedious evasive bullshit he's been spouting for six months.

Michael Mann has provided his perspective to the Bengtsson-GWPF affair:

Climate Contrarians Cook Up New 'Controversy'

from which I quote the last para' which has a direct message for 2Stupid and his ilk:

All that said, I wish the best for Bengtsson, and hope he never has to experience real McCarthyism. But in any event he is a pawn in this affair. The real story here is how desperate the professional climate change denial machine is to fan this dubious matter into yet another faux scandal, even as the observations of climate change come more sharply into focus, from drought to wildfires to flash floods to ice sheet collapse. History will not look back kindly on those who sought to sow false doubt about the growing threat of climate change at the expense of all humanity.

Very interesting.
OK.
Let's try these.
1. In your opinion, what is the major driver/s of increased human GHGs in the atmosphere?
2. Is the implementation of a global ETS administered by a global bureacracy an effective policy tool to address the increase of human GHG s.

Is that @ #98 supposed to be some kind of random Turing test??
I'm completely failing to grasp how Cammy's program is (trying hard to be) working.

DNFTT. Why let this patent clown set the agenda?

chek, is the ability to frame a pass for the Turing test? If yes, then not a Turing test (but thanks for the laugh).

There is this underlying dogma that energy cannot be but maximally expensive and doubleplus polluting, isn't there, Stu Two? Why?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 22 May 2014 #permalink

Apparently ocean driven. La Niñas become warmer, too, of course, thus reducing their extra of sink potential.
Was to be expected.

Aggravating aggravation.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 22 May 2014 #permalink

cRR Kampen @# 1.
That looks like an economic theory based on Harvard Business School type ideology. The theory is that if you make something more expensive, less will be used.
Evidence indicates that corporatising and turning such inputs as energy into marketable commodities via legislation does very little to mitigate the inequities in the world. If anything, it appears it just makes those inputs more expensive and therefore less accessible for the less fortunate and probably widens the gap between the haves and the have nots.

2Pid, Friend of the Poor. Funny how, say, Oxfam disagrees with him, but nevermind.

Does anyone ever really believe - including Deniers - that Deniers give a shit about anyone further down in the hierarchy than themselves? No. But they insist on rubbing our noses in their cynical exploitation of the plight of others.

Speak for yourself Bill.
Your 'faux friend of the poor' interpretation is lacking relevance but vaguely ironic.
What does Oxfam disagree with specifically?
Do they say that corporatising and creating legislative markets out of essential inputs like energy is narrowing the gap for their clientele?

Sorry, not playing Strawmen with sophists. As for Oxfam and climate why not look it up?

Also, we had a bloody carbon tax, turkey, and none of your paranoiac imaginings occurred. So you and Ayn Rand lose again.

I'm confused.

Has some (legislative body or corporation) somewhere - Stu 2's syntax is rather ambiguous - co-opted all forms of energy including sunlight in their jurisdiction, and made it impossible to acquire any power unless one buys it from the (legislative body or corporation) that co-opted it or through some approved market?

Because man, it would suck to live some place where the neoliberal holy grail of "individual user-pays for EVERYTHING" was applied to sunlight. I suspect the giant programmable sun-tracking sunlight shield cost a pretty penny to install and the maintenance to make sure sunlight only falls on those whose meters are in credit must be a real bastard.

Perhaps Stu 2 might care to clarify, because at first blush his question doesn't even scan, let alone connect with reality.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 22 May 2014 #permalink

Very interesting.
Bill says @#5 that Oxfam disagrees with something in my comment but can't explain what that was.
Lotharsson @# 8 with an extraordinary leap of logic introduces sunlight into the mix.
By now, if I was BBD, I would be loudly, with expletives, claiming that your evasion of the question would indicate something covert about you between the lines.

...with an extraordinary leap of logic introduces sunlight into the mix.

No, dear. As far as I can tell your words did that - "sunlight" being a member of the category "energy source" according to all sane people, no "extraordinary leaps of logic" required. But I can't tell very well because your question borders on the incoherent so instead of presuming that you meant to include sunlight I asked for a clarification.

And in an actual extraordinary leap of logic, you take my request for a clarification as something that BBD would treat as an evasion, when you didn't even direct the question to me. Do you see the logical problem with that claim, quite apart from the challenge of providing evidence of what BBD would or wouldn't do in response to a legitimate request for clarification?

But it is very interesting that you actually evaded my request for clarification ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 23 May 2014 #permalink

Ayn Rand and Autist still on a hiding-to-nothing.

Stu2 - our International Man of Sophistry

Stu Two, Germany is dumping electricity on the Dutch market for almost nothing to nil. Wind and solar overproduction. Energy prices in Germany falling from this.

That is your true fear.
That energy could be clean, abundant and at a tenth of the price is your nightmare.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 23 May 2014 #permalink

#11, psychopathy and autism look alike because they are opposite.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 23 May 2014 #permalink

Stu2

By now, if I was BBD, I would be loudly, with expletives, claiming that your evasion of the question would indicate something covert about you between the lines.

You are an apologist for the subversion of democracy by vested interests.

This was demonstrated unequivocally on the previous pages.

Stu2 can start by condemning GSW for his callous "we can't have green energy because taxes, and look, poor people in the UK can't pay their energy bill" bullshit.

Either that, or be counted right along with him.

Either that, or be counted right along with him.

Since Stu2 never criticises GSW's nonsense and despite repeated questioning about this will not explain why, he *is* counted right along with him.

