Dedicated to a certain commenter who thinks I'm an "eco-fascist" because I criticized Ann Coulter for abusing physics and biology for claiming that "radiation is good for you," I present a video that succinctly describes everything you need to know about the "Climategate" affair:
I posted it on my Facebook profile, too, and already a certain Libertarian comedian with a monumentally poor understanding of science and a chip on his shoulder when it comes to scientists has been drawn to it like a moth to a flame.
Actually, I had been planning on posting this video anyway sometime during the weekend, mainly because, as usual, "greenman" has done an excellent job of dissecting more common distortions of climate science by denialists. Well done!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I realize this is two weeks old, but I had this hanging around, making it still worthwhile to discuss, because it's been bothering me, and last week Coulter wrote a blisteringly stupid followup to her blisteringly ignorant column from two weeks ago entitled A Glowing Report on Radiation. She wrote…
Remember how yesterday I said that sometimes writing this blog depresses me? At the time, I made that observation because there are times when the unending constant onslaught of pseudoscience, anti-science, and woo leads me to despair that the human race will ever overcome its cognitive defects.…
I knew someone would eventually be brave enough to try and support Coulter's "science" in Godless…wouldn't you know, though, that it would be a columnist on the disturbingly unhinged RenewAmerica site, Wes Vernon, the fellow whose disturbingly asymmetric visage you see here. It doesn't quite do…
I hadn't planned on beating on that wretched hive of anti-vaccine scum and quackery, Age of Autism, again today so soon after having done so not just once but twice yesterday. I really hadn't. After all, AoA is the crank gift that keeps on giving (and has kept on giving for three years now), and…
They have it all wrong. You are an climate COMMUNIST, not a eco-fascist. Silly goof-people.
Al Gore usually gets the science mostly right.
Al Gore: Earth's Interior 'Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees'
That was excellent. Thanks for posting, Orac.
Off topic, but I thought you might find this interesting. The Simon Weisenthal Center is honoring Tom Cruise with their "Humanitarian of the Year Award," which is ironic because the Scientologists indulge in a soft form of Holocaust denial. By blaming the whole thing on psychiatrists they basically let the Nazis off the hook. Also the Nation of Islam (Jews did slavery) recently merged with Scientology.
More
whyweprotets.net thread on the SWC award to Tom Cruise
How come I never get a tribute. :(
Let me look up the definition of ecofascist real quick...
No, I don't think that fits, but neoskeptic with extremist qualities might fit.
You know how the word neoconservative movement is an oxymoron? Well, yeah, you get it.
Excellent video, Orac...I may eventually get up to speed about climate change. Every time we have an increase in tornadoes or more seismic activity in a given year, people get confused about the words "weather" and "climate change", not realizing that weather changes are of short duration versus (the way longer) climate changes that we are experiencing.
One of my favorite "road trips" was the drive from Las Vegas straight north into the Canadian Rockies...west to mid British Columbia...back to Seattle; 3000 plus miles of glorious nature. We saw the Athabasca Glacier...before it disappears altogether. A great internet site, complete with pictures is:
Global Glacial Retreat
@ titmouse: Wow, just wow, that Tom Cruise is being honored by the Weisenthal Center....for what? Yes, Nation of Islam and its wacky leader Louis Farakhan have an affiliation with Scientology...(not so strange bedfellows).
lilady, there's a link to a thread about the SWC award stuck in Orac's spam filter.
Remember when Cruise was supposed to promote War of the Worlds, but decided to promote Scientology instead? He went on the Today Show and spent the whole time bashing Brooke Shields for seeing a psychiatrist. Then he went on Oprah and was all "Tone 40" on her couch. These antics did not go over well with the producer of WoW, Steven Spielberg.
The gossip rags described a "Hollywood war" between the two major powers in the entertainment industry: Scientology and the Jews. Slate touched on a piece of it (a staged protest of the psychiatrist treating a Spielberg family member). Other accounts are pretty ugly, with PIs hired to follow Spielberg's wife and dig for dirt. Long story short: Spielberg came out on top and Cruise was booted from Paramount.
