A really good overview of all the extreme weather we have been seeing this last year from Greenman.
I'd say it is about time to say welcome to the new normal.
I heartily second Al Gore's call of "bullshit", that is what folks like Bastardi deal in, pure and simple.
When we have 15 years of no "significant" warming the alarmist "scientists" explain this is "weather not climate".
A few weeks of rain (or of dry) and they announce that is climate not weather.
Or they just revert to hurling obscenities or censorship.
When we actually get 15 years of significant cooling, then we have a cooling.
When some dumb fuck blathers on about 15 years of no significant warming, the dumb fuck doesn't know what he's on about.
0.12C warming is significant over 15 years.
Then again, neither facts nor shame have ever affected your asshattery, has it, Neil.
Did anyone else have a problem with the right border of the view video window? Right at the point where they were showing the follow up satellite data after Bastardi's dumbass prediction it was out of my view--truncated like Beil's frontal lobe.
Thanks for linking these, Coby. It almost makes up for not censoring Dumbshit.
Denialist troll is denialist.
Looks like Phil Jones needs to explain things again, for those who still can't seem to grasp the basics :
"The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.
"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.
"It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."
Once again Wow demonstrates the total contempt for both courtesy and honesty to which alarmist "peer reviewed scientists" published "in the finest journals", who I am told inhabit "scienceblogs" so obviously aspire.
LOL. What a dumbass.
Having spelled his own name correctly a stupendous three successive times--but exhausting his mental faculties in the process--Beil forgets who said what.
Hi all, I'd like your opinions on this video (from Jo Nova's site)
This is Dr Art Raiche, retired former Chief Research Scientist of Australia's CSIRO.
"We were given very strict, VERY strict guidelines on not publishing anything or publicly discussing any research that could be seen as critical to Government policy.If we did not do it, we would be subject to dismissal."
I dunno MoB. I idly googled this bloke. The first page came up with links to Bolt, Marohasy, 'nocarbontax', and someone fervently advocating more industry/ mining links between CSIRO and business interests. Nothing on this page refers to any neutral or professional publications.
Didn't bother with the video, I think I know where he's coming from.
Watched Raiche video. A guy who isn't a climate scientist citing other 'very smart' folks who also aren't, other than Lindtzen, climate scientists. He doesn't address how to account for any of the material issues that he uses to imply conclusions.
Until someone can explain the observed data with a simpler more comprehensive explanation that AGW via CO2, and its observable properties, we don't have a better tool.
Dyson doesn't offer an alternative- I've interviewed him personally. He just doesn't like modeling, except when he does it. And he doesn't do it outside of his field, and hasn't really even done that for some time. He, like the physicists chronicled in "Merchants of Doubt" has a strong 'free market' prejudice. Much of his dismissal of climate concern is based upon his belief - not the term he uses to describe it- that humans can invent themselves out of anything. He has no explanation for how 35% more C02 has no impact- he just doesn't think it does.
Lindtzen is more opposed to fear mongering and large societal policy based upon anything with so many variables, and admits that climate is changing. He doesn't have any alternative explanation for the observed date either, although he is eager to challenge others conclusions and interpretations. He has become a denialist darling, and it works for him professionally to do so. It isn't risking his job anymore than anyone at Princeton will fire Dyson for talking outside his discipline.
So Raiche misrepresents the 'risk' of these esteemed in their field people here. They are in less danger than Hansen is, of losing their positions.
Furthermore, the arguments against carbon tax- the occasion he is speaking at, are totally missing. In sum, this is a generalist presentation of a lightweight former non climate science manager speaking to a choir at a political rally. Yawn.
Is this what you are looking for Michael?
Michael. Do you think this contributes anything of interest that any semi-serious student of this debate hasn't already heard?
The first indicator of likely quality is the cheeseball presentation at a denialist tent-meeting, with the shrieking Amens and pentecostal cries of "where's the media?!) from the mob. Contrast this with the mentality and professionalism exhibited by, for example, the link by Greenman at the top of this thread.
Lacking as much in imagination as credibility, Raiche zombie cites all the trite denialist talking points: The climategate non-scandal, the vagary of whether scientists are predicting "catastrophic global warming", as well as name dropping the usual suspects of "deniers" (Dyson, Akasofu, Lindzen, none of whom doubt the fundamental premise and are on the fringes of the science as much in their qualifications as in their claims of lowered levels of climate sensitivity), the dipshit list of 700 "dissenters" from the Inhofe report (I summarized the problems with this garbage here
. . . and so on.
He provided no proof but his own certitude that the CSIRO had devolved into "a government enterprise". He admits he is not a climate scientist even as he provides no evidence of anti-AGW research ever being suppressed by CSIRO personnel. He mentions an economist being supposedly retaliated against for publishing a paper regarding indigenous species.
The question thus becomes: who the fuck is he and why the fuck should I care?
And how the hell important is CSIRO to the question of AGW in any event? An economist was allegedly sacked for publishing a paper regarding an indigenous species. . . what does this have to do with climate?
The only mildly interesting thing was he was obviously a Yank at an Aussie political rally but then he explained his change of citizenship.
There's a clue right there, Michael. He's a weak, weird dweeb and this is his chance to be somebody's hero. Its the apostate's gambit morphed with existential Munchausen's disease.
And finally, its not "evidence" per se, but how about the fact that he's just a frantic, goofy, twitchy, bizarre looking guy, Michael? Let me put it this way: Would you let this freak babysit your children?
Jeez, you're pretty defensive about it, and the ad homs are comin' thick 'n' fast. (where did the babysitting remark come from??)
I DO think it contributes to the debate because it's someone "in the know" making what I think is a pretty big statement.
I notice that your response, just like Patrick and Adelady has been to dismiss and ignore and ad hom, instead of perhaps acknowledging that a statement like that from a "former insider" like him carries a lot of weight with the general public.
The CSIRO is Australia's government scientific agency, and has always been greatly respected and trusted in providing scientific information to the Australian Government.
The Department of Climate Change gets it's info directly from the CSIRO. (well, that's how it's supposed to work)
If someone has to be a climate scientist to have any credibility with you, then you might be interested to know that The Commissioner of The Dept. Of Climate Change is Prof. Tim Flannery. He is a Biologist/Paleontologist. (he also is a firm believer in Gaia)
The current Labor Party government also forms it's policies on "tackling climate change" from Prof. Ross Garnaut. He is an Economist, and his Report recommended the Carbon Tax.
The stated aim of the carbon tax is to reduce Australia's carbon "output" by 5% of 1990 levels by the year 2020. Make sure you read that bit carefully... To reduce the carbon produced in 1990 by 5%!
Here's more info in case you're interested.
