Ever wonder...?

Repetition, repetition, repetition. Repeat a lie often enough... and you've heard that phrase so many times I don't need to go any further. One of the things that gets me is that inevitably, when a media source retracts a mistake, they make sure to repeat it in all its detail, which only pushes it deeper into memory. Our brain has no true "erase" function (apart, perhaps, from physical damage or death).

Depressing reading.

(If this study is ever debunked, then will we still remember it?)

Well I think mainly because, 1/4 of the way from 1979 to 2100, the catastrophic warming, melting of glaciers, starving of hundreds of millions of peope 200ft/2ft/2ft sea level rises haven't 1/4 happened or even anything remotely close

A lesser reason is that alarmists are incapable of answering even simple questions (such as mine http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2011/04/warming-alarmists-hypocris… ) about their hypothesis and have to rely on ad homs, lies, obscenity and censorship. Such things only take you so far before reasonable people realise they are beinmg sold snake oil by charlatans.

Whereas unreasonable people like Neil Craig realize they're being sold snake oil by charlatans without it even happening! Good job, Neil!

A lesser reason is that alarmists are incapable of answering even simple questions

First provide evidence that you have a true question.

Neil, neil, neil.

Your questions have been answered again and again and again.

For example, you were shown to be an incompetent liar regarding the King/Antarctica quote, and your only recourse was just to deny reality and pretend it never occurred.

Guess what Neil. As long as you post on the internet, here or anywhere, that and your other stunning displays of incompetence and dishonesty will follow you. Forever.

Furthermore, the people you are debating with are real researchers. Like Mandas, Richard S., Chris, and others I too have a track record of peer reviewed publication in the finest journals in my field. They and I have a basic demonstration of competence the likes of which a fool such as yourself will never comprehend. You are so stupid you do not even realize that you're nothing but a sidebar joke and an object of well-deserved ridicule.

That's who we are, Neil. And you're just a complete nobody, shagging sheep in Glasgow and pondering what might have been if you'd been bestowed with an IQ over 94. *Your* greatest achievement to date was convincing your case worker you were fit to be de-institutionalized. Yet in your delusion and stupidity you think you can topple a scientific consensus and your intellectual superiors with childish arguments articulated in equally childish diction.

I will give you one commendation, though. In my years of reading and posting on this forum, I have encountered shocking displays of ineptitude and mendacity, from the likes of Snowman, Crakar, Richard Wakefield and numerous others.

All of them were appalling, Neil, yet you have managed to distinguish yourself as uniquely stupid and evil, even among them.

Congratulations.

I don't know why I'm bothering, because it isn't like he'll stop posting his stupid list, but:

1) By the simplest definitions, there has now been statistically significant warming since 1995 (and it is a stupid question anyway because even if the warming wasn't significant when Jones answered it the first time, there was still a warming trend and it was fairly obvious that it was only a few years away from being significant)

2) I accept that there is a CO2 fertilization effect. I would believe that, absent other changes, the current fertilization effect could have induced a benefit of a few percent. 10% is plausible, though I would like to see an analysis show that. It gets complicated, because CO2 fertilization also stimulates weeds, doesn't stimulate C4 crops nearly as well as C3 crops, and CO2-induced climate changes (drought and flooding) can have negative effects that would cancel out the positive fertilization effect. I therefore definitely disagree with the second half of the statement.

3) The hockey stick was a decent first attempt with some methodological imperfections. But "good science" includes making mistakes while learning, and watching subsequent studies improve on the original. I think it is good practice to make algorithms available, and I don't know to what extent Mann has done so (I think his latest papers include substantial supplementary material).

4) Please give me a link to Al Gore's statement about South Sea islands. As has been pointed out to you before, the Pachauri "voodoo" comment was not about the 2035 date, but rather about a very poor chapter in an Indian report which claimed that there was no influence of global warming on glacial retreat. So, no, Pachauri's statement was not untruthful, only your representation of it was.

5) While some geoengineering solutions might be cheap, their side effects could be ruinous, and most don't fix the acidification problem. Nuclear is certainly not cheap. And while I support more use of nuclear power, I wouldn't call it free of environmental problems either.

6) There's plenty of intra-alarmist criticism.

7) Here's a list provided to you at another website: "nd regarding nr 7, with my own interpretation of what Neil actually meant, let's mention Gordon Bell (Microsoft), Winslow Briggs, Corey Goodman (venBio), William Rutter (Synergenics), and Mary Lou Zoback (RMS - Risk Management solutions). Four names I found on a letter from NAS members sent to Nature, who are not being paid by the government. They also happen to work at organisations that have no link to the climate field. That is, you can't even claim they might benefit from hyping AGW.

That's more than two. In fact, adding William, we're already up to five..."
When I go to AGU conferences, I don't go around asking people what their funding sources and belief about climate change are. And, unsurprisingly, most climate scientists are academics, and academics depend on grant money, so a high percentage would get some money from the "state". Many also get money from industry.

But one line from Dr. Ecker: "If you make them suspicious of why that information was presented in the first place, such as by saying it was a deliberate attempt to mislead you, then they can more readily dismiss it," does give some of that hope back.

Funny apparently how all of the commenters above have blatantly ignored this tidbit, right after reading it. It's good we don't ignore the science of climate change, but why do we repeatedly ignore the findings of psychology researchers when we respond to global warming denialists?

For goodness's sake, why oh why do we continue to believe naïvely that people like Neil Craig will be persuaded by a dry boring litany of facts, when psychology study after psychology study has shown not to be the case?

Why in the blazes aren't we thinking about how to use the insights from psychology to improve our spreading of the science?

To this end: http://ijish.livejournal.com/29235.html

-- frank

Re: Post #5
Well said. This is an excellent riposte to a denier so mendacious and ignorant that one almost wishes he were fictional â it is depressing to think that such a brainless, jaundiced idiot could exist.
I see no point in your further debating this deranged mind. The least a denier can try to be (to help compensate for the grief they bring) is entertaining or flamboyant. Or even cogent or articulate for Christâs sake. NC is so far out there itâs like trying to converse with a madman.

So . . . not bad for a preening faux-intellectual?

The least a denier can try to be (to help compensate for the grief they bring) is entertaining or flamboyant.

I used to agree, Mlax.

But its talk like this that tends to bring Snowman out of the shadows, as he always fashioned himself the Great Wit who could circumvent factual and logical debate through his fourth rate rhetoric. He was the worst thing to come out of the UK since Chumbawamba.

Nonetheless I'm glad your visit to this site finally held some return for you.

Pough 4 I have put the questions, 7 of them, repeatedly and they are on the link I posted so your claim not tom know of them rings hollow. However I will put them up again. If alarmism is true it will be possible to put an honest, responsive and supportive answer on all of them. If it is not a deliberate scam you will at least be able to put such answers to 3,4,6 & 7.

I look forward to your efforts since nobody, either on scienceblogs, or elsewhere has been able to do so.
-------------------
1 - Do you accept Professor Jones' acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?