Spielberg is on the SWC board and will be present when Cruise is honored. Given the above back story, I find the affair creepy. The CoS has a history of "even the score" theatrics with perceived enemies (e.g., Cult Awareness Network, Bob Minton, Brooke Shields).
@ titmouse: Yes, I remember Cruise's rants. It's all over the internet about the 2011 SWC "Humanitarian Award" honoree.
What's the deal with the nominating committee at the SWC? Haven't they been following the (unholy) alliance of Farrakhan's group with Scientology...committee members need to go to the Anti-Defamation League's web page "Farrakhan on Jews" to track the long career of this racist evil man.
Nice, that one's a keeper, bookmarked!
For those not familiar with greenman aka Peter Sinclair (no, that isn't outing him, he's quite out already) he has an exellent series of short videos (link below). He mainly focuses on a particular egregious bit of nonsense and then debunks it in 5 to 10 minutes. These ones are called Climate Denial Crock of the Week.
youtube.com/view_play_list?p=029130BFDC78FA33
For those wanting a crash course in what we know and how we know global warming is happening, this video gives it in under 10 minutes.
youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas&p=029130BFDC78FA33
Al Gore did what he thought needed to be done, he tried to make it understandable for everyone, to be the messenger that the public would understand. Since "the scientists" really had little say in it, and little interest in doing it themselves, Al Gore did it mostly on his own and got some things wrong.
So where does logic go after that? Nowhere, there just isn't enough information to scream "Al Gore is fat" as if it were declarative of a greater fact, that climate science is "fat" as well.
The really interesting things with climate science, right now, is what have they gotten wrong? Surface temperature projections, for one. Using curve fitting techniques to the surface temperature rise through the 90's was wrong, it was far more complicated than a simple slope calculation to continue the rise in temperatures. So how do you tell people that while they were wrong, global warming continues?
People don't generally understand derivatives, so trying to explain "rate of change" to them may seem like a simple matter, it isn't. In this case, the scientists are made out to be intellectual bullies and accused of power grabbing. There really is no way to disprove these shallow labels, so what can be done?
I think we need a new Al Gore, a celebrity with limited credentials that can understand the limited comprehension of the public and can still grasp the essentials of climate science and translate it, make it interesting, compelling and still get across the point that the regulations and changes are not going to be destructive to our entire way of life. After the treatment Al Gore received, however, who would want that crappy job?
'We saw the Athabasca Glacier...before it disappears altogether.'
And just how much longer do you think you'd have had to see the glacier if humans had never discovered fire?
Montana was 100% covered in ice recently. A couple hundred years ago, it was down to about 0.02% ice.
Blaming humans for the elimination of the last glacier in that area is one reason skeptics (or denialists, like me) think climate alarmists are incapable of critical thinking. That goes for Sinclair of the sonorous voice, too.
But, then, confusing seismic activity with climate or weather was already a tipoff, before you ever got to Athabasca.
Thanks Harry, I needed you as an example of how people don't understand first derivatives. Your timing was impeccable.
@ Harry Eagar: Would you be the notorious global warming denier Harry Eagar from Maui, referred to in the web article:
Wake Up & Smell Harry Eagar
The Athabasca Glacier has retreated 1,500 meters in the last century...at an accelerated rate since 1980.
Wanna clarify your statement about "Montana was covered with 100 % ice recently....?
You mean 'notorious' as in 'attacked by failed alt-weekly publisher,' why, yes, that's me.
10,000 years or so ago, and ice has been retreating regularly, if not monotonically, since.
If you think the change in rate over the past 30 years is detectable on a time scale of 5,000 or 10,000 years, then you're as delusional (and statistically challenged) as Peter Sinclair.
Quite the contrary; the more data points we have of the "before" rate, the easier it is to tell if there's been a change in rate since.
@ Harry: Why don't you re-read my first sentence?
"...I may get up to speed about climate change." I don't claim any expertise about climate change...I am a naif compared to the scientists who are researching it at the IPCC.
Some of us seniors are concerned with the future of the earth and the impact greenhouse gases from the unfettered use of fossil fuels, will have in years to come. We are stewards of the earth.