Patrick, I don't know your location, but in case you are not aware, Australia has a population of around 22million. Reducing our carbon footprint by 5percent over a time span of 30 years is really quite pointless don't you think?
We are constantly being told that this is an emergency.
How can reducing Australia's output of CO2 by such a teensy tiny amount "tackle climate change". (to quote our prime minister's regular script)
The Labor Party holds government by a hairs breadth.
I'd say the opinion of the general public about this issue is fairly important to them so they can stay in government, introduce a carbon tax, and halt climate change. (the phrase "halt climate change" is becoming more and more common in the media too)
"How can reducing Australia's output of CO2 by such a teensy tiny amount "tackle climate change". "
This is the same argument as 'I am only one voter out of 10 million. Why should I vote?' Do you subscribe to this, too?
Skip is both a "peer reviewed" climate "scientist" published in "the finest journals" and an obscene, lying fascist parasite lacking the slightest trace of personal honestyand incapable of making a scientific case rather than ad hioms.
So tell us Skip - how do you spell your name?
And is there anybody, among the thieving fascists making their living out of scaremongering who is to close to honest to have you as his "peer".
Neil, the idiot, thinks I claimed to be a climate scientist. I never did.
Michael: I only made *one* ad hom--his freakish appearance and persona, and that is in reference to explaining what would motivate him to do this other than being an "insider", which is just a claim. Everything else in my post is substantive. (His sources, "climategate", his "evidence" of "government takeover" at CSIRO. If you challenge me on any of them let me know. Otherwise your claim that its all *ad hom* is empty.)
And since you feel the need to defend Raiche, who is the one being "defensive"?
And since you feel the need to point out Flannery's alleged belief in Gaia, who is attacking *ad hom*?
One thing I have learned in this climate debate is that you can always find someone who will claim anything. The question simply revolves around the credibility of the claim.
Raiche at this point is nothing more than a guy claiming to have inside knowledge of a conspiracy for which he offers no proof. At this point he's just one more guy claiming to know who was on the Grassy Knoll from an uncle who did time with a guy in prison.
Richard the answer to your question is no. I have been an eager voter in every election since I turned 18. (in 1986) I have always considered myself a swinging voter and have voted for both the liberal (Labor Party) and conservative (Liberal Party) sides of Australian politics. I cannot stand it when people boast that they can't be bothered voting or deliberately donkey vote.
Perhaps you can cherry pick/copy/paste another of my sentences and try me out on that?
Skip, I never said your post was "all" ad hom. Where did I say that?
I was only pointing out the positions and qualifications of Mr Garnaut and Mr Flannery, because, I think, you implied that someone who is not a climate scientist has no credibility with you.
You said the question "revolves around the credibility of the claim", yet you haven't addressed the claim at all, only the man. (isn't that the definition of ad hom?)
Would you humor me for a moment and take away all the "personalities" and address Raiche's claim?
(I don't think you will, but I'm hoping you'll surprise me)
MoB "I was only pointing out the positions and qualifications of Mr Garnaut and Mr Flannery, because, I think, you implied that someone who is not a climate scientist has no credibility with you."
Not exactly. There's a big difference between these non climate scientists and the Raiches of the world. Namely that Garnaut, Stern and others explicitly state that they are not climate experts and
they _accept_ the conclusions of scientists and their professional organisations.
Raiche would be horrified if Flannery or Garnaut or any other inexperienced, unqualified person tried to critique Raiche et al's conclusions, methods and models in http://geophysics.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/10/1618. But he thinks it's OK for radio announcers, journalists, biologists or any and every other Joe Bloggs to contradict physicists, oceanographers, rocket/ satellite scientists, glaciologists and other experts in climate fields.
and the ad homs are comin' thick 'n' fast. -- Michael
Ok, granted, you didn't say *all*.
Ad stole my thunder on the rest.
But this is a recurring theme, Michael: You shoot from the hip with some link and in essence ask us our view to see if anything sticks.
I'll rephrase my response to Raiche thus:
What, Michael, do you think was his most compelling argument in his speech?
Ok Skip, I'll clarify again, and further.
IF Dr Raiche is whom he says he is,
IF he held the position of Chief Research Scientist for the CSIRO,
IF he hadn't been unlucky enough to have been born "frantic", "bizarre looking", "goofy" and "twitchy", (mind boggling statement, that!)
then, isn't a pretty big call to make??
To suggest that the Australian Government's Scientific agency was "dictated to"??
To clarify even further, the quote that I gave in post 8, IS the most compelling "argument" in his speech in my opinion.
I realise, and I hope you do too, that in this speech he is not "creating an argument" in the sense that I suspect you mean it. I think he is making a statement.
Based on his position and standing, I think the statement is a pretty big one.
I hope I have been clear.
Adelady, isn't is plausible, and even possible that if he's making such a statement about the "culture" within the CSIRO, that that same culture and dictation could apply to ALL fields of science within the CSIRO? (including climate science, to be clear)
By the way, he does indeed state at the beginning of the speech that he isn't a climate scientist. (it's in the first 20 seconds)
"One thing I have learned in this climate debate is that you can always find someone who will claim anything. The question simply revolves around the credibility of the claim."
Certainly you follow your own example & those of the ecofascists Skip. While it is certainly true that they have produced hundreds of scaremongering "environmental" stories, some like Hansen playing both sides of the warming and cooling frauds. All of which have proven untrue. However I would challennge you to prove any real sceptical scientist who has asserted something untrue relating to these scares and benfited.
Actually I challenge you to show any sceptical scientist who has personally benefited from being found to have told the truth about any eco fraud.
Let me point out a few facts to MoB and anyone else who cares about the processes within the Australian Government about climate change and other scientific issues, because â unlike MoB â I actually do know what goes on, since that is exactly what I do for a living.
First of all, there is absolutely no doubt that the Australian Public Service and many other government and semi-government organisations have become politicised over the past decade or so â and for probably much longer than that. Bu that has nothing to do with the issue here and Raiche's claims to that effect are just statements of the bleeding obvious. Organisations are NOT permitted to publish material which is critical of government policy, but then, that does NOT mean that organisations are not permitted to publish scientific findings which run counter to the status quo. On the contrary, it is encouraged. Organisations are just not permitted to publish anything which is specifically critical of policy decisions. But why should that surprise anyone?
In the case of the CSIRO, it is one of the most respected scientific organisations in the world, and it is the view of the organisation and every single RELEVANT scientist working for it that climate change is real, that it is caused by humans, and that is a significant threat to the ecosystem and human society. Let me make that clear. EVERY SINGLE RELEVANT SCIENTIST WORKING FOR THE CSIRO HAS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AGW.