OK Lotharsson @ # 8 & # 10,
Let's assume that you were in fact genuinely confused and that your comments were genuinely based on a: 'legitimate request for clarification".
The leap of logic that I referred to was that the section of my comment that you claim to be confusing was:
" corporatising and creating legislative markets out of essential inputs like energy "
And your extension of that was:
" co-opted - ALL (bold ) - forms of energy including sunlight in their jurisdiction, and made it impossible to acquire any power unless one buys it from the (legislative body or corporation) that co-opted it or through some approved market?
Followed by an 'ideated' scenario about a:
" giant programmable sun-tracking sunlight shield"

So my simple answer to your 'legitimate request for clarification' is very simply:
No!
But to add a little extra explanation because we are assuming that you were genuinely confused and legitimately asking for clarification:
If I meant to say ALL forms of energy that would include such an 'ideation' about sunlight; I would most likely have said ALL forms of energy, including a giant sun tracking shield, instead of : " such inputs as energy " and later "essential inputs like energy".
I have no interest in any further attempt to seemingly construct an 'I said, you said, but I said, but then you said which makes me conclude something about you' discussion.
It is simply boring and unproductive.
Nor am I slightly interested in this 'ideated' and 'between the lines' Stu 2 that many of you are ranting and posturing at.
According to BBD's latest comment, this Stu 2 he has 'ideated' is an: "apologist for the subversion of democracy by vested interests" , Which he claims was demonstrated from something on the previous page?
As I have commented many times, I do not consider that any of you, including GSW, is some sort of covert enemy.
cRR Kampen has ironically developed this 'ideated' Stu 2 even further with this classic :
" That is your true fear.
That energy could be clean, abundant and at a tenth of the price is your nightmare."

What absolute nonsense cRR Kampen!
How on earth did you reach such a conclusion and why on earth would that be anyone's nightmare ?

So my simple answer to your ‘legitimate request for clarification’ is very simply:
No!

But you didn't say that. Do you actually think you're fooling anyone at this point?

Stu (the original and best) - since Stu2 (the cheap imitation) has shown repeatedly that he can't tell cause from effect, the problem from the solution or a question from an answer, I would suggest he probably does think he's fooling people at this point.

On this, as so many other points, he is mistaken.

"I do not consider that any of you, including GSW, is some sort of covert enemy."
Once again Stu2 prefers to answer the question he wishes he'd been asked. Nobody (recently) asked whether Stu2 thinks he is an enemy, only why Stu2 never criticises him. Inquiring minds still want an answer to that one.

Quick Stu2, build us another straw man!

2Pid - so many words, so little to say. Next.

2Stewpot (his posts being a mish-mash) is clearly too 'ideated' (he throws this term out like confetti but clearly fails to understand its meaning) to produce any further coherent thoughts and uses language in a way similar to post-modernists and BK.

If I meant to say ALL forms of energy that would include such an ‘ideation’ about sunlight; I would most likely have said ALL forms of energy, including a giant sun tracking shield,...

And yet you used a form of words that implied it. Specifically, you talked about "legislated markets" for "essential inputs like energy". You did not restrict the forms of energy your statement covered and your use of "essential" in that way more plausibly implies "all forms of energy" than it does "one or some forms". Furthermore, you still haven't clarified what you meant by the rest of it. I don't understand what a "legislated market for energy" is, especially given that the markets we have for energy sources today appear not to actually be specifically legislated, and the carbon emissions markets that were created by legislation (which one might guess you were trying to refer to) are a market for carbon emissions, not for energy per se.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 24 May 2014 #permalink

Which he claims was demonstrated from something on the previous page?

It isn't a "claim". It was demonstrated.

You denied the overwhelming evidence that a network of "think tanks" has been created and covertly funded to spew out climate misinformation to the public and policy makers.

Anyone denying overwhelming evidence for matters of fact self-identifies as an intellectually dishonest partisan. An apologist. You are an apologist for the subversion of democracy by vested interest.

There's no point in denying this as it has been demonstrated. Perhaps you are dimly aware of this matter of fact now. Denial of matters of fact is S2upid.

Just to break up the tedious drone of denial, here's the abstract from Lovejoy (2014):

Although current global warming may have a large anthropogenic component, its quantification relies primarily on complex General Circulation Models (GCM’s) assumptions and codes; it is desirable to complement this with empirically based methodologies. Previous attempts to use the recent climate record have concentrated on “fingerprinting” or otherwise comparing the record with GCM outputs. By using CO2 radiative forcings as a linear surrogate for all anthropogenic effects we estimate the total anthropogenic warming and (effective) climate sensitivity finding: ΔT anth = 0.87 ± 0.11 K, λ2xCO2,eff=3.08±0.58K . These are close the IPPC AR5 values ΔT anth = 0.85 ± 0.20 K and λ2xCO2=1.5−4.5K (equilibrium) climate sensitivity and are independent of GCM models, radiative transfer calculations and emission histories. We statistically formulate the hypothesis of warming through natural variability by using centennial scale probabilities of natural fluctuations estimated using scaling, fluctuation analysis on multiproxy data. We take into account two nonclassical statistical features—long range statistical dependencies and “fat tailed” probability distributions (both of which greatly amplify the probability of extremes). Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels >99 %.

For the easily confused contrarians, that translates as an estimated range for ECS of 1.9 - 4.2K / 2x CO2. As usual, the ~3K / 2x CO2 central estimate pops out of the mix, so a policy response will be required.

And it's not natural variability. It's us.

Lotharsson @ # 23,
I do not intend to offend you personally but I have already mentioned that I find your MO here that involves a reconstruction of what I said versus what you said versus what was implied or could have been implied and what could have been implied through your personally constructed line of logic from something that you deemed was implied etc etc etc, a bit boring and unproductive.
I'm simply not interested.
Sorry.
BBD.
Interestingly, while the Global Circulation Models do indeed show that there could indeed be a human fingerprint that is creating a percentage of GW, in the same timeframe other papers and studies conclude that the natural environment has other ways that we cannot fully quantify in GCMs that seem to be capable of balancing out the extremes of those fingerprints.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/22/record-rains-turne…
Your conclusion is :
" so a policy response will be required."
My simple questions to you are.
1) What is that policy response that is required?
2) How does this policy response mitigate the main drivers of human produced GHGs?