2 - Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth by around 10% & that the consequent influence on world hunger is more beneficial than any currently detectable destructive action of alleged global warming?

3 - Do you accept that the Hockey Stick, as originally presented by Mann and the IPCC contained calculations that were inconsistent with good science and that Mann's refusal to make calculations and algorithms available for checking were inconsistent with scientific principle?

4 - Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side, from Al Gore's claim that South Sea islands had already been abandoned due to rising sea levels and Pachauri's claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was "voodoo" were untrue and insupportable even at the time.

5 - Do you accept that there are a number of geoengineering solutions which arithmetically can be shown would work (including stratospheric dust, the geritol solution or even just replacing CO2 burning with nuclear power) which would work at a small fraction of the cost of the war against fire, or in the case of nuclear, at negative cost?

6 - Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud or telling of obvious untruths. on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?

7 - Of the alleged "consensus" - can you name 2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state, who support catastrophic warming & if not can you explain how something can be a consensus when no member of a subset of 60% of the alleged consenting, consent?
---------------------------------

Skip you have been caught lying time after time. I have to doubt your claim "I too have a track record of peer reviewed publication in the finest journals in my field" since even within the undemanding halls of alarmist "scinece" you should have learned that scientific hypothesis are not supported by accusations of sheep shagging or other obscenities. If you had ever been off ther farm you would know that Glasgow is an urban metropolis and that sheep are rare there.

You have, however, once again, demonstrated what levels of ignrance, dishonesty and obscenity the parasites who support this fraud feel they have to rely on.

I once again invite anyvody remotely honest who claims both decency and belief in this scam to advise "Skip" that his behaviour is improper. I do not expect any alarmist to do so though if there actually were any honest, decent and scientifically inclinded alarmists they would be lininmg up to do so.

M 6 "even if the warming wasn't significant when Jones answered it the first time, there was still a warming trend" that is a tautology - if there isn't significant evidence for a warming trend claiming it is true anyway is incompatible withn respect for the facts.

Your answersc to 2,3 & 5 generally support my case.

Gore's remark is from his "inconvenient truth" film. It was proven a lie in the British court case, along with other lies. I am sure you are capable of googling if you are interested.

I would like some links to alarmists denouncing Mann's fraud, or Jionses' or Pachauri's or King's.

When those names were putn up I asked for evidence that they had held these views personally & still do & that they got no government funding. Though that question was censored I did put it on another "scienceblogs" site where it remains unanswered. By now I am sure somebody with access to the emails of these people could have contacted them and got them to say they currently believe in catastrophic global warming - if they did.

The other posts are just lies masquerading as ad homs, proving my point about the dishonesty and contempt for facts of almost all alarmists.

Skip you have been caught lying time after time.

You cannot document one. Thus it is you who are the liar. You can doubt my academic track record if you wish; I in turn will doubt your alleged non-affiliation with suburban Glasgow sheep.

Neil Craig, rather than discuss the answers to your questions that others have given (and repeatedly), you just keep on spamming these questions.

What is it that makes you ignore the answers you are given? Is it stupidity? Malice? Inability to understand basic English? What is it?

I look forward to your efforts since nobody, either on scienceblogs, or elsewhere has been able to do so.

Yes they have. On numerous websites. And even in comments directly to you. You're either not looking, not reading when you do look, or not not understanding when you do read (or you, as has been pointed out, are a liar).

Re: your first question about Jones. Here's the original interview.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Have you actually read this? Seems very straightforward to me. If you don't see why this makes your question irrelevant, see here for explanation.

skepticalscience.com/phil-jones-warming-since-1995-significant.html

skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm

Short version

Phil Jones is saying there is a warming trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period.

So at the time of Jones BBC interview, the trend was not significant at the 0.05 level. It was significant at close to the 0.06 level though. Within 12-18 months of his statement to the BBC the warming since 1995 was within the 0.05 significance level, which highlights the importance of using long-term data to detect trends.

Therefore, to answer your question literally, "Yes, we did accept that". In fact, no-one disputed it since we can do our own calculations to double-check.

What was disputed though was how people interpreted it as "there's been no warming, period" when that was and very clearly is NOT the case, and is obvious to anyone who actually read the interview.

And now since you are honest, you will now remove question 1 from your list and never ask it again since it has been answered.
-----------------------------------------

Some of your other questions, incidentally, are not questions but baseless accusations like "Have you stopped beating your dog yet?", when the person in question doesn't even own a dog. e.g. 3, 4 and 6. Other ones like 2 are simply silly--please give a citation from the scientific literature and PLEASE read it before you post it to ensure it says what you think it says, and that it's conclusions don't contradict your question.

Incidentally, re: 6, almost all of the mistakes the "skeptic" community harps on were found by working scientists, not the "skeptics". A mild but very recent example is here:
tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/how-not-to-analyze-tide-gauge-data/

This happens in the scientific literature all the time. It is the very nature of science and scientists. The first person to disprove AGW and show what is causing the modern day warming is likely to be the next Nobel science winner because fame and money don't come to those who parrot the party line, but to those who overturn a consensus or elucidate a whole new field of exploration.

Pough 4 I have put the questions, 7 of them, repeatedly and they are on the link I posted so your claim not tom know of them rings hollow.

I was actually quoting you being evasive. I've seen your questions more times than I want to count. I've seen them responded to, also, in spite of your continual claims that nobody has ever answered them. In fact, someone answered them just a few comments above your latest claim that they have never been answered.

@frank #7:

...why oh why do we continue to believe naïvely that people like Neil Craig will be persuaded...

We don't. He's far too nutty to be convinced of anything, and even if he were convinced we don't really want nuts on our side. Nobody takes him seriously.

Case in point is this week's blatant misreporting by The Australian on sea level rises.

This has been picked up and carried onto a variety of denialist websites, completely uncritically, and none of the corrections of the original author of the actual study will ever see the light of day on those sites.

Sites I found this story uncritically reposted on have a teasingly familiar ring to their domain names. Australianclimatemadness, awesternheart, climatechangedispatch, climatedepot, dprogram, freerepublic, globalwarmingnewssite, impactofcc, independentnewshub, itsfaircomment-climategate, nwotruth, openyoureyesnews, ozconspiracyhouse, prisonplanet, thegwpf, truthiscontaigous, whatreallyhappened etc etc.

RE: Post #9
Skip, I imagine you are suitably robust to survive my barbs, or those of any similar dickhead. In any case, I take the opportunity to apologise to you, and by extension to Mandas.
Your mentioning of Chumbawamba in relation to Snowman is not only humorous but also vey apt (and did you really have to suffer that awful pop group in the US also?). Their signature song is essentially the anthem of the denier: âI get knocked down, but I get up againâ.
Damn; that awful tune is going to be in my head for days now.

Daniel you address only popint 1 and wrongly. If the meaurements cannot be tweaked to show statistiocal significance enough to support a warming claim for 15 years, something which cannot honestly be denied, then there is certainly no catastrophe level warming taking place.