The CSIRO is semi-government scientific organisation. It does not make policy decisions. But it provides advice on scientific matters to the relevant government bodies. In this case, it is the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (plus others). That Department provides advice to Government on policy matters. In doing so, they seek the advice of other departments and other experts (such as the CSIRO) on matters that require expert input.
Ross Garnaut is a Professor of Economics and the Australian National University. He was commissioned by the government to provide advice on the economic impacts of climate change, and to recommend economic mechanisms to deal with climate change. In doing so, he sought the opinions of experts in the subject, since he is not a climate scientist. That, of course, is the only proper course for someone who is not an expert â to ask someone who actually knows what they are talking about (and that is obviously not the course of action adopted by idiotic deniers with no science education and who think they know more than the experts). Garnaut did not âmake upâ an opinion on climate change; he simply accepted the advice of experts like the CSIRO. And he used that information in order to provide advice to government based on his economic expertise â expertise which is universally acknowledged by all sides of politics I might add.
Finally, I am fascinated by these claims that governments are directing that the CSIRO (or others) only publish material or that they only give funding to scientists who agree with climate change. Why the fuck would they do that, because it is AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF GOVERNMENTS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE TO BE REAL. Policies to mitigate climate change are unpopular, and they have cost every single Australian politician who has attempted to do something about it â just ask Rudd, Turnbull or Gillard. It would be in the Governmentâs interest to suppress or discredit scientific research that supports climate change, not vice versa.
Thatâs why this argument that alternative viewpoints are suppressed or unfunded is so fucking idiotic. But I guess thatâs just par for the course for your average denier and why I will never call them âscepticâ; they simply are not sceptical of their own claims.
Hey Mandas, thank you sincerely for writing all that. I do appreciate the time you've put into your reply.
Was I wrong in what I wrote about the roles of the CSIRO and the Dept.?
Is the CSIRO a Semi-Government organisation like, for example, a hospital? (especially the way hospitals are here in Queensland)
I'd like to know, because it seems I've had the wrong impression all these years about the roles the various agencies play.
In your first paragraph, you say "this is exactly what I do for a living", but I'm sorry, I'm not quite clear.
Without being too specific of course, what is your role?
Are you with the CSIRO or the government or another semi-government agency?
I still don't understand why someone like Dr Raiche would say such things if they weren't true? Is there some way he can benefit from that now that he's retired?
Perhaps as a possible "insider" yourself, you could write to him and ask him why he would make such ridiculous, outlandish and harmful claims?
Surely someone of your standing could at least try?
I'd really like to know what he says, because I think this issue is something of great importance to all readers here.
(I think instead you will reply with a "why should I bother", or a "there's no point"... or words to that effect.... Although I'm happy to be proven wrong.)
First of all, I work for a Commonwealth Government Department associated with the environment. My role is mainly is mainly supervisory and policy development, which means I provide advice to the Minister on the areas under my specific field of responsibility â which is in degraded area rehabilitation and in the relationship between the Commonwealth and State Parks and Wildlife organisations. I also have a secondary task to do related research to support the development of policy papers on issues related to my role. I work a lot with organisations like the CSIRO, universities, and the various state government agencies. I do limited part time work for the University of Adelaide and some of the conservation and resource agencies in South Australia such as the Conservation Council and the Natural Resource Management Boards.
Now, on to the specifics of your question and the supposed âclaimsâ of Dr Raiche.
Firstly, you need to understand who Dr Raiche is. A âChief Research Scientistâ is just a position in the hierarchy , and it is not the head of the organisation â far from it. It just means he was the head of a group of researchers. His main expertise is geophysics, not climate science - as he stated in the video - and consequently he knows no more than me about climate science and his views carry no more weight. You need to understand that â HE KNOWS NO MORE THAN ME AND HIS VIEWS ON CLIMATE SCIENCE CARRY NO MORE WEIGHT THAN MINE.
Regarding the CSIRO. It is a semi-government organisation in that, while it is not a government department, it receives a large part of its funding from the government and a lot of its output is to support government activities. Of course, it does a lot for industry as well, as well as receiving direct research funding from industry for the tasks it undertakes on its behalf.
If you listen to the video (I assume you have), I have to ask you what he says that in anyway throws doubt on the science of climate change? All he really did was to have a rant about the management approach of the CSIRO, and how it was supposedly taken over by management consultants. Thatâs the sort of thing you hear every day in every organisation from old fogies over the coffee machine when they complain about how good it used to be in the old days and how things are so much worse today. Itâs just old bastards complaining and most of the time you just let them winge and take no notice.
His only take on climate change can be summed up in a couple of points:
â....The science is settled.....â No scientist claims it is. But then, every credible scientist thinks that the science of CO2 radiation âabsorptionâ is settled well enough to understand that it WILL affect climate.
â....Hacked emails.....â Really? That again?
âCO2 plays only a small part in climate.....â There isnât a scientist in the world who would agree with that idiotic claim.
â.....Sea level rise has been âdeceleratingâ in the latter part of the 20th century.....â Apart from the statistical errors on that paper, every single oceanographer states that it is the expected rise in the 21st century that is the problem, and that you donât work that out by doing a simple extrapolation of the rises over the past 50 years.
â....Tim Flannery bought a house on the Hawkesbury River...â It would be hard pressed to find a more cretinous argument than that.
â.....Scientists sit in their ivory towers and donât get their hands dirty by going into the field....â Fucking bullshit. The sort of statement I would expect from an old fool complaining about how things were different âin his dayâ.
â.....Lindzen, Spencer etc say different...â Actually no they donât. All these so-called sceptical scientists like Lindzen and Spencer agree that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming â they just disagree about the extent. And their views have been debunked over and over and over again. Only someone who doesnât know anything about the science â or who wants to put an ideological spin on the subject - would put any credibility in their claims.
â.....All of the CSIROâs claims about climate science are based on models, and models donât work....â Complete bullshit on both counts. The first is simply a lie and he knows it.
â....Why do they put disclaimers on all their reports....â Itâs standard practice for any government or semi-government organisation to do the same, and he knows it. He is being disingenuous.
So to sum up..... Dr Raiche has no more credibility on the subject of climate change than I do. He adds nothing to the debate, just regurgitating memes that have been discredited many times in the past. He has a winge about the culture of the CSIRO, but provides zero evidence for how this culture has supposedly caused the position of the organisation to be incorrect on the subject of climate change.
So there you go Mike â seems you have been proven wrong! Anything else?
Models don't work???
"One-dimensional earth models consisting of uniform horizontal layers are useful both as actual representations of earth structures and as host models for more complex structures... The final model is less dependent upon starting guesses, error bounds are much improved, and nonuniqueness is much less of a problem. These advantages are illustrated by interpretation of real field data as well as by a theoretical study of four different types of earth models."