Perhaps Stu2 can clarify in what he means by "the natural environment has other ways ... that seem to be capable of balancing out the extremes". In the context of his link to the Guardian article.

I think I know what is being implied here, but Stu2 finds people talking about his implications boring and unproductive. So Stu2 should feel free to explain how - explicitly - these record rains "balance out" the extremes of those fingerprints.

Or, on the other hand, he could minimize all our exposures to fatuous tripe, and not bother. Magical thinking is dull.

I’m simply not interested.

Yes, I already knew that. I didn't really expect you to clarify what you meant because you've resisted doing so almost every time in the past.

Personally I find pointing out how nonsensical a fairly plain reading of what you said, and your unwillingness to clarify after that has been pointed out, is sufficient to get the point across to the smarter 90% of our readership.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 May 2014 #permalink

1) What is that policy response that is required?

Decarbonisation of electricity supply; electrification of transport; improved energy efficiency.

2) How does this policy response mitigate the main drivers of human produced GHGs?

We burn less coal and oil.

* * *

Interestingly, while the Global Circulation Models do indeed show that there could indeed be a human fingerprint that is creating a percentage of GW,

Climate illiteracy again. *All* recent warming is anthropogenic. You have forgotten about negative aerosol forcing increase in tandem with GHG forcing increase. Research this topic before further incorrect commentary.

studies conclude that the natural environment has other ways that we cannot fully quantify in GCMs that seem to be capable of balancing out the extremes of those fingerprints.

Are you kidding me? Look at the Keeling curve. Terrestrial carbon sink variability isn't going to make it all go away. In fact were you to read you would know that the degradation of the terrestrial and marine carbon sinks as the climate system warms is far more likely to worsen the problem, not mitigate it.

Research this topic before further incorrect commentary.

Oh, and nice dodge around the inconvenient fact of Lovejoy (2014) btw. But pretty much what I'd expect from an intellectually dishonest denier who essentially supports the subversion of democracy by vested interests through the agency of sustained misinformation.

Let's recap:

~0.9C since 1880; ECS ~3C / 2x CO2 and it's all us.

Face the facts instead of denying them.

BBD @ # 31.
Thankyou for your answers.
I do note however that both your answers are focused on outcomes or goals or results rather than policy response.
I agree they are desirable goals.
The question was:
What is that policy response that is required?
Maybe I can ask the question this way:
If, in your opinion, the primary goal is for humans to burn less coal and oil, what policies should be put in place to facilitate that outcome?

FFS indeed. 2Pid is a Lucy Troll. Why allow yourself to be stuffed around continually by an insincere clown?

What absolute nonsense cRR Kampen!
How on earth did you reach such a conclusion and why on earth would that be anyone’s nightmare ?

The latter shows from the response this quote starts with.
The facts are borne out by the worlds fourth economy, Germany. Please find someone to read #13 above to you again.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 26 May 2014 #permalink

Stu2,

If we don't wean ourselves off of fossil fuels very soon, we're fucked as a species.

How does that sound to you, coming from a scientist?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 May 2014 #permalink

bill

Why allow yourself to be stuffed around continually by an insincere clown?

Without moderation to compel good faith, what choice is there but to show the intellectual dishonesty?

S2pid isn't coming out of these exchanges well. His ignorance and partisan dishonesty are repeatedly exposed in such a way that they are obvious even to him. You can see that he is aware of his intellectual dishonesty by the way he retreats into childish evasions instead of answering questions. Sooner or later the unpleasantness will get too much and he will cease and desist.

I meant you in the more general 'one' sense - including myself - rather than you specifically, BBD.

'I don't deny that climate changes' was the limit for me; the man is an obnoxious brat - a manipulative one at that - and is preying on our desires not to let imbecility and dishonesty stand unchallenged in order to gain some entirely unmerited attention.

If anyone's really stupid enough to swallow his guff they're lost to reason anyway, and were only ever looking for an excuse to side with the reactionaries.

How does that sound?
In all honesty it sounds like a crude and melodramatic rendition of a doomsday prophecy or a religious fire and brimstone lecture from the pulpit.
It pinpoints the sin we need to repent.
It still doesn't explain what the policy response should be.
And no - that does not mean 'do nothing.'

Sorry Stu2, you wanted the truth, there you have it. I am fed up to the teeth with lay idiots like you and their persistent cries of "wait and see! wait and see!" or else, "we don't know enough! we don't know enough"!

Humans and the natural world are on a major collision course. Indeed, this has been going on for quite some time. We are lucky enough that the combined assault has thus far weakened, but not undermined fully, the ability of natural systems to sustain mankind. But as we continue to ratchet up the assault, with climate change leading the way, we are pushing these systems towards a point beyond which they cannot sustain us any more. And we simply don't have the technology to effectively replace most vital ecosystem services. Without them, as I said,. we are fucked. Big time.

Against this canvas we have people like you who bicker constantly about what should be done, effectively paralyzing policy via procrastination. Its this mentality which is going to be our undoing. The clarion cry of denial is paralysis and continued dependence on fossil fuels until it is too late. Moreover, the same crowd of deniers also deny the deleterious effects of other human-mediated stresses on the environment which are extirpating biodiversity and thus weakening our ecological life support systems. For these people short-term profits trump any other potential consequences of their actions. Its business-as-usual until our civilization takes nature down the drain and us along with it.