I note neither Daniel, pough, Marco, Dylan, Minx or the author have suggested that their is anything wrong with "Skip" obscenity as an alternative to scientific argument. I assume all of you consider this to be entirely appropriate behaviour among "peer reviewed scientists" in "the finest hournals" rather than Skip being some silly little bioy who has just learved to write dirty words. I fear you may be correct about the all the parasitic "scientists" paid to promote the warming scam.

I suppose I should be glad that while the site author here believes obscenity to be a sitable method of debate he does not completely follow the example of the disgusting PZ Myer's of Pharngula who not only promotes obscenmity but censors the victims.

I await any aty response to the questions which is both responsive and truthful. All thiose claiming to have seen such could, of course, if they were being truthful, produce such answers.

"I would believe that, absent other changes, the current fertilization effect could have induced a benefit of a few percent. 10% is plausible"

However, it would then follow on that all that GM production that Monsato and others say is needed has had to date NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. That the intense farming with high levels of fertiliser and insecticides has had NO EFFECT. That the cross breeding of plants to get higher yields has had NO EFFECT.

I wonder why Whiner here insists that the multi-billion-dollar-a-year expense of agribusiness has been such a waste.

"then there is certainly no catastrophe level warming taking place."

It's only deniers like yourself who insist catastrophic warming should have already taken place.

0.12C per decade is within the projections of the 1991 models of climate, so the prediction for warming was seen.

Neil, you have received full responses to your questions. You just ignore them, because they do not fit your ideology. Likewise, you demand we stop someone supposedly being 'obscene', but fail to acknowledge the repeated distortions and lies you put on this forum. There is nothing but disgust left for people who behave like you do.

pough:

...why oh why do we continue to believe naïvely that people like Neil Craig will be persuaded...

We don't. He's far too nutty to be convinced of anything, and even if he were convinced we don't really want nuts on our side. Nobody takes him seriously.

Then what exactly do we think we are trying to accomplish -- by ignoring all the good advice from psychology researchers?

Ecker et al. wrote:

If you make them [credulous people] suspicious of why that information was presented in the first place, such as by saying it was a deliberate attempt to mislead you, then they can more readily dismiss it.

So my question, again, is this: why do we repeatedly ignore this advice, right here on this very thread which mentions it?

-- frank

Neil Craig:

Here's a little exercise for you (and all undecided folks).

Step 1: Look at this diagram.

Step 2: Try to find the box in the diagram that says "do research into the issue at hand", or "design experiments to decide the issue at hand", or "do fact-checking", or something similar.

Step 3: Last, try to answer this question: what colour is the box?

Have fun.

-- frank

Of course, frank, that request also seems to fall foul of your evidence for why that request is correct: you've said it many times and you've not been listened to.

So why do you continue to ignore his advice on this and other threads?

Wow:

If your answer to "why do we ignore good advice" is "yeah, we ignore good advice, so get over it", then you're being an idiot. Yeah, I called you an idiot; get over it.

-- frank

And I'm ignoring your advice, as well as many others.

Get over it.

Oh, and any advice someone gives in honesty is believed to be "good advice" by them. This doesn't make it good advice, just one believed by the giver to be good.

A pastor may give good advice to abstain from sex before marriage, but there are other pieces of advice to give that are just as good.

So I reject your "why do we ignore good advice": it isn't good advice. Just your advice.

Which is being ignored.

Live with it.

Wow:

So I reject your "why do we ignore good advice": it isn't good advice. Just your advice.

...based on the findings of a peer-reviewed study by psychology researchers, no less.

And you're ignoring it.

Sorry, Wow, you're still an idiot.

-- frank

I'm not refuting the papers.

That they are true doesn't make your advice good advice, nor does it mean I have to take it.

Wow:

I'm not refuting the papers.

That they are true doesn't make your advice good advice, nor does it mean I have to take it.

Sure, you have the right not to follow advice based on the findings of scientific studies. But that still makes you an idiot.

-- frank

Well, ok then Mlax. Let there be a dickheaded truce between us.

Although I will enjoy some final schadenfreude over this last piece of karmic justice:

. . . that awful tune is going to be in my head for days now.

Frank:

I appreciate where you're coming from, but two points:

1. I used to be a Christian Fundamentalist but engagement with the other side rescued me from this folly. It *is* possible to purge dogma.

2. Now relieved of any moral requirement to turn the other cheek, I can engage on topics like this out of pure malice. Neil is too stupid and stubborn to learn, but he can experience humiliation and pain. I have no qualms about contributing to its infliction.

skip:

1. I used to be a Christian Fundamentalist but engagement with the other side rescued me from this folly.

Care to describe how that happened? I'm all ears.

-- frank

Different topic for a different forum.

But I always get asked the question so what I ought to do is have a cut- and paste-able summary of my "anti-testimony".

@frank #21

Well, ignoring the fact that I'm far from a professional in any kind of science so I don't feel any real need to be an actual communicator in this debate....

I don't think that Neil is purposefully misleading; I think he's honestly nuts. So the only thing we can really do - for all the people who are not as nutty as Neil who happen to be reading, not for Neil - is point out how nuts he is. That way, the source of the misinformation is nuts and therefore suspect.

Other sources might be purposefully misleading and they're the ones we should be pointing out seem to be saying something they know isn't true. And I think that does get said. But for folks like Neil I think the best we can do is point out his errors for others and have a laugh.

BTW, I think there is far more Morton's Demon and Authoritarianism going on in the denialist world than pure profit. So how does the advice apply when someone isn't knowingly spreading untruths? If we make the claim that they are lying on purpose when they're not, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

pough:

Thanks for clarifying. What I would say is that the talking points ultimately came from sources whose very purpose is to mislead.

-- frank

pough

We don't really have to point out how crazy and deluded Biel roaig is - he makes it apparent all by himself. And this thread is a perfect case in point.

For a full expose of his delusions, first read post #6 by M, then read post #10 by the delusional one himself.

Notice anything? Yes, that's right. 4 posts and just under 24 hours after M answered his 7 cherry-picked and delusional strawmen, Beil complained (once again) that no-one had answered his questions. And that on top of the many other responses he had received (god - even I answered them twice, as has skip, wow, chris, et al).

That's why I believe frank is right on this issue. Beil is an idiot troll. It is in his genes, and no amount of evidence, logic or conditioning will ever change him. Trolls are fine in their own environment - under bridges where they can prey on unsuspecting goats. But outside of that environment - particularly in the rarefied atmosphere of a scientific debate where their minds are woefully inadequate for the task, they are nothing more than pests.

Being a wildlife scientist, I know that sometimes there is nothing else to do with a pest other than to kill it in order to improve the environment for others. And the best way to kill a troll is to deny it oxygen.

To be clear - I never bothered to answer the questions, just pointed to where they'd been answered elsewhere.

Get the facts right mandas you fascist commie whore!