So, we do out little bit; fuel efficient cars, turning down the heat, lowering the thermostat, shutting off the hot water boiler and switching completely to CFL bulbs.
Apparently you have "expertise" so, I suggest you debate the subject with some experts...and I'm not one of them
I am the person beinmg tributed merely because I said elsewhere that Orac ran an "eco-fascist blog pretending to be scientific". http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/ann_coulter_versus_physics_gu…
This was in light of the attack on Ann Coulter over suggesting that the LNT theory (that low level radiation is harmful) had no scientific evidence behind it while the opposite theory (radiation hormesis) has a welter of evidence. Orac & indeed everybody else, failed to produce any evidence whatsoever for this "scientific" theory and no serious dispute remains there that there is no such evidence & it was entirely proper of Ann to raise the subject.
Incidentally part of the defence made to the "eco-fascist" claim was that (except for anti-nuclear scare stories obviously) this site does not push any "environmental" claims.
So this tread pushing the catastrophic warming scam presumably doesn't exist :-)
When we are told that the single best piece of evidence for catastrophic warming cannot be put in writing but must be seen on video we know we are dealing with showbiz not science.
So Orac if you (or anybody else) are so sure catastrophic warming is a problem you will have no difficulty answering all 7 of these points - any one of which, if unanswerable, disproves the entire scam.
I'm betting you can't answer even 1.
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" are wholly, completely and totally untruthful and would have to be openly denounced by anyone on the alarmist side who has any trace of honesty?
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 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?
OOOH! OOOH! I'm not a climate scientist, but these are easy. I'm not going to give citations since Neil Craig won't, either.
1 - What kind of warming? There has been no statistical increase in ground based monitoring since 1998 (warmest year on record). Local regions, however, have continued to warm while other regions have cooled. The arctic has warmed, while the American NW region has cooled, for example. Excess heat appears to be going into the ocean.
2 - Yes, but warming isn't about food. Sea level rise, increased droughts, floods and medical emergencies will kill far more people than starvation. This was a useless argument.
3 - Proof, please. You didn't cite, but I'm betting I know who you're talking about. All of the data and algorithms have been made available. Your gods of statistics were biased.
4 - Yep, Al Gore was wrong. Early science forgot to take into account black soot. New science has. How does this disprove global warming/climate change? Al Gore is fat.
5 - You want to play with geoengineering, but you think global warming is alarmist and fake? Can you make up your mind?
6 - What fraud? You didn't provide any evidence.
7 - "Not paid by the state" How far back would I have to look to find where they have received no grants or public funding? This is another false attack with no basis, other than assumption that a vast conspiracy exists.
Unlike Neil, however, I'll provide citations if anyone wants to politely ask. Neil, however, can go play with his strawmen in the corner.
To expand on #1)
Linking ground based measurements with satellite based measurements and atmospheric measurements, there is excess UV entering the lower atmospheric levels which is entering the system as heat in different ways. The laws of thermodynamics would indicate that the energy is in the system, the climate scientists just don't know where. Given the size of the oceans and the continuing damages, it appears that the heat is there, it just isn't being measured, yet. (Lyman & et al, 2010)
doi:10.1038/nature09043
'Quite the contrary; the more data points we have of the "before" rate, the easier it is to tell if there's been a change in rate since.'
Well. it's easy enough to show that the rate cited by lilady is slower than the average rate over the past 10,000 or 20,000 years. That's obvious.
What isn't so easy to show is that a rate over any 30-year period means anything about climate, since it's also been shown that the rate of glacial retreat/advance, while it shows some regularities on various time scales from a few hundred to many thousands of years, doesn't show that any 30-year period predicts anything.
For sure, it doesn't predict that the next 30-year period will be in the same direction.
Lilady, you have as much expertise as the journalist Harry Eagar. In fact you probably have a better appreciation and knowledge of the underlying scientific principles, than Harry Eagar. Harry Eagar is good at arguments from incredulity, but fails at anything deeper.