Stu2, please go away. You are a total fool. I cringe when I read comments from people like you who try and present an aura of rationality but who in reality are deniers just packaged differently.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 May 2014 #permalink

In all honesty it sounds like a crude and melodramatic rendition of a doomsday prophecy or a religious fire and brimstone lecture from the pulpit.

How curious. That's all in your head and I suspect it is hindering you.

There are no religious overtones there ("sin" being a religious concept). There are no "prophetic" concepts.
There's simply cause and effect grounded in scientific evidence, simplified to a very pithy core.

Religious prophecies are the opposite to that. They almost ALWAYS consist of claims about future events that cannot be expected by applying known cause and effect.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 May 2014 #permalink

Claiming that flood-induced plant growth in Australia was an example of, what, Gaia 'balancing' itself, for instance?

Just like if some kind soul were to take the time to piss on 2Pid were he to be on fire - after all, one 'balances' the other so he remains unaffected.

Thanks adelady.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 27 May 2014 #permalink

Indeed adelady

I suppose a numpty like 2StewPid knows not how apples come about being single faceted and Janus faced.

btw I have just lobbed in here using a Win box for the first time in over a week and noticed a new feature from Kaspersky which now adds an approval symbol for links that pass muster. Now many images on that The Conversation page fail this. Probably naught to worry about.

I've used Kaspersky for years and its false-positives are a bit of a feature. WoT is pretty reliable if you're using Firefox. And I'd recomend NoScript, though if you ever go to, say, The Guardian you'll be amazed by just how many things you have to OK just to get the bloody thing to load!... (currently I'm allowing 18/21 scripts on the Graun homepage, 11/13 here.)

Lionel @ # 46 & Adelady @ # 44
In actual fact, many places in SE Australia are experiencing one of the best Autumn breaks they have seen in years.
Inland NSW has not experienced the same weather as the coastal fringe and the Sydney area. If you look up the info for WA you will also note it is vastly different to the NSW coastal fringe.
May 2014 in inland NSW and much of Victoria began as cold, foggy, sleety and wet (very winter like) and there was even some light snow in the Alps. For the middle of the month it was very pleasant, balmy Autumn weather, but as of today (and it's still May), there has been significant rainfalls across much of inland NSW and Victoria, some snow on the Alps and it is once again very chilly and time to switch the heaters back on.
The winter cereal crops in places like the Riverina, the SW slopes and Victoria are absolutely thriving in this excellent Autumn break, but of course (as Lionel mentions) there are other crops such as apples which like an early dry and frosty snap and that did not happen this season.
Some of the Summer crops like Cotton, Corn, Tomatoes, Soy and Rice have been difficult to harvest because Autumn has been cool and wet, but the yields and the quality have been generally very good.

Are you a farmer, Stu2?

And before the chat about weather and current agricultural yields and norms goes any further, a word.

You cannot use current conditions to make claims about improved agricultural productivity under much warmer conditions with altered seasonal and spatial rainfall distribution.

Abrupt changes in seasonal norms for temperature and precipitation wreak havoc with established agriculture, which is why CC will degrade global agricultural productivity with increasing severity as the century progresses and the disruption of regional climate norms intensifies.

BBD.
The link posted by Adelady was essentially a chat about the current weather in Australia.
Lionel then made a comment about apples.
Once again, there was a lack of perspective operating, especially when considering Australia's highly variable climate and the depth of Australia's agricultural industry.

You lack perspective, Stu2. You don't see the bigger picture. You don't see that paleoclimate behaviour validates the models.

TLDR: You don't believe in physics.

as a gardener perhaps another perspective on current SE Aust weather may help. Despite good rain earlier this month the ground is still bone dry especially below about 50mm. We are watering some plants to keep them alive - this is highly unusual. Oh btw we have drought tolerant native plants and have mulched. Not much good having good growing weather if there isn't enough water or nutrients.
Also worth considering the commercial stone fruit growers who require very low temps to set the fruit. They may struggle too

By Billy the Mountain (not verified) on 28 May 2014 #permalink

SAID HANRAHAN
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,In accents most forlorn,Outside the church, ere Mass began,One frosty Sunday morn.The congregation stood about,Coat-collars to the ears,And talked of stock, and crops, and drought,As it had done for years."It's lookin' crook," said Daniel Croke;"Bedad, it's cruke, me lad,For never since the banks went brokeHas seasons been so bad.""It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil,With which astute remarkHe squatted down upon his heelAnd chewed a piece of bark.And so around the chorus ran"It's keepin' dry, no doubt.""We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,"Before the year is out."The crops are done; ye'll have your workTo save one bag of grain;From here way out to Back-o'-BourkeThey're singin' out for rain."They're singin' out for rain," he said,"And all the tanks are dry."The congregation scratched its head,And gazed around the sky."There won't be grass, in any case,Enough to feed an ass;There's not a blade on Casey's placeAs I came down to Mass.""If rain don't come this month," said Dan,And cleared his throat to speak--"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,"If rain don't come this week."A heavy silence seemed to stealOn all at this remark;And each man squatted on his heel,And chewed a piece of bark."We want a inch of rain, we do,"O'Neil observed at last;But Croke "maintained" we wanted twoTo put the danger past."If we don't get three inches, man,Or four to break this drought,We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,"Before the year is out."In God's good time down came the rain;And all the afternoonOn iron roof and window-paneIt drummed a homely tune.And through the night it pattered still,And lightsome, gladsome elvesOn dripping spout and window-sillKept talking to themselves.It pelted, pelted all day long,A-singing at its work,Till every heart took up the songWay out to Back-o'Bourke.And every creek a banker ran,And dams filled overtop;"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,"If this rain doesn't stop."And stop it did, in God's good time;And spring came in to foldA mantle o'er the hills sublimeOf green and pink and gold.And days went by on dancing feet,With harvest-hopes immense,And laughing eyes beheld the wheatNid-nodding o'er the fence.And, oh, the smiles on every face,As happy lad and lassThrough grass knee-deep on Casey's placeWent riding down to Mass.While round the church in clothes genteelDiscoursed the men of mark,And each man squatted on his heel,And chewed his piece of bark."There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man,There will, without a doubt;We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,"Before the year is out."
John O'Brien

Again, FFS.