Trolls are fine in their own environment - under bridges where they can prey on unsuspecting goats.

And get your facts straight here, too, Mandas. Its *sheep*, not goats.

skip

You should know better than to disagree with a goat-herder.

Remember the story of the three billy goat gruffs who had to cross the bridge under which lived a troll who threatened to eat them? If you don't, here you go:

http://americanfolklore.net/folklore/2010/10/three_billy_goats_gruff.ht…

Marco 20 you are obviously lying about my questions having been answered in an honest responsive manner otherwise you would have no difficulty replicating them here.

I note that ad homs and obscenity remain the stock in trade4 of all the lying thieving fascist parasites here. As expected. Clearly any claim of any supporter of the warming fraud to have any shred of integrity would be false. I do not do them the courtesy of assuming insanity - the lying theiving scum know exactly what lying thieving scum they are.

I note that ad homs and obscenity remain the stock in trade4 of all the lying thieving fascist parasites here.

Pretty much says it all.

"I note that ad homs and obscenity "

Such as:

"lying thieving fascist parasites"

?

PS stop typing one-handed, you're going blind.

Neil said:

"Daniel you address only popint 1 and wrongly. If the meaurements cannot be tweaked to show statistiocal significance enough to support a warming claim for 15 years, something which cannot honestly be denied, then there is certainly no catastrophe level warming taking place...."

Alright, Neil, I have never responded to you before, so I will give you a patient response.

Your statement, above, is wrong on many levels, and indicates you have not got a good handle on statistic significance, the nature of scientific inquiry, the motives of scientists, or even the relevant issues which cause better informed people to have dire concern about climate change.

1) The statement by the scientist which you interpreted as not showing "statistiocal significance enough to support a warming claim for 15 years" was, I will admit, easy to misinterpret. Indeed, I wrote a comment on a post here that the guy mishandled the question.

That said, realize that this was an off-the-cuff statement during an interview about a very specific data set of only 15 years, a time span which is very short considering the amount of natural variation of the phenomenon studied, to say nothing of the nature of climate change itself, which is a gradual process which requires much longer time spans for proper study.

Now, that 15 year span was cherry-picked by deniers in the first place, a short segment of a much larger data set chosen simply because its trend was different than the longer, and therefore more accurate longer span. Now, this data set, even taken out of the proper context actually DID show statistical significance. It just didn't show a full 95% confidence.

Let me explain this. When statistics are run on a data set, the variation of the data is assessed for how confident we can be about whether the result or conclusion we draw about the data is because of an actual effect, or is just due to random chance. It is a convention in science that we want to have a certain amount of confidence in the result - the numbers must be good. Over the years, the convention - and it really is arbitrary - for many areas of science is that the numbers must be so good as to have a 95% confidence level, that is, there is only a 5% chance that the conclusion we draw from the data is wrong and due to mere chance. We then call this result "statistically significant" and wait for other research to duplicate this result one or more times before we tend to believe it.

Over time, scientists have gotten lazy about how they communicate this statistical confidence. We set the bar rather high at 95%, and if a result does not reach quite that high ( such as the 94% result when the aforementioned 15-year data set was used), we misspeak and say that the result does not reach statistical significance. But this is NOT true. What should be said is "The result did not reach a 95% confidence level".

Now, the result, even on that cherry-picked 15-year time span WAS statistically significant! What the scientist should have said during the interview, knowing he was talking to a lay audience, was "Even looking at that 15-year segment, which we would NOT consider a prudent thing to do because 15 years is too short a time period to draw the best conclusions, is that we can be 94% sure that warming DID occur during that time period."

Let's be clear here. 94% confidence is a very significant result! It is just not up to the very very high bar that scientists normally use. To put it into perspective: 50% confidence means there is a 50/50 chance the effect is real. Obviously, that sucks. But 94% means that 94/100 of the time, the result is not a mistake.

So, don't misinterpret a few poorly chosen words by one fellow during an interview. The result was significant at a 94% confidence level. The fact that he was responding to question which was posed only to hopefully trip him up should demonstrate to you the basic dishonesty of the "climate skeptics" community. They took the most deceptive set of years they could, using too short a time scale to be of any real significance anyway, and then ran with the poor answer by the scientist, in order to deceive untrained people like you into thinking that something of importance had been admitted.

That catastrophic levels of warming are almost certainly on their way is a deliberation made by very professional people, highly trained and careful scientists. And based on thousands of peer-reviewed reports, with independently duplicated results offering conformation of principles and conclusions drawn. This is an enormous body of evidence, coming from many independent and corroborating lines of investigation.

For you to think that one 15-year data set looking at one aspect of the puzzle, as miscommunicated by one guy on a radio(?) show could or should be interpreted as having any kind of scientific significance which would lead an objective and informed observer to conclude that: "there is certainly no catastrophe level warming taking place." is shocking evidence of your misapprehensions. Do you now not see how misinformed you have been, and just how sadly manipulated a victim of the climate misinformation brigade you are?

Neil Craig wrote :

"Do you accept Professor Jones' acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?"

"If the meaurements cannot be tweaked to show statistiocal significance enough to support a warming claim for 15 years, something which cannot honestly be denied, then there is certainly no catastrophe level warming taking place."

.

These two comments seem to show a disconnect between each other and the reality of the situation.

What we have is :

The original BBC question to Jones, which has been shown to contain a cherry-picked start date (originally suggested by Lindzen, if I remember correctly ?), cannot statistically/logically be answered because there aren't enough years in the sample to be able to determine a statistically significant trend. Simple as that.

However, Jones DID answer honestly and made a valiant attempt to explain why he had answered in the way he did, and why it wasn't possible to determine statistical significance using such a short time-period.

This has been further explained here and all over the internet and I don't believe there is any rational disagreement as to the veracity of such explanations.

However, it seems that some people (here, Neil Craig) cannot apparently grasp why there can be no statistical significance over a 15 year period, even though there IS still a warming trend. And, they seem to be unaware that that trend IS now statistically significant, or prefer to ignore it.
Why is that ? I am genuinely puzzled.

Anyway, Neil Craig's question can be answered very simply, although I'm sure many others have tried :

'Yes, Professor Jones' acknowledged in 2010 that there had been no statistically significant warming from 1995 to 2009, because the time-period given wasn't long enough to be able to determine true statistical significance. However, this year (2011), Professor Jones has now stated that the warming IS statistically significant, because the trend is positive (as it was when he answered in 2010) and there are now enough years to determine the statistical significance of such a trend. Do you accept Professor Jones's updated acknowledgement ?'

JM:

That was an articulate and lucid summary of the points which have been made numerous times on this and other fora regarding this most heinously mined of quotes.

I predict Beil will simply not read it, call you a "fashiss thoeffing parzite" and declare his question still unanswered.

Sit back and enjoy!

Don't let yourselves be goaded, folks. Direct the confused to skepticalscience.com, or invite them to join you in constructing an argument tree (e.g. at wrangl.com)

("once and only once" is the programmer's mantra; it's a good one.)