I'd encourage anyone curious about Neil Craig to visit his blog where he discusses the ozone hole with gusto and astounding ignorance. For instance, Neil Craig confuses the Arctic ozone hole (annual cycles) with the Antarctic ozone hole (CFC based). He doesn't show any clue that the annual thawing of the permafrost is greatly associated with the Arctic ozone hole, nor of the releases of ozone depleting gases from said permafrost thaw (Zepp & et al, 2003).
DOI: 10.1039/B211154N, Paper
In short, Neil Craig indicates that he has little knowledge about that which he speaks, but he speaks about it a great deal.
Thanks for hosting this discussion, Orac. There's little value in arguing with deniers like Harry Eagar and Neil Craig, but for those who genuinely wish to learn about anthropogenic global warming, I'd like to recommend some excellent sources:
The Discovery of Global Warming, published both on paper and on the web by the American Institute of Physics, is the best possible introduction to the subject for laypeople;
For expert discussion of the scientific issues, with input from leading climate scientists, see the RealClimate blog, especially the start-here page;
For specific refutations of popular denier arguments, with citations to peer-reviewed sources, see SkepticalScience.com - also available as a smartphone app!
Skeptical science has answered these. I will refer to there just to keep my response simple.
1 - Do you accept Professor Jones' acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995? http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since…
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?
I have not heard this one, but see here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
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?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
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" are wholly, completely and totally untruthful and would have to be openly denounced by anyone on the alarmist side who has any trace of honesty?
Per the Himalayan glaciers, I believe the printed estimate was 2035 (not 2025) and that this was an acknowledged error, it should have been 2350. http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Himalayan-glacier-2035-prediction…
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?
I wish geoengineering were so simple. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Three-studies-illustrate-significant-ri…
How would you address ocean acidification?
6 - Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?
Heck, the video by Peter Sinclair effectively contradicts the notion of widespread fraud.
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?
I am not sure I understand this. Does the fact that a scientist is paid by the state make him or her an alarmist? What scientists are you referring to, only climate scientists? If you allege that the employer determines scientific results, where does that leave us, and why have a science blog web site?
That's just bluster, JayK. Would you care to estimate the 'normal' rate of retreat of N. American glaciers?
Lilady was primed by chicken littles to think in terms of catastrophic climate change in the warm direction, so when somebody told her the Athabascan glacier had retreated 1500 m in 30 years, she assumed that was a fast rate.
It's slow. Very slow, if you're into adjectives, less than half the rate observed in the era before humans began dumping combustion gases into the atmosphere.
I'm a denialist (a word coined by some notoriously unreliable Canadian PR agents) but I do not endorse Neil Craig's list, or most of it. Nevertheless, Lilady can set her mind at rest. The glaciers are doing what glaciers do. She didn't cause it, and if she buys an electric car, they won't stop retreating.
The calculation is easy. 1500 m in 30 years is something like 600 miles in 20,000 years.
20,000 years ago, maybe less, the southern limit of the last Wisconsinian glaciation was Des Moines, Iowa.
The limit of permanent ice is a lot farther from Des Moines than 600 miles now.
Mal, the best possible introduction to the issue of glacial retreat is E. Le Roy Ladurie, 'Times of Feast, Times of Famine.' All direct observational science, no models, no algorithms, no proxies. And no catastrophic retreat, either.
Nice citations, Harry. For a journalist, you really don't know how science is done. You've continued to make an argument from incredulity, not from a scientific stance. I've also read a few of your other "writings". Scientifically capable you aren't. Why don't you just whine about the MWP and get it over with?
2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state
I was not aware that there is a single worldwide state, but then I am not a libertarian.
Wow, right off the bat he blows any presumption of good faith and basic competence he might of been entitled to. Statistical Significance, like "theory" has a technical meaning quite different from its popular meaning. I encourage everyone to click on the first link provided by Peter Bellin. Essentially Statistical Significance is a means of determining the probability that an observed trend is real as opposed to being due to random variation. In other words "Professor Jones said no statistical warming" is the denialists equivalent of "Even Darwin said the eye couldn't evolve."
Great video. It deserves all the publicity it can get.
In a perfect world, it would be nice if James Randi and Penn & Teller could watch it as well.
Well, here's hoping.
(sigh)
Go, greenman, go!