Good point Billy the Mountain:
" Not much good having good growing weather if there isn’t enough water or nutrients."
No argument from me on that one.
However, it's also worth noting that there isn't much good in having enough water and nutrients if crops don't have good growing weather.
Adelady's link and Lionel's comment was essentially just a chat about the vagaries of seasonal weather in Australia. Variable seasonal conditions produce some winners and some losers in Australian agriculture, especially when we factor in regional variability.
While your area of SE Australia appears to have only received 50mm of precipitation this Autumn, my area has received over 150mm and it is in fact one of the best Autumn breaks this area has seen in many a long year.
And as far as the garden goes, my Kikuyu lawn has grown vigorously in the last couple of weeks ( and definitely needs mowing again) and my deciduous stone fruit tress have dropped their leaves. The temperature for the setting of stone fruits will be an important variable in Spring - not in Autumn - which is a bit different to Lionel's example as apples do like a dry and frosty snap in early Autumn..

Here's another one for BBD:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
--Reinhold Niebuhr

Not sure that quotes talking about relying on magic sky pixies for wisdom have any relevance here. Me? I believe we can change and I have changed many aspects of my life too so I too can urge change on those still resisting, whether they resist due to fear or because they are paid or unpaid stooges.

By Billy the Mountain (not verified) on 28 May 2014 #permalink

Yes Billy the Mountain.
I too believe we can change.
If we are discussing Australian Agriculture and Australian gardening, I would suggest that it's right up there among the world leaders as far as innovation and change is concerned.
Anyone with a gereational background in Aussie Ag can easily explain that fact.

Generational not gereational!

Stu2, you can come off your drug-induced haze now and crash back to reality. Read the two classic books by Derrick Jensen - Endgame Volumes 1 and 2 - and it becomes clear that so-called civilization is unsustainable and is driving our species towards the abyss. Belief in change is only meaningful when real change happens - and our species has done virtually nothing since the first alarms were raised decades ago to halt our assault on our ecological life support systems.

You are living in a fools paradise.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 29 May 2014 #permalink

If we are discussing Australian Agriculture and Australian gardening, I would suggest that it’s right up there among the world leaders as far as innovation and change is concerned.

I suppose Stu2 can provide some evidence for that assertion.

I have "a generational background in Aussie Ag" and I can neither explain that "fact", nor even attest to it. But Stu2's mileage may vary.

Do tell...

Sorry. first para tag fail...Take 2:

If we are discussing Australian Agriculture and Australian gardening, I would suggest that it’s right up there among the world leaders as far as innovation and change is concerned.

I suppose Stu2 can provide some evidence for that assertion.

I have “a generational background in Aussie Ag” and I can neither explain that “fact”, nor even attest to it. But Stu2′s mileage may vary.

Do tell…

Anyone with a gereational background in Aussie Ag can easily explain that fact.

Which reminds me of the sclerotic brain processes displayed by a an example of Aussie Ag' when the Late Stephen Schneider, very ill with not long to live bravely faced a mostly hostile audience down under, tried to explain using the bath tub analogy how CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. The explanation clearly went over this near geriatrics head.

I have been looking for video of the televised encounter, broadcast 07.09.2010, without much luck as yet.

However the trail of this programme can be found here:

Stephen Schneider and the skeptics

and here:

What do you get when you put a climate scientist and 52 skeptics in a room?.

Now 2Stewpid, I was using apples by way of example of the wider problems when hydrological events, biological connections and much else become disrupted. Think of it like a domino drop where small changes can lead to a cascade of events.

Now were you that dim farmer alluded to at the start of this reply?

S2pid in a nutshell:

I say:

You lack perspective, Stu2. You don’t see the bigger picture. You don’t see that paleoclimate behaviour validates the models.

TLDR: You don’t believe in physics.

S2pid bleats back:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Well, yes. We know you are beyond the reach of reason, Pid. You don't believe in physics. QED.

Frank D @ # 61 or 62.
You claim you have a generational background in Aussie Ag.
So in your particular generational background, do the current generation of farmers still farm in the same manner as their forefathers or have they learned from Australian R&D, embraced new techniques and technology and perhaps operate quite differently today?
I am not aware of many farmers in Australia who have not done that, but perhaps in your particular generational area of Australian farming they have not embraced change, new technologies and innovation?

The first paragraphs of the link posted by Adelady was essentially a chat about the current weather in Australia.

FTFY.

The description of current conditions was just an intro to a discussion of longer term changes in winter heatwaves, Seeing as stuie seems highly unlikely to actually read the link for himself, I'll quote part of it here.

Two years ago, my colleagues and I analysed changes to heatwaves and warm spells around the world between 1950 and 2011. Both summer heatwaves and winter warm spells became longer, more frequent and more intense – but the changes were much bigger and faster for winter warm spells.

Perhaps that might pique enough interest to read the whole thing.

FFS again Pid.

#65 you witter about Australian farmers adopting new techniques which is NOT IN ANY WAY sufficient to justify your very strong claim which FrankD was questioning:

If we are discussing Australian Agriculture and Australian gardening, I would suggest that it’s right up there among the world leaders as far as innovation and change is concerned.

Anyone with a gereational background in Aussie Ag can easily explain that fact.

More dishonesty. Why can't you control this behaviour? What the fuck is wrong with you?

And as far as the garden goes, my Kikuyu lawn has grown vigorously in the last couple of weeks...