2 questioners making actual contributioms.

Both of you used the phrase "cherry opicked" to describe the choice of 1995. That is quite wromg and as I explained elsewhere that fact that it was not cherry picked was probably why Jones felt he had to actually answer. 1998 was the warmest year and had that been chosen the correct answer would be that there had been net cooling since (to what level of "significance" I don'y know but you can see it on a graph - that is why only very high levels of significance have validity).

However if there has been a marginal warming, well within historic parameters that does not affect my main point - "If the meaurements cannot be tweaked to show statistiocal significance enough to support a warming claim for 15 years, something which cannot honestly be denied, then there is certainly no catastrophe level warming taking place."

I don't see how I could make it much plainer that there is a differecne between minor warming and catastrophic warming. The answer to #1, if it means anything, is an acknowledgement that the apparent warming is so slight that it cannot reasonably be taken as ecvidence of catastrophe. I look forward to answers 2 - 7.

Ginger your statement that a 15 year term is too short to count gives away the entire warmist case. The alarmists graphs have regularly started at 1979 - 16 years earlier than 1995. Unless 16 has some mystical significance missing from 15 that means they have no basis for their claims. All the moreso since 1979 most definitely is a "cherry picked" year. Up till then the ecofascists, including Hansen, had been saying we had to stop burning because it was producing a cooling trend.

-----------------
Having answered you politely perhaps you might now courteously acknowledge that the use of lies, ad homs and obscenities by alarmist "scientists", as repeatedly demonstrated on "scieneceblogs" is incompatible with respect for science.

------------------
Wow nothing of what I said of you is obscene. It isn't even ad hom because the fact that you, Skip and others have repeatedly proven yourselves liars etc and that it has proven impossible to find even 1 alarmist not being paid for it, is very relevant to whether anything you say can be believed.

"Both of you used the phrase "cherry opicked" to describe the choice of 1995. That is quite wromg "

No, it was quite right:

Richard Lindzen: Look at the attached. There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995. Why bother with the arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998? (Incidentally, the red fuzz represents the error âbarsâ.)

Best wishes,

Dick

So you see, the date was CHOSEN out of all the others to produce a required result.

Cherry picking:
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

So you see, it's correct: the 1995 WAS a cherry-pick.

"there is a differecne between minor warming and catastrophic warming"

There is. Why do you keep obsessing over "catastrophic", though?

"then there is certainly no catastrophe level warming taking place."

Again with your marcarbe absorption by catastrophes. YOU and other denialists are the only ones banging on all the time about catastrophic warming.

"The alarmists graphs have regularly started at 1979 - 16 years earlier than 1995."

Yup, alarmists like you and fellow denialist celebrity Roy Spencer.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Why does that graph start in 1979? Because that's when the Satellite was put up into space.

"Unless 16 has some mystical significance missing from 15 that means they have no basis for their claims."

Unless you're lying out your arse again with the temperature trends starting from 1979, of course.

Oh, look! You WERE! Whatasurprise.

"Wow nothing of what I said of you is obscene."

You mean apart from the "the stock in trade4 of all the lying thieving fascist parasites here." girly-scream you keep parading around here. Apart from that, you mean.

Oh, and this:

"repeatedly proven yourselves liars etc"

When you've never yet managed to do anything other than scream "LIAR" like the drama queen you are to show your "proven".

Skip and others have repeatedly proven yourselves liars . . .

I will ask this other question for approximately the fourth time.

Can you document *one* lie, by me or anyone else on this forum?

You actually have to *quote* the lie--i.e., the way Marco and I quoted and documented *your* lie about King's nonexistent statement about Antarctica being the only habitable land by 2100.

Neil, you have to document a claim to a lie, or you are the liar.

I couldn't resist. A video which shows how to deal with people like Biel Roaig:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLEo7H9tqSM&feature=player_embedded

I regret neither of the people who made reasonable arguments have felt able to dissociate themselves for the wholly corrupt lying fascists obscenities, Wow and Skip here. That even the rational among alarmists cannot bring themselves to denounce liars shows how corrupt the movement is.

I'll ask for the *sixth* time, Neil:

Can you document--that is, directly *quote*--a single lie by anyone on this forum who has debated with you?

(In other words, a lie like yours regarding King's nonexistent Antarctica quote.)

You can't just say "corrupt lying fascists obscenities" or some such stupidity. You have to quote the "lie" directly.

Neil Craig, do you accept Professor Jones's updated acknowledgement concerning the confirmed statistical significance of the positive temperature trend ?

"I regret neither of the people who made reasonable arguments"

Ah, the old "I'm *trying to be reasonable and not call people in a heap but you're all a bunch of lying ecofacist thieves!!!!" gambit.

They've made the same arguments as all others have here. Ones you then ignored and complained that nobody was answering you after they posted.

And you;re the one banging on about catastrophes and worldwide conspiracies.

But projection is a necessary technique to someone as vile and unpleasant a personality as yourself, whiney. After all, if everyone else is a lying scumbag, then you're no worse than the next man, right?

Does he agree that the trend even at the time was positive, JM?

He won't answer, though, he'll just go "you're all lying scum whereas I've never insulted ANYONE".

Neil,

1)Your conclusion that no catastrophic warming could be taking place was dependent on your faulty premise that no significant warming was taking place. I explained why your premise was unfounded. Are you still insistent that catastrophic warming can not be taking place?

2) I would like to ask you a question. I find that deniers all seem to have a mental blind spot, against which they erect a blockade of obfuscating distractions, often based on a reliance on various temperature measurements which seem to them to contradict the idea of global warming. If they do not see linear temperature increases, they conclude that the case for warming is disproved.

My hypothesis is that this fallacious dialectic of deniers is based on a lack of appreciation of the difference between heat and temperature. Neil, are you confident that you know the difference between the two terms?

My point, which I admit is pet, is that there is a smoking gun in the warming debate. And that is the undeniable evidence of the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration, which is in stoichemical equivalence to the amount predicted by simple calculation of the amount of fossil fuels burned by humanity over the past 200 years.

So, we have increasing CO2 levels, which are increasing, as predicted according to stoichemical mathematics. This CO2, we know by undeniable physical chemistry, MUST increase the amount of *heat* (not temperature)radiated back onto land, sea, and sky. As you no doubt are aware, neither matter or heat can be destroyed. So, my question to you is: Where do you think all this enormous amount of extra heat is going, if not to cause global warming?

It seems to me to be foolish beyond measure to quibble about a small temperature anomaly here or there, when your first and real task, if you want to dispute AGW, is to explain how a constant and enormous injection of extra heat into the geosystem will NOT result, eventually, into increased temperatures. You have untold gazzillions of kcals to account for. Do you think they magically just disappear? Do you have a proposed mechanism to explain where they go?