For someone who doesn't believe in 'models', it's a bit weird to find four uses of the word models in the beginning and end of the abstract of a paper where the non-believer is the lead author. http://geophysics.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/10/1618
Why are videos more important to some people than scientific facts ? Would they also prefer scientific discourse to be conducted by video rather than by peer-reviewed papers ?
So nobody canm name a significant lie on the scientific sceptic side only barrowloads on the alarmist one.
So nobody canm name a significant lie on the scientific sceptic side . . . --Beil
*Scientific* skeptic side? No.
*Your* side yes: How about your lie about King's nonexistent Antarctica statement, Beil?
You are neither scientific nor skeptical, Beil.
This is the part of the forum I love: The cornered troll. Beil has no answer to this point because he bungled it so badly before. Now he will
1. bluster about eco-Nazis
2. repeat his mindless mantra about his 7 questions
3. ignore the point
4. fail to string together more than 6 words without a misspelling
Watch and learn, Michael. This is the mind of a dogmatic anti-science denier at work.
[Raiche] is not "creating an argument" in the sense that I suspect you mean it. I think he is making a statement.
"We were given very strict, VERY strict guidelines on not publishing anything or publicly discussing any research that could be seen as critical to Government policy.If we did not do it, we would be subject to dismissal."--Raiche
Based on his position and standing, I think the statement is a pretty big one.--Michael
No, Michael. It is a puny one:
1. He provides no evidence of manipulation of data/findings regarding climate change. None.
2. He provides no evidence of suppression of *any* ideas other than a secondhand allegation about a dismissal that followed a CSIRO scientist's publication regarding an indigenous species.
3. He does not even *claim* to have evidence for any suppression of data/findings regarding climate change.
He left that inference for his zealous audience. He mentioned climate change, then his former position, was careful to utter only vagaries, then let a credulous audience (sound like anyone you know, Michael?) fill in the desired dots on their own.
If there is moral to the story, Michael, it is that you always set yourself up for a beat down if you use a youtube clip of a partisan tent meeting as "evidence".
I equally hope I have been clear.
I'm just wondering, given some of the obviously mis-guided 'grenades' you toss in here from time to time, (in the apparent forlorn hope that somehow, something might make the science support your politics) did you ever get around to reading the first (admittedly long!) chapter of Pierrehumbert's thorough new text 'Principles of Planetary Climate' after I emailed you the draft?
You always struck me as so unlike the other 'skeptics' around here, willing to listen, admitting error and keen to learn. I know your background wasn't heavily scientific but did you not get a sense, over those 70-80 pages of how complex our planet's thermodynamic history is and how uniformly those principles could be applied across any sample planet, not just Earth? That the problem has little to do with weather? politics? These are principles of physics and have been elucidated for nigh on 150-200 years....
If not, I urge you to go back and READ this summary of REAL scientists' work to get a feel for just how complex the problem is, just how much we actually do know and where the uncertainties lie. Mandas, as always, has summed up beautifully the problems with Raiche's 'arguments' but then again, if you read samples from his weekly diatribe on The Australian's 'letters' pages you'd get a feel for his mis-guided angle on these matters.
So I appeal again to your honest inquisitivity. I know it's hard work but it will help answer a lot of stuff that arises here and give you a better light in which to re-read older posts.
Cheers, Matt (of Brisbane previously but who feels that with all this global warming Hobart's where the future lies :-)
"So nobody canm name a significant lie on the scientific sceptic side "
Pat Michaels funding from fossil fuels. Wegman and his plagiarism. Monckton and his HoL membership. McIntyre and his "The hockey stick is wrong". Ian Plimer and his iron sun. Anthony Watts and his surfacestations.org paper "any moment now". TTGWS in its entirety damn near.
"only barrowloads on the alarmist one."
Those people ARE the alarmist ones.
If you mean on the side of science rather than non-science, then we have. Um. A typo.
"Actually I challenge you to show any sceptical scientist who has personally benefited from being found to have told the truth about any eco fraud"
Well, that denialist would have to work in a different universe. There isn't for example, any eco fraud in the climate science of AGW. This would crimp the ability for anyone to make money talking of any "truth of eco fraud".
However, they don't get paid to tell the truth, so they tell lies instead.
Pat Michaels for example 40 million dollars. Monckton gets paid A LOT for his lectures on how climate change isn't a problem. The heartland institute spends a lot on behalf of their clients in the fossil fuel industry and they are making money (and pots of it) lying about AGW.
"Once again Wow demonstrates the total contempt for both courtesy and honesty"
Indeed. I've courteously and honestly called you a dumb fuck.
So nobody can name a significant lie on the scientific sceptic side only barrowloads on the alarmist one. At least not with any attempt at evidence.
Wow is, of course, lying - the hockey Stick was proven false; Monckton is a Lord, for whatever that is worth; Wegman's alleged plaigerism was doubtful, certainly not sufficiently clear or serious to have been mentioned had the ecofascists not been out to get him ; and irrelevent to his dissection of the alarmist lies to Congress. If the others are more than 10,000 times closer to truth than the very highest standard of honesty to which anybody in the ecofascist maovement aspires Wow would have been able to produce indisputable evidence. QED.
And once again he demonstrates the highest level of discussion of whuch any ecofascist is capable.
"So nobody can name a significant lie on the scientific sceptic side"
Pat Michaels funding from fossil fuels. Wegman and his plagiarism. Monckton and his HoL membership. McIntyre and his "The hockey stick is wrong". Ian Plimer and his iron sun. Anthony Watts and his surfacestations.org paper "any moment now". TTGWS in its entirety damn near.
"the hockey Stick was proven false;"
McI's was proven false. Wegman proved his false. Nobody's managed to prove Mann's false.
"Wegman's alleged plaigerism was doubtful"
It's CERTAIN. He's even admitted it himself (it was a student wot did it, he insists).
"Monckton is a Lord,"
He's not a member of the House of Lords. If you think this is not worth anything anyway, then HE thinks it very important. He's a denier like you and he lies seriously.
I notice that you haven't managed to do anything other than CLAIM that lies were made.
Apparently, any lies you and your pals make are irrelevant and anything they call false is correct.
This is, really, because you're a boring little moron in a guilt trip because you're a worthless speck of flyshit on the planet with a demand that you be important.
Tough shit, idiot. You couldn't get voted in to power because you're a fucking lunatic.
Hi Matt, Thank you for being nice to me. I appreciate it very much. On the subject of AGW I remain firmly Agnostic, and a keen student.
I did indeed read Principles of Planetary Climate. I found it utterly fascinating and it certainly opened my mind to just how complex this planet is. But if anything, it pretty much hardened my long-held resolve that the climate of our planet and the interaction between all the known and unknown parameters is too complex for anyone to know for sure. I must ask though, do you really think those principles can practically be applied to ANY planet? Earth is the only one with its conditions and parameters that we know of isn't it? I mean, I agree those principles can be applied to any "Earth" but not to any and all Jupiters, Venus', and Mercuries, surely. I guess it would be pretty handy if there was another planet sharing the same orbital path as ours.