And since you're dropping regional data points, my kikuyu lawn appears to be dead, although it may just be faking me out until the warmer seasons arrive.

Maybe a look at the global picture would be more useful?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 29 May 2014 #permalink

So BBD?
What would be a way to justify?
Are you suggesting that Australian Agriculture (and of course Aussie gardening techniques was mentioned as well) has not developed and is not among the world leaders in terms of change and innovation?
Or perhaps you are suggesting that people with a generational background in Aussie Ag are just 'dim farmers' like Lionel implies?
And could you please stop arguing with that ideated Stu 2 that you have constructed from between the lines?
He doesn't exist, and your posturing at him and your attempted bullying of him is revealing more about you than anything else.
But of course, if you want to continue behaving like a schoolyard bully- and that's actually your aim - then please continue as you're really doing a magnificent job on that score.

Physics is physics, Stu 2.

There's no getting away from it.

BBD.
You're still arguing with that ideated Stu 2 to whom you have recently added the accusation that he doesn't believe in physics.
I guess if I was to try and use your approach I would now shout something like:
That does NOT IN ANY WAY justify your very strong claim .
But of course that's not my MO - that's yours.

What would be a way to justify?

Err, well...umm...evidence is the traditional way to back up assertions. So, you know, feel free...

Are you suggesting that Australian Agriculture (and of course Aussie gardening techniques was mentioned as well) has not developed...

Oh look, another pissant attempt at verballing. And moving the goalposts. So very, very lame.

...and is not among the world leaders in terms of change and innovation?

Well at least this bit manages to stay on topic. I can't speak for BBD, but I am not suggesting that they are not. I have merely stated that I cannot attest to it, despite having numerous relatives farming in North Central Victoria for five generations*. Clearly you can attest to it, or you wouldn't have "suggested" it, would you? C'mon Stu2, enough with the verballing and "are you suggesting?" crap. Just answer the question. Give us some evidence of Australia's putative "world leadership" in agricultural innovation. Or just climb down and admit that it was all bluster from the get go.

*I myself grew up in the big smoke, and make no pretence of being a farmer personally. But I believe I fit Stu2's "generational background" adequately.

Or perhaps you are suggesting that people with a generational background in Aussie Ag are just ‘dim farmers’ like Lionel implies?

Another selective distortion of another's message. I am not pointing at farmers in general just those like you who use devious debating techniques which makes them look simple or insincere.

Pid continues to lie about absolutely everything:

You’re still arguing with that ideated Stu 2 to whom you have recently added the accusation that he doesn’t believe in physics.

Nope. You demonstrated that you don't believe in physics during the agonising mess you made of Abbot & Pierrehumbert.

I ideate nothing. I demonstrate. Just like I demonstrated that you deny the evidence that vested interests set up and covertly fund a denial industry.

But of course, if you want to continue behaving like a schoolyard bully- and that’s actually your aim – then please continue as you’re really doing a magnificent job on that score.

Whine. You want better treatment, stop the appalling and incessant intellectual dishonesty. Currently, you get exactly what you deserve.

Frank D @ # 73.
If you were born and bred in the big smoke and have no personal farming experience other than some farming relatives in northern Victoria, I would not be inclined to include you as one who would understand the development of Aussie Ag.
Your relatives who are still farming would most likely have a better understanding.
If you're genuinely looking for evidence about Aussie aagriculture's global standing you could start with the Fed Government's National Food Plan 2012 and then work your way through publications by organisations like the Australian Farm Institute, DPI, CSIRO, VFF, NSWFA, NFF and numerous publications by Ag Science departments in many Australian universities.

BBD @ # 77,
The way you decide to treat people and your decision to behave in the manner you're behaving, is your decision and your responsibility.
You have every right to behave that way if that's what you have decided to do - and if that's what you want to do - then I have no problems with you doing so.

But what about the evidence denial?

Physics.

The denial industry.

?

What do we get? You, playing the victim.

In no way do I believe I am your victim BBD.
What a highly amusing assertion on your part.
You actually accused that 'ideated' Stu 2 of yours was attempting to 'delagitimise' you.
Which part of - your behaviour is your decision- did you not comprehend?

There's a surprise. Stu2 is asked to provide evidence and says "do your own homework to prove my vacuous assertion".

What a cock.

In no way do I believe I am your victim BBD.

FFS. I said playing the victim. Yet more intellectual dishonesty.

And then, after whining and playing the victim, you deny playing the victim. Yep, you packed in still more intellectual dishonesty.

F. F. S. Again.

* * *

Why don't you go away? You are achieving nothing here and everyone is sick of your bollocks, so why not just go?

I'm sorry Frank D @ # 82.
I must have incorrectly assumed that you could use sites like Google?
But to help you get started:
http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/2293328/national-foo…
http://www.farminstitute.org.au/publications-1/research-reports
If you like I can post up the links for the other organisations and institutions that I suggested, but it is rather a lot of info and you may not really want to read through all of it?
When Jeff Harvey referred me to Derrick Jensen @ # 60 I went ahead and searched.
It's not that hard.
http://www.derrickjensen.org/
Which led me to this:
http://deepgreenresistance.org/en/
I also went to Oxfam when Bill said I could look them up.
https://www.oxfam.org.au/

Alternatively Frank D.
If you don't want to read the publications and the research, you could possibly consider visiting your 5th generation farming relatives in Northern Victoria.
I'm guessing they could explain how much Aussie Ag has developed over time and I'm sure they would also know quite a deal about Aussie Ag's global standing.

Now this is not about 2Stew but another Daily Mail columnist with pretensions of being a ' Science and Environment Reporter' one Ben Spencer. Now Spencer's claims to being what it says on his tin is open to question given the persistent misleading tosh he writes. It is almost as if this is another pen name (aka sock) for David Rose.