It is completely and thoroughly not surprising that all this heat will NOT result in immediate and linear *temperature* increases on land, sea, and sky. The Earth is a dynamic system which buffers such increases in complicated ways. But make no mistake - that indestructible *heat* is constantly accumulating. As a denier, it is your responsibility to explain why that heat can not increase temperatures eventually, because the laws of physics demand that they MUST do so.

So, you've got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy - I mean, Neil. What is your explanation for where that heat goes?

Ginger

1) I am still insistent that the catastrophic warming, 20 ft sea level rise, disapperance of snow, spread of tropical diseases, hundreds of millions of climate refugees, riding out of the 4 horsemen and Antarctica becoming the only habitable continent are not visibly happening. Not even 25% of the way to visibly happening as they would be if the theory were true.

That there may be some questionable evidence that you have (or had 16 years ago) a mouse in your backyard is not absolute proof it is going to turn into an elephant.

2) Have you noticed nay "blind spots" among eco-Nazis (I assume since you use the term "denier" you don't mind me using its reciprocal).

I know nobody on the sceptical side who disputes the rise in CO2. However even alarmist calculations show that this would producev a rise of only about 01,-0.6 C - the rest being the assumptionn of numerous positive feedbacks and no negative ones. An assumption for which not only is there no evidence but the actual evidence (eg that the Medieval warming did not result in a runaway effect) stronlhy suggests feedbacks are mainly negative. If you have evidence that the Medieval Warming really did result in Earth developing a runaway greenouse effect making the planet uninhabitable I would really like to see it - if you haven't stop ppretending this is scientific.

As regards the "where does the heat go" claim - you may not be aware of it but the surface of the Earth is very thin, proportionately thinner than the paint on a beachball. If Al Gore and realclimate arec to be trusted it is millions of degrees even a couple of miles down. Obviously they aren't but it is 10s of thouands further down and there is 4,000 miles of it to the centre. The idea that a variation of a degree or 2 in the atmosphere would destabilise all that is clearly loony.

I not, with regert, that neither of you have been willing to dissociate yourselves from the out and out loonies.

On the where does the heat go line I have just read this

âNASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earthâs atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASAâs Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASAâs Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.â http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmis…

On the where does the heat go line I have just read this

âNASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earthâs atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASAâs Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASAâs Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.â http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmis…

"reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing"

The journal may have peer reviews, this does not mean the paper has been peer reviewed.

Funny how all the IPCC models are automatically wrong and fail to include enoiugh "stuff" to be useful, but Roy's simplistic model that doesn't include anywhere near the same number of factors and, overall, is an exercise in curve fitting (which is ripe for GIGO), which is great for interpolating between points WITHIN the set fitted against, but has no predictive powers in and of itself, is for Niel, absolutely right.

"20 ft sea level rise"

Which isn't predicted to have happened yet.

Funny, isn't it: that the future hasn't happened yet is, for whiner here, proof that the prediction about the future is wrong.

"disapperance of snow, "

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110324104143.htm

Oh, look, it's happening.

"2. However even alarmist calculations show that this would producev a rise of only about 01,-0.6 C"

You're really set on calling people alarmist when you don't like what they say.

Yes, for a 32% increase you'd get about 0.6-1.6C warming. Then after another 32% increase you'd get another 0.6-1.6C warming. Then after another 32% increase...

After a while, whatever value you'd put on "catastrophic warming", you'd reach it.

It's called "mathematics". Learn some.

"If Al Gore and realclimate arec to be trusted it is millions of degrees even a couple of miles down."

Snrk. If you believe the denialists like Plimer, ClimateRealists et al, you'd believe the sun is made of iron!

"The idea that a variation of a degree or 2 in the atmosphere would destabilise all that is clearly loony."

However, a TREND of 2C increase in the atmosphere will, at some point get to a temperature that will destabilise the climate. Refusal to admit this is lunacy.

PS Note the name of the piece:

nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

See how the denialists are stickers for accuracy!

1) It was NASA data, not NASA's paper. Roy Spencer isn't NASA

2) It doesn't blow a gaping hole in Global Warming theory, even Roy grudgingly admits it doesn't disprove the IPCC claims

3) The dogwhistle "alarmism". Apparently, telling people "Saddam has weapons of Mass Destruction" isn't alarmism. Telling people "Muslim extremists are trying to blow up planes" isn't alarmism, but saying "If we continue like this, we're going to destabilise the climate with disasterous consequences for our current way of life" is alarmism. The only apparent difference seems to be that if it's backed up by solid data and is accurate, then it's alarmism.

. . . Antarctica becoming the only habitable continent . . .

Having told a big lie you keeping repeating it, Neil.

Who's the real Nazi, Joseph Geobbels?

I not, with regert, that neither of you have been willing to dissociate yourselves from the out and out loonies.

Perhaps we simply prefer to align ourselves along lines of spelling and grammar competence. I not, with regert, indeed.

I note with regret that Neil Craig cannot answer the following question, that has now been put to him three times :

Do you accept Professor Jones's updated acknowledgement concerning the confirmed statistical significance of the positive temperature trend ?

Over on the 'Another Week of GW News, July 24 2011' thread, at post #1 on 28 July at 10:23AM, Copernic posted a link to a paper by Roy Spencer from a Forbes article. Here is the link again:

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmis…

On that same day - 28 July 2011 - at 5:43PM, I posted the reaction from real climate scientists about the so-called paper that was so bad it could not get published in any reputable journals. It was rejected by journal after journal, but was finally published in 'Remote Sensing' - which not speak well for the integrity of the climate science in the paper.

The overall reaction of climate scientists to the Spencer paper is best summed up in this quote:

â....mainstream climate scientists dismissed the research as unrealistic and politically motivated....â

Even Roy Spencer himself said this about the paper:

â....Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming....â

Despite all this occurring on 28 July, the clueless one - Biel Craig - finally found out about the paper the next day (I have to wonder - does he even read other posts before he writes his illiterate nonsense?), and posted a link on 29 July at 4:09AM (#59) to a "Yahoo" news story about the paper.

Well done there Beil! Not only are you so oblivious that you were one day late with your comments re a paper that had already been linked and debunked, but you are so totally clueless that you couldn't even find a link to the paper itself. Obviously you didn't read the paper (as skip has pointed out - you have NEVER read a science paper in your life), instead relying on an on-line news source for your entire opinion. But I guess that's modus operandi for a birther who got his opinion on that issue from WingNutDaily isn't it?

I wonder what Biel makes of this quote that he himself provided (twice it seems!):

"...The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed...."

Let's just assume for one minute that the paper hasn't already been debunked and that it is 100% accurate. If climate change isn't happening as deniers like Biel like to claim, why does the study and the study author agree that it is? Because there is zero doubt that is the case. They say anthropogenic CO2 IS causing the globe to warm and the climate to change - just that it is less than what others predict.

So go on Biel. It is your link (a day late). You obviously think the study is accurate (even though you haven't read it and wouldn't understand it if you did). So I guess you now accept the fact that the climate is changing huh?