Whenever I read or hear "the science is settled", it rings alarm bells for me. (I hope it does for you too)
The "certainty" held by AGW proponents is still a political issue for me. (especially with the increasing use of the phrase "Halt Climate Change" !!??)
I believe strongly that there are other more important and pressing issues that we as "the western world" should be addressing rather than spending untold billions on looking for evidence of AGW.
What about feeding the poor in every country? (especially aboriginal australia!!)
What about reducing and controlling and limiting POLLUTION. (pesticide run-off, aerosol, visual and noise as just a few examples)
There is SO much I want to say, but this post would be just as long as principles of Planetary Climate! So I'll stop now.
Mandas and Skip, all I can say about Dr Raiche, is that
1. I'm glad to be proven wrong. Thank you mandas for your response.
2. Thank you for your response too Skip.
But as someone who is continually fascinated by human behaviour, I still ask why Dr Raiche would say such things.
I guess the only way to find out, and also get the evidence you ask for Skip, is to ask the man himself.
In your position Mandas, could you write to him?
3. Skip, this particular video link is indeed a speech at a "partisan tent meeting" but in response to a previous video I posted here of Prof. Vincent Courtillot, he was dismissed as a "nut-job".
It seems to be very handy indeed that anyone who speaks against AGW, even those with apparently emminent qualifications, is almost universally dismissed in a similar way. (eg. Skeptical Science's Lindzen Illusions, Christy Crocks, etc)
JMurphy, I think youtube videos are a part of our lives these days, and are a good way of communicating a lot of information in an accessible and convenient way. I do not for a minute believe they will ever replace peer-reviewed papers.
Lastly, I would politely request, in response to this post of mine that the practice of cherry-picked copy 'n' paste with accompanying snipe, not be used. Thank you. (I would like to begin a campaign to rid the internet of that practice. Who's with me?)
"....But as someone who is continually fascinated by human behaviour, I still ask why Dr Raiche would say such things....'
You only need to look around at this website to see some of the idiotic things, and straight out lies, that people spruke. People say the strangest things when they are supporting an ideological viewpoint which completely lacks any evidentiary support.
I have no idea who Dr Raiche is personally, so I will not be writing to him. But I have met LOTS of people who are similar to him. Disgruntled public servants who think they were somehow disadvantaged etc. As he only rose to the rank of Chief Research Scientist (which is not all that high a rank by the way) maybe he is pissed off that he was passed over for promotion. Maybe he is just a grumpy old man who thinks that things were better 'in his day' - he certainly made that claim on a number of occasions in his tirade.
What I am certain of is that his views on the issue of climate change are irrelevant. They are no more credible that the views of any other non-expert who thinks his ideology trumps the science. And coming from a supposed scientist, that's about the worst sort of opinion there is.
Lastly, I would politely request, in response to this post of mine that the practice of cherry-picked copy 'n' paste with accompanying snipe, not be used.
What a ridiculous comment. We don't have to cherry pick to show up your ignorance and political bias in every syllable you write on these blogs. You continually show that you are a very unbalanced person with your continual attacks against science and scientists. Who pays you to do this or do you get some sort of sick satisfaction in smearing climate scientists?
Here is another of your nonsensical mutterings:
Whenever I read or hear "the science is settled", it rings alarm bells for me. (I hope it does for you too)
The "certainty" held by AGW proponents is still a political issue for me.
The certainty shown by the reports and results from honest scientists (97% in the case of climate scientists) has got nothing to do with politics. Your interpretation and refusal to accept it has everything to do with politics. You are so ignorant of science that you really know nothing but have the audacity to suggest that their conclusions are political. You are so stupid and prejudiced.
Here is a great example of "95% certainty" (the certainty associated with AGW):
You have a revolver with 20 chambers, one chamber is empty. Will you spin the chambers and fire at your head? You have a 5% chance of not shooting yourself. That is the chances of us not causing irreversible damage to our eco-system.
I am going to provide another response to your post, because unlike your standard denier, you do at least demonstrate a degree of rationality and willingness to admit that you may have got it wrong. Perhaps you can be the one we save from the pit of stupidity inhabited by the likes of crakar, snowman, Dick Wakefield and Biel Roaig.
In particular, I am going to address these to âjoined upâ quotes from your post:
â....I found it utterly fascinating and it certainly opened my mind to just how complex this planet is. But if anything, it pretty much hardened my long-held resolve that the climate of our planet and the interaction between all the known and unknown parameters is too complex for anyone to know for sure......... Whenever I read or hear "the science is settled", it rings alarm bells for me. (I hope it does for you too) The "certainty" held by AGW proponents is still a political issue for me.....â
Firstly, you are correct. The planet and itâs ecosystem is extremely complex, and no-one person or even one science discipline cannot know everything. So given that, I have to ask why you would not adopt the same approach with deniers who think that they know for sure that humans are not influencing climate? Why is it only the proponents of AGW who are supposedly incapable of explaining the world adequately, while those opposed to the view ARE supposedly able to explain it?
Whatâs more perplexing about your view in this regard is that it is the proponents of AGW who are actual scientists; people who spend their whole lives examining the issue, whilst the opponents are largely politicians, media commentators and people who have absolutely no science education at all. The very few scientists who have studied the issue but who remain opposed to AGW are not actually opposed to the concept of AGW, they just dispute the extent of the problem. So that begs the obvious question. If climate is so complex that it is difficult if not impossible to fully understand, why would you side with the one group of people who have never studied it and have no idea about it, while disagreeing with the one group of people who do know something about it? Thatâs a pretty fundamental question, and your honest answer to it will pretty much reveal a lot about your views on the issue.
Secondly, no scientist in the world has ever claimed that the science in his particular field of study is âsettledâ. That is a political claim, not a scientific one. And itâs pretty obvious why â if the science WERE settled, then there would be nothing left to study and all we scientists would need to find new jobs.
BUT.... there are some things in every field of science which ARE pretty well settled. There isnât a biologist in the world who thinks that the science of evolution is settled, but there isnât a credible biologist in the world who would disagree with the concept and basic idea of evolution. Similarly with physicists and quantum theory, or geologists and plate tectonics, or chemists and the atomic theory of matter, etc, etc, etc. There are some aspects of EVERY science discipline which are well enough understood for them to be taken as given, because to overturn them would mean that whole fields of study in unrelated disciplines would also have to be wrong, and that just isnât credible. Such is the case for the âatmospheric greenhouse principleâ. The science of climataology may well not âbe settledâ, but the concept of the atmospheric greenhouse principle is so well understood and so fundamental to so many science disciplines that the idea that it could be wrong is simply inconceivable. If you are disputing it, then you are disputing basic physics and chemistry, and only a fool would do that.