As I said "I'm betting you can't answer even 1"
Orac has the sense to run away. Others haven't.
Jayk accepts 1,2 & 4, refuses to answer 3, 5, 6 and cannot answer 7 (which should be particularly easy if this isn't fraud). On 6 he asks for citation of fraud - I point you to his own answer to number 4 where he acknowledges Gore lied. Perhaps in the citations he promises to give in response he will show where prominent members of the eco-fascist community publicly called Gore a liar - obviously all those with a respect for real science must have done so - eh Orac.
Jayk's contention that no eco-fascist has ever suggeasted Ozone loss by CFC played a part in the Arctic Ozone hole is, of course, a lie.
Peter doesn't even attempt to answer any of them except to claim that there is no need to criticse alarmist fraud because there has been none and even the Hockey Stick is as originaly promised. Clearly Peter is wholly and completely corupt in the eco-fascist cause and will be denounced by every single member of that movement who is not wholly corrupt. My guess is that will prove to be none of them.
Doktor doesn't understand English. By the way he was the liar who criticised me for calling Orac an eco-fascist on the grounds that, he claims, Orac never publishes environmental stuff like this thread. Good to know that you were not lying out of ignorance but lying because you are a wholly corrupt Nazi who does it automatically. If you wished to pretend to the remotest trace of integrity you would apologise.
Yresmal effectively admits there has indeed been no significant warming and also pretends to get lost in grammar. Obviously he cannot make even that dispute on the other 6 points.
Case proven.
If even one of these could not be answered in a way supportive of the catastrophic warming lie then it is proven a lie.
All 7 of them can't and every prominent eco-fascist, here and elsewhere, knows it, proving that every last one of them, including every single "green" politico, is a corrupt lying, murdering, fascist, parasite without the most remote trace of integrity or, obviously any right to attempt to clothe themselves in the name of "science".
Consider your tribute matched Orac.
Cogent comments are frequently described as "full of win. Neil @32 is full of Godwin.
I'd say Neil is by far the biggest liar. I never said "Gore lied", I said he got it wrong because there was little recognition, at the time, of black soot and its larger role in glacier melting. In fact, there are multiple scientists that have acknowledged that Gore got it wrong, most of them came out within 2 weeks of the release of Inconvenient Truth and said that there wasn't enough evidence of climate change affecting Himalayan glaciers. Gavin Schmidt acknowledges this error in both the IPCC 4 report and Al Gore's video in February of last year. I can find a number of climate scientists that have publicly stated that Al Gore and the IPCC4 report were incorrect on Himalayan glaciers. So what?
Neil also failed to notice that I provided proof that the heat is going into the oceans. I suppose that was too inconvenient for an ignoramus like him.
Neil Craig, in short, is a weasel with all of the intellectual capabilities shown by a 9/11 truther or an anti-vax blogger. He should have taken the non-fools' route and stopped digging.
More arm-waving from Jay. Care to answer the observational question or not?
Oh, poor Henry, did I not answer your loaded question?
Here, I'll just let this citation do it for me:
DOI: 10.1126/science.1107046
Don't hurt yourself on the sharp corners, Harry.
Let the record show that Neil Craig has never denied my assertion that he is a Celtic supporter.
Loaded? It's an observational question. What's the rate?
I agree with you 100% that you and I have different views of what science is. I prefer observations.
Of course, as Edwards Deming used to say, you've got to have a theory. Without a theory, how do you know when you're wrong?
The alarmists have a theory. And we have some observations. Not a lot, not the kind we'd like to have, but observations. The observations don't offer much support to the theory, and none at all to concerns about glacial retreat.
I gave you the citation that looks at the proxy data for glaciers, you can find the rate yourself, Harry. Or do you not understand how citations work? Your rate is bogus, useless and attempts to confound the issue by making it seem like a really small number.
But that's what you do, isn't it, Harry? Just like the anti-vax people, you hint at things and you confound the issues, you load the questions and then you never, ever, ever accept the answers.
Perhaps you might acknowledge, before you crap all over this thread again, that your question is so general that there is no answer. The Athabasca Glacier has had varying rates over the century, but has generally been increasing. If you want the science of how they know it is increasing, read the citation above. For what timeframe do you want the rate, Harry?