"telling people "Saddam has weapons of Mass Destruction" isn't alarmism"

No Wow it was alarmism. Moreobver it was false alarmism, like the false Antarctica claim, the evacuated south sea islnads claim, the 20 ft sea level rise claim, the global cooling claim and indeed all the others made by "environmentalists" over the last 50 years. Alarmism is not inherently a bad thing, only false alarmism. Knowing that your alarmism is false is the only reason you could have for objecting to the term.

JM I have not duplicated his calculation so I cannot say. Have you? If not have you any absolute proof that the man who admitted distoring to "hide the decline" and therefore represenmts the highest standard of climate alarmist science is, this time, being infinitely more honest than previously?

Mandas the climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. I challenge you either to link to where I said it had stopped 30 years ago or to apologise for suggesting I had. Obciously if you are remotely honest you will do one or the other anmd obviously if you don'tthen evert alarmist with any honesty will denmonce you for it.

As every single "environmentalist" with any trace of honesty has previously done, thereby proving that there is not a single "environmentalist" who is not a wholly corrupt, lying, thieving piece of filth.

like the false Antarctica claim,

You were the only one who made a false Antarctica claim.

the man who admitted distoring to "hide the decline"

When you cited this you did not even know the difference between instrumental record and tree ring proxies.

link to where I said it had stopped 30 years ago or to apologise

Mandas never said that.

there is not a single "environmentalist" who is not a wholly corrupt, lying, thieving piece of filth.

To live in your mind must be torture. At this point you are reduced to a fascinating case study in lunacy.

I'll repeat the unanswered questions, Beil:

Have you ever written and published a research article?
Have you ever read a research article?
Where *in quotes* did I or anyone else on this forum lie? (You have to *quote* it, not invent it in your mind as you just did with Mandas.)

And the King non-quote is really the highlight of your depravity.

Neil, King *never* said what you claimed. Never. And here you are demanding an apology for something *Mandas* never said.

What happened to you? Did someone put paint chips in your haggis when you were a boy?

Neil Craig wrote : "JM I have not duplicated [Phil Jones's] calculation so I cannot say."

OK, could you show how you duplicated Phil Jones's previous calculation, so that you were able to agree with (and keep re-posting) his assertion that the warming at that time could not logically be statistically significant ?

"like the false Antarctica claim"

YOU made that false claim, Neil. YOU! I guess that makes you a "wholly corrupt, lying, thieving piece of filth" by your own standards.

Ahh, the pinnacle of climate science discussion by the worlds foremost Eco warriors.

I can hardly wait 'til next weeks saga begins.

JM @ 70:

LOL.

Nice one. I am quite sure Beil doesn't even understand your question.

And you know what, Paul?

Do you think Neil deserves "better" treatment than the responses he's getting?

What's your honest opinion of Neil's arguments?

Please, Paul. Just like my similar question regarding Crakar, I am asking you to render your personal assessment of the quality of Neil Craig and his . . . . "arguments".

"King non-quote is really the highlight of your depravity"

I think, in my lifetime. I have managed a little more depravity than correctly quoting the British Government's Chief Science Advisor.

JMurphy petrhaps you could first provide a link to the peer reviewed publication of Jones' latest recalculation. After all if I am being asked to accept that he has got it right this time it must have been peer reviewed and those saying so must have read it mustn't they. Mustn't it? It would also answer the anonymous Skip's little question.

I have managed a little more depravity than correctly quoting correctly quoting the British Government's Chief Science Advisor

How many Glasgow sheep were involved?

Neil, as I said before:

King never said Antarctica would be the only habitable land by 2100.

You are repeating this stupidity over and over and over and it just shows the improbable melange of witlessness and dishonesty that is your personality.

skip,

Isn't it really irrelevant?
Does it really change what is happening?
What is unfolding in reality?

Is the actual temperature record not available in any number of formats for any person wishing to look?

Consider it a compliment that I value your opinion on the matter.

Neil Craig, you are not making sense, I'm afraid.

First you seem to accept that Phil Jones's original statement (which you keep re-posting) is correct, and you keep asking whether everyone else agrees with it.

Then you say that you can't agree with Phil Jones's subsequent statement because you haven't made the calculations to prove it to yourself - implying, obviously, that you HAVE made the calculations for the original statement.

Finally, you can't provide those calculations but, instead, ask for information concerning the subsequent statement, including peer-review sources - even though the original statement, like the subsequent one, was a simple statement of statistical fact.

Can you actually back up your original assertion concerning Phil Jones's original statement, by providing the calculations you used to prove it to yourself, or can't you ?
Simple question, which requires a simple answer. Can you provide the information or not ?

"skip,

Isn't it really irrelevant?
Does it really change what is happening?"

Can I ask whether your concerns answer the above queries?

If we treat Whiney McWhiner with the contempt he demonstrably deserves, is it really relevant? Does it change what's happening? If not, why complain?

"Moreobver it was false alarmism, like the false Antarctica claim"

Yup, that claim YOU made was false.

"the evacuated south sea islnads claim"

That claim is yours and false. There HAVE been evacuations. A burning building isn't safe because people are only BEING evacuated and haven't all left yet.

"the 20 ft sea level rise claim"

If Greenland and the WAIS melt, there will be a 7m sea level rise. The claim of 20ft is, in imperial measures, correct.

"Knowing that your alarmism is false is the only reason you could have for objecting to the term."

Hence all your alarmism about how it's a conspiracy, Whiner?

I guess that YOU don't like YOUR alarmism and therefore project that onto everyone else, just like all your other character defects.

"JM I have not duplicated his calculation so I cannot say."

So you duplicated his earlier calculation? Or can you not say and that's why you're asking?

"that the man who admitted distoring to "hide the decline" "

Since you don't know what that means, how do you know it has any pertinence here?

"the climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years."

And the reasons for that is in climate science. The same causes for that changing climate demonstrate the fact of AGW.

Just because forest fires were started by lightning thousands of years before mankind doesn't mean arson doesn't exist.

"where I said it had stopped 30 years ago or to apologise for suggesting I had."

All over this thread you've said it's cooling since 1998. All over this thread you've said there's no warming since 1995.

"thereby proving that there is not a single "environmentalist" who is not a wholly corrupt, lying, thieving piece of filth."

And again proving your protestations that you NEVER use bad words to describe people, like everything else you say, false.

JMurphy I take it you are aware that Jones has not produced the alleged calculation that everybopdy is expected to accept as gospel - sight unseen. I do not see why I or anybody else should do so.

Your point about being equally accepting of everything he says has a superficial attraction. However thinking about it you will see that, human beinges being what they are, it is reasonable to assume that when somebody says something not their advantage they have no reason to lie but when they say something to their advantage they might be.

If you do not accept that you presumably think that because it is generally believed George Bush when he acknowledged being President he must therefore be assumed to have been telling the truth about Iraq's WMDs. I disagree.