That is what this whole discussion is about. Itâs about science and evidence on one hand, and uneducated ideology on the other. Itâs about using well understood and unequivocal principles vs denying basic science based on and ideology or vested interest.
So how about you ask yourself why you believe the way you do. No one is an expert in every subject, so we trust experts to tell us about their particular field of study. You trust the word of physicists, chemists, biologists, geologists, astronomers, engineers etc , etc, etc to tell you about things that you have no expertise in, on things that you rely on every day of your life. Why is it that you have decided to doubt the word of one group of scientists, when you have no evidence or knowledge to doubt their expertise?
I agree with Ian and Mandas, but would like to add this:
"I believe strongly that there are other more important and pressing issues that we as "the western world" should be addressing rather than spending untold billions on looking for evidence of AGW.
What about feeding the poor in every country? (especially aboriginal australia!!)"
First, how about justifying your claim about untold billions being spent to look for evidence. It seems to me that the evidence is being forced upon us - there is no need to search for it. If you really meant to say that it is being spent to make better predictions, that is what you should have written (I suspect even that is wrong).
Secondly, feeding the world's poor and studying the impact of climate change are not independent. One of the consequences of global climate change is that it will not be possible to feed the poor in every country. In fact, the outlook for maintaining medium-term (next 50 years, say) food production at the current level is pretty bleak.
Mandas "Why is it that you have decided to doubt the word of one group of scientists, when you have no evidence or knowledge to doubt their expertise?"
I think part of the problem is that the average denialist has not the slightest clue about the gap in expertise between themselves (or their heroes) and the scientists who are actually doing the research. Most people realize that a top soccer player has been acquiring skills more or less full time for 10-15 years and accept that, without similar training, they could never go head-to-head with a professional.
However, they fail to draw the parallel with a top scientist who has been learning the profession for twice that time, and seem to think that a weedend of reading a blog by someone slightly less ignorant than themselves is adequate training to hold their own in a scientific discussion. (Anyone can do a t-test, right? All you have to do is to click on the right buttons in Excel.)
It seems to be very handy indeed that anyone who speaks against AGW, even those with apparently emminent qualifications, is almost universally dismissed in a similar way.
And of course, Michael, the question begged by this is, Why?
It's either because there is a vast conspiracy--as implied by Raiche--to hide the "skeptical" truth.
*Or*, maybe it's because these guys have nothing of merit to say.
I watched your link, Michael. In doing that I already showed more open-mindedness and good faith than the vast, vast majority of AGW deniers I encounter.
I gave you specific reasons as to why this guy's "statement" is so limp and irrelevant.
You can't just turn around bemoan that he was attacked. If you detect a weakness in mine, or Matt's, or Mandas's criticisms, then elucidate that. You can't just throw your hands up and bemoan the fact of critique itself.
Further to some of the points raised above by myself and others, there is this statement by MoB:
â....I believe strongly that there are other more important and pressing issues that we as "the western world" should be addressing rather than spending untold billions on looking for evidence of AGW....â
The question is, how do you know these issues are more important and more pressing, until you study and understand them? There is no doubt that poverty, pollution, the over-exploitation of resources, wholesale extinction of species, etc ARE important, but who said they are more important that dealing with AGW?
Iâm going to agree with Richard that dealing with these issues need not be mutually exclusive. But I am going to go further. Unless and until we deal with AGW, these problems will never be solved, because AGW will exacerbate them. And you can take that as âsettledâ.
Thanks for your answer, many things to address! Most of them, as usual, have been ably addressed by Mandas, Ian, the good Richard, Skip et al. I hate to say this but it is patently obvious that your objections are political and don't come from a deep understanding of the principles behind what we know (and don't) so far. I would love for you to have the honesty to accept this fact but I'm not holding my breath just yet.
Scientists are exceedingly aware of the limitations in their knowledge base, far more than you will prob ever understand, and it is their life's work to go about remedying that. The metaphor of the football player is highly appropriate but, for a myriad of reasons, most people will never fully grasp the gulf between their meagre 'general' knowledge about a few things and a typical working scientist's deeply honed expertise in a particular area. That is why people here keep banging on about who to trust and why - it really IS an important distinction.
The general principles (I was hoping you had grasped from your reading), CAN indeed be applied across any given planet in the universe. That's exactly what I was getting at and what I was hoping you'd recognize. The points deniers talk about are often about small local effects, short term trends or confusing weather with climate. THE take home point I was taking a stab at having you realize was that this is largely a thermodynamic problem and if you have the right tools and some simple mathematics you are very well-armed to give a very useful approximation of the average climate of any given point on any given planet (that is in a meta-stable equilibrium state). Not to drag the point too far or too off topic but you should be able to do the necessary calculations if you have all of the following:
- the parent star(s)' Class/temperature and orbital parameters/cycles
- the planet's diameter, density distribution and it's orbital parameters/cycles
- the composition of any gases in the planet's atmosphere and their absorption spectrum info
- the planet's albedo distribution and surface composition
- a measure of the planet's residual heat/radioactivity (often negligible)
- and of course, the coordinate's of the point in question on the planet's surface (the orbital tilt, with respect to the normal to the plane of the ecliptic is already accounted for under the planet's parameters in bullet point two)
Given this info, (and anything else I've left out in a hurry!) you can make a surprisingly accurate attempt at calculating average surface conditions for your chosen point or indeed, the whole planet. It's basic physics. That's why weather and politics have little to do with it. If you hold all those parameters steady while varying only the composition of one gas in the atmosphere (an over-simplification for Earth's current situation) you can calculate the new equilibrium position. Does this make sense?
It is a GUARANTEE that if you increase the ability of the planet's atmosphere to trap heat, it WILL heat up to a new temperature at which incoming energy equals outgoing. FACT.
The rest is just quibbling over the distribution of the new heat, it's speed of penetration, it's effects on life or the lag(s) in any feedback(s). That is where all the uncertainty you speak of is located - not in 'whether or not the temperature will rise', that's been unquestioned by scientists for over a hundred years, as indeed it should be by you good self. Does that explain it? You can't just read the chapter, be in awe of how complex it is and then throw up your hands in despair and say "it's all so complex that if we can't know everything, we know nothing".... That's intellectual bankruptcy, but I'm certainly not accusing you of that, you've been terrific so far.
> On the subject of AGW I remain firmly Agnostic, and a keen student.
Nope, you appear firmly denialist, and a keen student of the lies that your fellow deniers are spouting because they're convenient for your ego.
Ahh there he is!