Commenter Jakob Cronberg at Think Progress - Climate brought this devious maker up of quotes by linking to this Daily Mail article:

Fracking can help to slow global warming admit UN scientists... and so can nuclear power.

That he lies about the source of the pertinent quote says it all, as does his track recorder of similar.

Please fuck off now Pid.

Lionel.
I absolutely agree that this should not be about personal
comments.
I would like to discuss the raised issues.
Both you and Adelady raised agriculture.

incorrectly assumed...5th generation

Stu2 seems to have given up even his previous feeble pretence of good faith. Reduced to tedious misrepresentation.

Hint: I asked what Stu2 could tell us about Australia's innovative farmers, not what my farming relo's - who have been farming for 5 generations but are not 5 generations removed - could tell me. Why would I ask Stu2 what they think, when I've already asked them?

So, absent other evidence, we can conclude Stu2 has indeed shared all he knows on the subject. Fuck all.

I would like to discuss the raised issues.

All the evidence says otherwise.

What a cock.

I would like to discuss the raised issues.

No you don't, you evade any such discussion other than to propagate vapid uninspiring hackneyed comments avoiding the points of other's posts and this goes with the those made by adelady and myself.

What else to expect from a circle jerk.

For any Aussie here not aware, Q and A is about to screen Corey Bernardi on the same panel as Lawrence Krauss.

This could be interesting...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 02 Jun 2014 #permalink

Sheesh! That Cory Bernardi is a piece of work and would fit in the GOP glove well.

BS meet brains.

I would love to see Bernardi take on Richard Alley.

I'd chuck in $50 bucks to send Cory permanently off to the States where he can be with this Tea Party cronies! Who's with me?

Speaking of which, seems the Joke-in-Chief has gone international!

That nodding-donkey effect at about the three minute mark I have seen before. Abbott makes GW look lucid and quick on his thinking feet, what an ignoramus.

The real power base in Australia, or anywhere else, do not want intelligent thinkers amongst the elected.

Stu2, Before you pre-judge people, read what they bloody well have to say. Derrick Jensen and Chris Hedges are different sides of the same coin. I greatly admire them both. You have never read a thing Jensen has written and you attempt (feebly) to smear him in one fell swoop.

Good grief your views are simple. In the extreme. Pre-determined is another way to interpret them.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Jun 2014 #permalink

Jeff Harvey @ # 96
You claim that I have made a feeble attempt to smear Derek Jensen
Here:
" you attempt (feebly) to smear him in one fell swoop."

In what way is looking up his web page and his current position an attempt to smear him? (feebly or otherwise)

Frank D @ # 90.
At least Lotharsson applies a semblance of sanity when he argues the "I said, you said, and this could be implied from what I implied from what you said I said etc etc."
If you want to argue that you think I'm a cock, I guess you can go right ahead.
That neither proves or disproves that Australian Agriculture is a fore runner in change and innovation or that the majority of Australian farmers with a generational background in Australian farming would know that.
Lionel @ # 95
These are the comments made by you and Adelady that raise the issue of Agriculture:
Adelady @ # 44:
" Not so nice when crops rely on cold – either for better growth or to inhibit reproduction of crop pests. "
And Lionel @ # 46
" Indeed adelady
I suppose a numpty like 2StewPid knows not how apples come about being single faceted and Janus faced."

Pid, in real-life when you walk into a room do people go strangely quiet and seem strangely reluctant to make eye contact?

Bill @# 98
No.

You astonish me! Are you sure you're paying sufficient attention?

Bill @ # 100
Yes.

No.

For both faces 2Stew?

That neither proves or disproves that Australian Agriculture is a fore runner in change and innovation or that the majority of Australian farmers with a generational background in Australian farming would know that.

But it is your assertion that that Australian Agriculture is a forerunner in change and innovation it that remains unsupported. You are the one with a problem here. You are either too stupid or too rancid with dishonesty to recognise this even now after it has been explained at least twice.

This is an endlessly repeating pattern with you. You either comprehend virtually nothing or deliberately feign stupidity to prolong the exchange. Consequently, further interactions with you on this or any other topic are pointless.

Please go away.

You either comprehend virtually nothing or deliberately feign stupidity to prolong the exchange

For several months now, when Stu2 has been asked a question he doesn't want to answer, he simply ideates (to use his favourite word) the question he wishes he had been asked. It's not stupid, just mendacious and repetitive. If he was stupid, it would merely be irritating. But he is worse than stupid, he's boring.

Stu2 could start to make amends by defending his contention that Australian Agriculture is a forerunner in change and innovation.

But it's dollars to doughnuts he won't.

Frank D @ # 4
I have supplied you with information via two links plus a suggestion for places to find more if you're interested.
The National Food Plan 2012, The Australian Farm Institute, numerous Ag Science Departments in tertiary institutions, numerous Agricultural colleges, many laboratories in various food processing industries around the country plus many other private and public entities such as State Ag Departments, VFF, NFF, NSWFA, NIC etc etc etc all have evidence that Australia is right up there with the best in the world re Agricultural production.
The information encompasses a diverse range of food and fibre commodities, a diverse range of agricultural techniques and a diverse range of food and fibre processing for domestic and global markets.
I am not clear what your problem is with my comment that Australia Agriculture is a forerunner?
Are you attempting to argue that Australian Agriculture is NOT a forerunner in change and innovation?
Or maybe I could use some popular terminology from here of late?
Do you deny that Australia Agriculture is a forerunner in change and innovation?

It's on my iView 'to watch' list.

Told you he wouldn't. Seriously, a normal person would find it easier to just answer the question than all this airy persiflage..

But Stu2 has managed to avoid giving direct answers to simple questions for days and days and days, so there's no reason why now would be any different.