Skip you have deliberately altered what you claim I said in your "quotation" duplicating a phrase. I assume such dishonesty is also something you learned while publishing "peer reviewed" climate lies in "the finest journals".

PaulineM - indeed - if we were visibly 15% of the way to catastrophic warming and Antarctica being the only habitable continent then the hypothesis would be proved. We aren't, not even close and so it isn't, not even close.

Wow your claim that King never made the Antarctica claim is clearly a lie. As is the evacuated south sea islands one. I assume everything else is but couldn't be bothered.

Whiner, you've managed to accept Jones' earlier work. Why not now?

Because it doesn't conform to the story you'd like to be true.

So you ignore it.

And it's rather ironic, though you're too dumb to notice, that your whining about Skip rewording your claim is actually in response to your revisionism of skip's claims.

"if we were visibly 15% of the way to catastrophic warming"

That would make it 5 1/3 C degrees of warming for catastrophic warming. At that temperature change, last time, the ice caps were nonexistent and the sea levels 50-80m higher than they are today.

So we ARE at 15% of the way to catastrophic warming. Yet still you whinge that it hasn't happened yet. Wonder why you're still in denial.

"your claim that King never made the Antarctica claim is clearly a lie."

You were the one lying, whiner. The paper doesn't claim what you claimed and that's been proven in the Open Thread.

I guess you don't ever get tired of lying. After all, you probably consider yourself on a Holy Crusade.

Greenland and the WAIS melt, there will be a 7m sea level rise. The claim of 20ft is, in imperial measures, correct.

Neil Craig, as others have pointed out and shown here (and as I have now realised), you are posting a stream of incomprehensible and bizarre assertions, and it is obvious that you cannot answer the questions I have asked of you, seeking more information as to how you have arrived at some of your beliefs.
Fine. I hope it is obvious to all reading - if there are many left - that you are going round in circles, avoiding having to explain yourself or back-up your beliefs. That is a good definition of being in denial.

human beinges being what they are, it is reasonable to assume that when somebody says something not their advantage they have no reason to lie but when they say something to their advantage they might be.

The finest example of projection Beil has produced to date.

So, back to Paul in MI:

Paul, I will make this more concrete for and invite you to look at this quote by Beil:

Skip you have deliberately altered what you claim I said in your "quotation" duplicating a phrase.

Here is a perfect example of Beil at his best.

What do *you*, Paul, think of his claim? Did Beil distort, or did I?

Again, Paul, I genuinely value your opinion on this.

JMurphy I am still awaiting your link to Jones' peer reviewed publication of his new calculations, which you wished me to accept sight unseen. That or your acknowledgement that it doesn't exist.

Hope that is simple enough for you to understand.

Wow's contention that 15% of Greenland, the Himalayas, Antarctica has melted clearly represents the very highest standard of accuracy to which any alarmist aspires.

And of course, no attempt to answer the simple questions which would be easily answerable if alarmism wasn't a deliberate fraud.

Neil I am still awaiting your link to any statement on this thread in which I or anyone on it "lied". That or your acknowledgement that it doesn't exist.

Hope that is simple enough for you to understand.

Your contention that King said Antarctica would be the only habitable land by 2100 clearly represents the very highest standard of accuracy to which any denier aspires.

And of course, no attempt to answer the simple questions which would be easily answerable if you weren't a deliberate fraud:

Have your ever published a research article?
Have you ever read a research article?

Neil Craig, can you explain why you blindly accepted Jones' prior statement of more than a year ago?

Wasn't in a peer reviewed science journal either...

I have twice done so Marco. I suggest you let somebody capable of teading to read & explain it to you.

Skip ditto.

I note none of the obscene, lying, thieving Nazi animals here who make up the alarmist movement believe, agter 88 posts, that it would be possible to answer the simplest question about alarmism without making it glaringly obvious that it is a deliberate fraud.

If you have twice done so, then putting a link to ONE of them will be easy, won't it.

Unless you've been lying again, you naughty little child.

"question about alarmism without making it glaringly obvious that it is a deliberate fraud."

Yes, your questions ARE a deliberate fraud.

somebody capable of teading . . .

LOL.

What a dumb ass.

And still no answer to:

Beil, have you ever "tead" a research article?

LOL.

91 posts - no attempt to answer.

It hardly seems necessaty to puty up a link but since Wow insists here it is.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2011/07/ever_wonder.php post 81

Now, before I answer5 any fufurther stupid questions, first lets have your5 apolofy for saying I hadn't Wow and for being a a lying thieving Nazi parasite. And denuciation of lying thieving Nazi parasites from other eco-Nazis.

LOL.

What sort of idiot links the very thread he is posting on?

The same idiot who allows himself to cherry pick his Jones quotations based on his knowledge of human beinges[sic] being what they are.

How does someone get so incomparably dumb?

If anyone wants to read my post again they can find it at

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2011/07/ever_wonder.php#c4720134

post number 93.

LOL.

Neil, stating that one is to his advantage and the other is not, is being outrageously stupid, especially since ANYONE CAN REPEAT HIS CALCULATION.

I had to scream, there, because you are clearly not capable to understand basic English (abundantly proven on two threads now).

Moreover, any normal person would think that someone who is willing to state something that is not to his advantage (I don't see why it would not be, it's not like he said something that was a shocker to anyone other but ideological idiots like you or Watts) is trustworthy in general on the same topic.

Oh now I get it.

Neil actually *was* being sarcastic, and I missed it. I instinctively doubted any such subtlety was possible from someone who refuses to "answer5 any fufurther" questions.

It might show a higher level of *mens rea* in his dishonesty than I might have previously acknowledged.

> Now, before I answer5 any fufurther stupid questions

I believe you meant

"Now, before I answer any questions"

Posts 91 and 93,
Skip - fucking legendary! I really did LOL at those! Classic!
While I acknowledge the efforts and supreme patience shown by all, this is surely officially now an exercise in futility. How can you rationalize with a madman?
Christ, he makes Richard Wakefield look like Albert frickin' Einstein . . .
Maybe ignore him for a few days and he'll take his soapbox and go shout his lunatic ravings on another street corner?

Well, if slowly, spotted Skip.

97 posts and no answers.

98 posts and you're still whining about the answers you've been given.

asThe broader issue is the politicization of the scientific review process. I have been dealing with this issue since the publication of my controversial paper in 2006. I have dealt with this by addressing the editor and telling them that I expect this paper to be controversial. I list examples of reviewers on both sides of the debate that have made public statements on the topic, and requested that they not be reviewers, and requested an extra effort to identify impartial reviewers. In my two most controversial papers (most recently the uncertainty monster paper, which is now in press), this has worked well.

Interesting spam above! I neutered it so I can leave it to comment on...

It is actually copied material from Judith Curry's blog, a very recent post, and though non seqitur here, it is generally on topic for the blog! Hard for a non-human to detect, isn't it? They get more and more devious.

Coby

We have been dealing with cut and pastes from denialist blogs for ages! It was the standard modus operandi of crakar.