(yelling) IAN PATRICK FORRESTER!!!!
YOU WILL SPEAK NICELY OR YOU WILL GO AND STAND IN THE CORNER!!!
(count to ten... Calm, rainforest, fitter, happier....)
Now. In response to everyone except Ian Patrick:
I seem to have kicked a hornets nest.
Whilst I appreciate that you are being relatively polite, I truly don't understand, and didn't expect the vitriol in your responses.
Have any of you besides Matt read Principles of Planetary Climate?
It is indeed fascinating.
I admit, I skimmed over the mathematical formulas, but I did read it.
I stand by what I said in my last post.
The whole climate system of planet earth as outlined in PoPC is immeasurably complex, and the paper points out quite a number of uncertainties.
I have tried to illustrate my political feelings here previously. I am, if anything decidedly "left-leaning".
I was a paid-up member of Greenpeace until the late nineties. I recycle vehemently. I was most definitely anti-nuclear and then changed my mind. (just like George Monbiot, to his credit)
I drive.... Oh for gods sake what is the point??
You people don't know me. I have tried to learn from this blog.
But each time this happens I end up only learning a lot more about human behavior than I do about the AGW debate. (so it's not a total loss)
It seems The Twain shall really never meet.
By the way, at the top of this page is a video which seems to me to be about mostly Weather.
Isn't it heatwaves
(whoops, pressed send by mistake)
...... being used as proof of AGW as opposed to the loony deniers in the video crying Cooling Phase?
Coby, when you say "welcome to the new normal" do you mean the weather or the denialism?
The Brisbane floods of january this year were used on numerous occasions in the media as proof of AGW. yet it's very well known in Brisbane that the floods of 1893 were double the height of this year's.
I'm saying this so I can mention that last Monday (the 15th) I was supposed to leave for New Zealand for a long awaited skiing trip. We arrived at the airport check-in counter only to be told that our flight had been cancelled due to the once-in-a-50-year snow storm that had hit NZ.
Now, is that AGW or AGC? Is it just weather?
I say we should halt climate change now!
MoB I will never be polite to a nasty person like you who continually sneers at science and scientists and smears the ones who are doing the best work in the area. You are a despicable person. Do you have children or grandchildren? Why are you condemning them to a very different and nasty future by your attempts at distorting the scientific facts about climate change?
You don't even have enough smarts to get my name right. You are pathetic.
"I seem to have kicked a hornets nest."
This is because you are looking to kick hornets nests.
"The whole climate system of planet earth as outlined in PoPC is immeasurably complex, and the paper points out quite a number of uncertainties."
And those uncertainties make us A-OK HOW, exactly? Wishful thinking?
And the distance between two points is inherently immeasurable, as shown by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, so does this mean we can't calculate the height of a person or the size of an atom?
Because the uncertainties don't preclude any useful result.
However, YOU want it to be impossible to model the climate because YOU don't like taking responsibility, or just hate anything ecological.
Why? Because you're a vomitous speck of filth, completely unworthy of the name "human".
"By the way, at the top of this page is a video which seems to me to be about mostly Weather.
Isn't it heatwaves"
But you don't get heatwaves at the poles, whereas you get a lot of them at the tropics, especially interiors of landmasses.
Why is that?
BECAUSE OF THE CLIMATE, YOU MORON.
I must ask though, do you really think those principles can practically be applied to ANY planet? Earth is the only one with its conditions and parameters that we know of isn't it? I mean, I agree those principles can be applied to any "Earth" but not to any and all Jupiters, Venus', and Mercuries [sic], surely.
Not to Mercury, because it has no atmosphere to speak of, but why not to Venus, Mars, Jupiter or Titan? The whole point of working out general principles is that they can be applied to any relevent situation. The conditions on other planets will be different, but the same principles will hold. In fact, my understanding is that in some cases the climate elsewhere has been used to test models developed for Earth's climate systems.
Isn't it heatwaves [stitched] being used as proof of AGW as opposed to the loony deniers in the video crying Cooling Phase?"
No! Are you deliberately being obtuse? These are examples of what will become the new norm as climate change progresses (you should have understood this if you'd read the second sentence).
. . . it's very well known in Brisbane that the floods of 1893 were double the height of this year's
But in the meantime, weren't dams built that were supposed to prevent this kind of flooding?
Ian and Wow..... words fail me.
Richard, I am not being obtuse on purpose. Sorry, Thanks for clarifying.
My point about the Brisbane floods is that the the flood that happened in 1883 was roughly double the one of 2011, as well as the major flood of 1974.
Wivenhoe Dam was built after the 1974 flood to mitigate against such flood events, and although there was a certain amount of mis-management of the dam and flood waters, in the end it simply comes down to the sheer volume of rain.
Here is a history of flooding in the Brisbane River in case you're interested:
At the time (January 2011) various media outlets blamed the flooding on climate change. One example is here:
Now, I sincerely ask you Richard, with such strong, well documented and indisputable evidence of previous major flood events in just this one location, is it really fair to blame this one on AGW? (note: even though the article only uses the words "climate change", I do believe the inference is towards the effects of mankind on climate. Please read right to the end)
I'm not trying to knock what Richard wrote above but EVEN Mercury can have these principles applied to it with success. The only difference will be that the atmospheres of bodies like Mercury and the Moon are so ephemeral as to be virtually non-existent and therefore there will be some zero variables in their equations where gaseous absorptions are concerned. In the same way, a body that has become geologically inert will have zero variables for it's transport of core heat to the surface etc etc. That's the beauty of the general principles Michael, you can't argue with them - they're just true. These principles have been proven right time and again. Please have the honesty to admit this much. It's just physics and you can't, if you're a true skeptic, pick and choose your physical principles.
Ian and Wow..... words fail me.
More lies, words do not fail you as any one can see from the multitude of your arrogant rants. However, honesty fails you, as it does for every other denier.
"Now, I sincerely ask you Richard, with such strong, well documented and indisputable evidence of previous major flood events in just this one location, is it really fair to blame this one on AGW?"
In isolation? No. In the context of flooding in Sri Lanka, Brazil & South Africa in the same month, the floods in Pakistan & firestorms in Russia the previous year the ongoing record high temperatures & drought in Texas and your NZ snowstorm? Possibly.
The question you have to ask yourself Michael, is how many extreme weather events in a short period of time (less than 24 months) can there be for you continue to maintain that normal service is continuing?
To quote the IPCC: "It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent." ... "Where extreme weather events become more intense and/or more frequent, the economic and social costs of those events will increase, and these increases will be substantial in the areas most directly affected. Climate change impacts spread from directly impacted areas and sectors to other areas and sectors through extensive and complex linkages [high confidence]."