But Stu2 might watch and learn from this example, in response to his four questions (well, four question marks, not all of which are questions).

I know.
No.
I don't care
No.

Wasn't that simple?

If Stu2 wants to know what I think, he should read the words, they are perfectly clear to anyone with an adequate grasp of English. As is his evasion of the questions he has been asked.

Of course, it suits Stu2's purpose to pretend otherwise, so watch him continue to do so. Let me give him a head start:

"Wha...? I don't understand? Are you saying [insert incorrect and leading question of your choice]?"

Recommend the Catalyst doco. Don't expect to be cheered-up.

The idiots crowing about the slight positive trend in Antarctic sea ice extend don't usually even understand the difference between sea ice and an ice sheet. So they are best ignored.

Even those that do grasp the not-so-subtle distinction don't understand *why* ASI extent is increasing, nor that mass loss from the WAIS is significant and rising, and that even the EAIS is now showing net mass loss.

Nor do they understand that WAIS and some regional EAIS collapse happened before, many times, the most recent of which was the last interglacial (Eemian; MIS5e) when global average temperatures were 1 - 2C higher than the present and sea levels were ~6m or more higher than the present.

But then, they are idiots.

"Tol's Gremlins" may permanently enter the vocabulary at this rate. He is looking to be on increasingly shaky ground with his (apparently) very sloppy attempts to knock over the Cook et al consensus study. If the critiques remain unrebutted this will damage his reputation and credibility.

Note also the PDF linked to in that document, anonymously published, which separately seems to indicate Tol's methodology tends to reduce the calculated consensus value no matter what data you throw at it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 04 Jun 2014 #permalink

Tol Tales.

Ask not for whom the Tol bawls, it bawls for he...

I think that he has actually done the world a huge service. In showing how badly he's munged the consensus analysis, there's an increased focus on his recent borking of the calculation of the economic benefits of warming. All of a sudden the whole Tol collective magnum opus is turning into a magnum o' pus.

His ability to exert influence is only going to go in one direction...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Jun 2014 #permalink

Is anyone else finding that HotWhopper is apparently down?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Jun 2014 #permalink

Ask not for whom the Tol bawls, it bawls for he…

The Intertubez have been won for the day.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 05 Jun 2014 #permalink

No, HotWhopper OK here, the most recent post all Tol much for Wutters perhaps.

Greg Laden dubs Tol's schtick (or adopts the term from somewhere else) "Concern Tol-ing".

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 05 Jun 2014 #permalink

Very droll.

As you were. Sou's back up for me.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Jun 2014 #permalink

Tol has had his beard well and truly singed, a not unexpected result for one who has declared himself an econometrician [1] for we have seen here where that thinking can lead when it comes to climate study.

I see that the Pielke Jr is also getting some starter time .

[1] some say Tol has never claimed to be such but I am fairly sure to have seen, and recently, a confirmatory quote from the Tol himself.

This is actually kind of wonderful, in a bang-your-head-on-the-table sort of way. Pielke isn’t claiming that it’s hard in practice to limit emissions without halting economic growth, he’s arguing that it’s logically impossible. So let’s talk about why this is stupid.

As Susan Anderson succinctly and aptly put it:

The brawny promotion of we can't do anything, so we must do nothing, seems to be Roger Pielke Jr.'s stock in trade. He does a lot of harm, being so plausible and all.

This is not a good thing.

.

Just so.

BS is notable vermin. And brass-necked with it.

Tol comes out of that article Lionel posted looking really dodgy - quote mining, citing blogs posts with stolen material, trying to position a hacker who illegally obtained information as a "researcher".

And that's quite apart from his dodgy methodology and his own inability to apply sanity checks or take feedback about it on board, not even feedback that pointed out his results were obviously rubbish.

Perhaps he should consider applying the scientific method? You know, leverage sceptical self-review along with peer review to provide critique of one's claims and see if they remain standing? ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 06 Jun 2014 #permalink

@ #23 I mentioned Tol claiming that he was an 'econometrician' with some refuting that Tol had ever claimed to be that, well here it is in black & white :

at Andrew Gelman's.

Another one bites the dust.

Over at Eli's in a twitter initiated thread commenter -WheelsOC paints up Pielke Jr's context in four links at 7/6/14 7:55 AM , where John Christy is seen to have tagged along for the ride.

Strewth Lotharsson, reading the comments thread at that Guardian piece by Tol, and in particular the BS from BS blew my irony meter, again, and again and again.

It would appear that some still fail to, or refuse to, understand what 'consensus' means in this context. It is the same ol' same ol' that we got from BK with mention of failing models thrown in to prove that point.

I now think Tol has had more rope than he can cop with but it has been arguably a useful distraction by, or for, the GWPF.

Time to leave Tol like Captain Kidd swinging in the Wapping breeze as he becomes biltong for the corvids and as an advert for that GWPF.

If I had BS and PT (may his moniker not be mentioned in fall lest he be summoned) defending me, I'd be thinking very hard about whether what I was saying was defensible.

But maybe that's just me.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jun 2014 #permalink

It is not long into Tol's Guardian bafflegab that you find out how confused Tol is, I mean:

I show that the 97% consensus claim does not stand up.

At best, Nuccitelli, John Cook and colleagues may have accidentally stumbled on the right number.

Hang on a mo',

'...97% claim does not stand up...'

but it is

'...the right number.'

Oh dear! Oh dear!

Oh, and it looks as if not even Tol's theologian said what Tol reckons he said.

And this is just about the most insightful comment of the thread. Go read the whole comment.

The only rational basis for not fearing an apocalypse would be to have a civilization that is clearly sustainable - that is, a civilization which is not drawing down its natural capital in large annual increments.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jun 2014 #permalink