Do you even know why Athabasca Glacier is interesting for climate studies?
I read the report. It's a good example of why, when I bring up the subject of climate change with the national academicians on my contact list, they roll their eyes and mouth the words, "Junk science."
Although i read it, you didn't, since the author denies using proxies.
It's crap. It stops at 1700 and claims there are no data earlier. There are, and direct observation, too. That's what Le Roy Ladurie is about. He has direct observational data on glacial advance/retreat going back more than 500 years earlier than 1700.
(And he knocks Mann cold, too, but we already know you disbelieve in the MWP, although Le Roy Ladurie demonstrated conclusively that it existed. Supplemented by Reid Bryson's proxy studies. You can say I'm not a scientist, but you cannot say that about Bryson and Le Roy Ladurie. Bryson used to be a hero of the environmentalists -- he started the environmental lab at Wisconsin -- until his studies punched holes in Hansen's alarmism. Then they burned his books. Well, not literally burned. But pulped them. I saved my copy.)
Wow, you're right, Harry! I messed up and mistook reconstructions for proxy. Good job, you really showed me, I'm a total denialist now!
Except, there is all that data that indicates that glacier length is only useful for short term generation of climate change signature, which is probably why you've latched onto it like an ignorant pit bull. So guess I just don't have it in me to be an ignorant denialist like you.
As for disbelief in the MWP? You haven't a farking clue what you're talking about, as usual and you didn't provide a citation. You're name dropping, but providing nothing of substance to back up your assertions.
Geoengineering solutions actually *do* make a lot of sense, at least as a stop-gap: there's *already* a lot of excess CO2, and no realistic hope of cutting emissions much (given political/economic realities) for quite a while. So even given that geoengineering solutions would have bad side effects and that emitting less would be *better*, it's still quite likely that geoengineering will be the best we can *feasibly* do. (I don't really think there will be much interest until we start seeing really major harm, at which point it'll be too late for emitting less to help much). Of course, nuclear, useful (not corn!) biofuels, solar, and other renewable sources are the real solution.
But that's not really the same question as whether global warming is happening (it is) or is anthropogenic (the evidence certainly leans that way). If people don't believe the problem exists, then talking about solutions is premature.
It is related in a sort of back-door way, however. There's an uncomfortable strain of anti-technology-ism mixed in with *some* modern environmentalism (a feature of its becoming essentially a "left/liberal" issue, for reasons which are historical rather than actually making very much ideological or philosophical sense) ... observe the history of anti-nuclear activism despite nuclear power actually being far better for the environment than the current setup ..., and a general politicization which makes a lot of 'environmental' stuff driven more by politics than actual science (for example, the corn ethanol stuff, which is actually probably *worse* than fossil fuels) and I think this makes some people on the 'right' less willing to listen than they otherwise would be... so, if people who talked about AGW also talked about technological solutions, they'd probably get less opposition.
---
The Medieval Warm Period was real, but IIRC mostly European, and European climate is weird and a really bad proxy for global.
Neil Craig @19:
What exactly do you mean by 'catastrophic'? I've only seen the word used by climate change denialists and do not understand what is meant by it. Could you give some examples of what you would consider catastrophic and what you would not consider to be catastrophic? A 5% drop in crop production? A 50% drop? Half the world's sea ports out of action? I've asked this question of others, but no-one has ever answered.
I'm also curious as to why you think that basic physics fails to operate when atmospheric CO2 increases.
Neil Craig and Harry Eagar both come from the 9/11 "Truther's" school of "we're just asking questions", but each really suffer from the affliction of apantophobia:
http://911booger.blogspot.com/2007/05/psychologists-to-study-growing.ht…
A sensible post Intercostal. You may be right about it beiong more probabnlt than not that there is some manmade warming. However, unless it can be shown to be seriously damaging on a world scale (ie catastrophic) it does not justify the alarmism and billions o=poured into, usually patently false, nostrums. I also agree with you about nuclear - it is obvious that, nuclear being the only system that can produce mass power without CO2, it is impossible for anybody, who truly believes in catastrophic warming, to oppose the only practical method of stopping CO2 rise. That the leaders of the eco-fascist movement uniformly do so proves volumes.