By the way, well done on not using the standard tactic of focussing on the comments of the likes of Ian & Wow in order to avoid more substansive comments from others. I do feel though that you've failed to fully respond to mandas' post #38.
> Now, I sincerely ask you Richard, with such strong, well documented and indisputable evidence of previous major flood events in just this one location, is it really fair to blame this one on AGW?
Nobody is. Except you.
What IS being blamed on Global Warming, is the magnitude of the flooding.
To refute that claim you have to show that the temperature of the ocean and atmosphere doesn't affect flooding by the mechanism that caused this one.
Clearly from Wow's remarks he is an obscene liar.
Equally clearly the fact that nobody on "scienceblogs", obviously apart from myself, feels either lies or obscenity are in any way incompatible with their redefinition of scientific "principles" is indisputable.
I take that as representing the very highest standard of honesty or integrity to which any of the lying, thieving, fascist parasites involved in the climate fraud ever aspire.
If anybody wishes to say I am wrong and that their demonstrated standard of integrity is measurably lower I look forward to it.
I had spent a lot of time writing a response, about flooding history in Sri Lanka, and Mandas and Argo.....
Upon refreshing the page, I lost it all. (there was some swearing!)
So, I'll just rewrite the last bit.
Look, I realise I'm floggin' a dead horse here. I wish I could spend time researching all the science of AGW, and responding to these posts.
Alas, I cannot. I am a self employed, single dad, whose teenage kids continually accuse of spending WAY too much time lookin' at climate change stuff.
You have all made me think and re-think. That can only be a good thing.
I will continue to read, investigate and learn.
Yup, whiner here still hates life and takes it out on everything he sees. And his self-deception have been at Moncktonian levels for some time now.
What a buffoon.
Nobody will take you up on your claim because you're a freaking lunatic.
Care to point out ANYONE other than a denier making a strawman who blames the flooding recently in Brisbane on AGW, not the strength of it, the actual event in toto.
Or, if you can't (and don't want to), prove that heating oceans and air DOESN'T affect hurricanes?
"Alas, I cannot."
"I am a self employed, single dad..."
Which may be true, but ISN'T the reason why you cannot. You're an imbecile. You're both unable and unwilling to answer the AGW science and refute even small sections of it.
"I will continue to read, investigate and learn."
But only the things you WANT to learn. This is your problem.
Lighten up, Wow.
Michael might be intellectually unpolished, but we need variation on the denier dumb scale. If Michael is an "imbecile", then what do we call Beil?
"If Michael is an "imbecile", then what do we call Beil?"
Just because the earth is very much more massive than a whale doesn't mean we can't call a whale "heavy".
They're both imbeciles.
Very well then.
Beil is an imbecile of planetary proportions, upon which Michael is merely, even if *technically* still exhibiting minutely detectable imbecilic properties, a negligible spec of mass.
Bandying semantics with me can be a chore . . .
I believe that a whale has more mass than "minutely detectable".
MoB perhaps if you spent your time a little better you'd learn more? Be more selective & less credulous is my advice (I still chuckle when I think of the guy you linked to who thought the earth was made by aliens & his evidence was that you could see faces in the continents, he was even more nutty than Beil!)
By all means, keep learning. One tip though - don't rely on blog posts or book for your information. Some of them can be good, but some of them are appalling. They appear credible, but unfortunately there is no real objective test to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Go to Google Scholar. Search there for the things you want to know. Read real science papers by real scientists that have been reviewed by other real scientists. Books and blogs are not checked for accuracy and should never be relied upon.
'Moncktonian'. That's pure gold! I'm going to use it!
True to some extent, but I'm sure you would agree that a book like PoPC by Pierrehumbert of Real Climate fame, which summarizes the current information from those peer-reviewed papers you allude to, is a damn sight closer to truth than something like Heaven & Earth?
It can sometimes be much better to direct laymen to a summary text like that than to the dense jargon of papers, just as you introduce physics to new students through a great physics textbook that condenses the current consensus rather than straight to the literature. You can't just write off all 'books' as if they're one and the same, though I understand perfectly the technical correctness of what you're saying. I've got dozens of books on science topics, including texts, but PoPC is by far the most sober, uncontroversial and honest up-to-date look at our current understanding of climatology in general. It avoids all hyperbole, doesn't skimp on getting down and dirty with the maths and has, as I've directed Michael to, a fantastic long opening chapter that entails a close examination of all of earth's climatological history. Have a look if you haven't already.
I have never read the book you suggest, and I have never read Heaven and Earth either. I agree that some books are better than others. The problem is to know which ones. People will give advice about a book saying 'Here, read this. It tells you all you need to know about the subject.' Except that people will recommend books based on their own biases and beliefs. You recommend that particular book, but a smooth talking denier might recommend Heaven and Earth, and if you don't have the ability to discriminate, or don't have any science training, then it would appear to be credible.
At least with peer reviewed science papers you know what you are getting. There are the occasional bad ones from bad journals, but if you stick to the quality journals you will never go astray.
Well I guess that's us told.
Nobody feels capable of actually answering points so they devolve to insults and obscenities.
Way to go for the deliberations of the "scientific" minds of America.
Are you indicating that, as opposed to your continuous assertion, that you are merely part of a crowd that believes the crap you spout? That you are not, after all, a free thinking individual?
You have been ANSWERED your points. You just don't LIKE the answers.
You admit you've been answered and in the same post insist you haven't even once had an answer.
Here, yet again, are the answers:
1 - No
2 - No
3 - No
4 - Yes
5 - No
6 - No
Those obviously don't answer anything and so aren't answers. They are, obviously, the best any alarmist can do.
Please produce proof that King said Antarctica would be the only habitable region by 2100.
Oh! I forgot! You can't!
Dumbass is as dumbass does, Beil.
They are answers.
You just can't use them.
Here the answers to your questions are again:
1 - No
2 - No
3 - No
4 - Yes
5 - No
6 - No
E.g. "do you agree..." CAN be legally and completely answered with "No".
At #71 Biel said:
".....Those obviously don't answer anything and so aren't answers. They are, obviously, the best any alarmist can do...."
Yes, you are absolutely correct Biel. They are the best we can do. We are obviously all eco-fascists and socialists, liars and child rapers.
So your point has been proven. You win.
Now fuck off back under your rock and stop posting here. You are obviously wasting your time trying to convince us.
Yes it is cruel.
But in case anyone else wants to watch the personal implosion of Neil Craig play itself out on cyberspace.
Thanks skip. I suppose I should have some sympathy for people with mental illness. In this case I think the kindest thing would be euthanasia.
Cool picture lierlatly. The weather has been very unusual lately. In fact this past weekend it snowed here in San Luis Obispo CA. Not enough to actually stick to the ground, but still a very rare occurrence for living so close to the Pacific Ocean.