Richard see above for what catastrophic warming means. The example you give of a 5% crop reduction would count. However if you read my questions you will see I posit and nobody disputes that there has been a 10% crop rise due to CO2. It is likely, from experience of the Medieval warmth and climate optimum, that the extra warmth would olso improve crop growth further. I find it impossible to consider such things "catastrophic".
I note that neither Orac nor any eco-fascist supporter has even attempted to answer the questions proving they know their scare story fraudulent.
"Neil Craig, in short, is a weasel...". Hey! Don't be insulting weasels! They are beautiful, elegant, smart little mammals, nothing like Neil Craig.
@Neil -- it surprises me that other people in this thread haven't picked up on this yet, but I need to correct you about "no 'statistically significant' warming." (Actually, there is a huge amount to correct you on, but I have a day job I need to see to.)
There is a vast amount of difference between
"no statistically significant warming"
and
"no significant warming."
There has, in fact, been a significant warming trend since 1995. See http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html or event the Wikipedia page on "Instrumental Temperature Data" for a lead on this. However, one thing you may notice, looking at actual graphs, is that there is an awful lot of up-and-down from one year to the next. When the change is just over one year to the next, or a few years, we cannot say it represents an actual trend -- it could just be "noise" in the system because the system has that much natural variability. However, as the number of years being examined increases, so does the probability that an observed trend is a real trend, and not just the noise of year-to-year variability and short-term cycles. And THIS is what is meant by statistical significance.
There needs to be a minimum number of years observed for statistical significance.
There has now been over 15 years since 1995 observed -- it approaches statistical significance, and there will be a definite statistical significance to the trend since 1995 in the next 5 years, since as the period of time lengthens, the probability that the trend observed is happening "just by chance" decreases.
The way you are using this phrase, you seem to be arguing that there has been no effective warming. That's bull. There has very definitely been effective, real, objective warming. The "statistical significance" refers solely to the measure of our certainty that it is a genuine trend, and that it couldn't have happened simply by chance.
Understand?
Your interpretation of the rate of glacial retreat is also utter balls, but I have to deal with that at a later time. I have work.
To Luna's comment I would add that GISTEMP already shows statistically significant warming from 1995. Indeed, it did back in early 2010, when Jones was first asked the question.
Neil Craig @45:
I ignored it because it is a plainly ludicrous claim that makes no attempt to tease out the different effects of CO2, fertilizer, cropping practices, new cultivars, better economic incentives, better storage facilities and the rest. Even when temperatures and water supply are controlled, CO2 fertilization frequently has little effect on harvestable yield. Higher than usual temperatures have cut yields by reducing cereal pollination and changes in rainfall patterns and the distribution of pests are not exactly beneficial for farmers.
So Neil & Harry show up, full of themselves and other things, and barf up in the comment thread without a single link/cite to evidence supporting their assertions and JAQ-offs.
And they expect us to take them seriously? Please.
(In case anyone tries to claim "victory" because of ad hominem, please be advised that this post is 100% ridicule and not an attempt to make an argument.)
Neil's assertion re: no stat sig global warming. When Phil Jones said that, there had been no sig gw since 1998 at the 0.05 level...but there had been at the 0.056 level (or thereabouts...round it off to 0.06). Dr. Jones wasn't saying there hadn't been any warming but that 1998 to present wasn't long enough to make it statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The fact that people still misquote and misinterpret this demonstrates their lack of knowledge on the subject, and the paucity of their arguments--i.e. if they had good arguments they wouldn't need to recycle falsehoods for the umpteenth time after they've been vapourized.
by the way, a year later, the warming did meet the 0.05 level.
Wow, are you barking up the wrong tree! This sort of thing may play for the rubes, but you've got a scientifically literate audience here. Just about everybody here knows what statistical significance actually means, so phrasing the question in that way marks you as either extraordinarily ignorant or intentionally deceptive. Since you have apparently been at this for some time, and since information on the meaning of statistical significance is widely available, that means that you almost certainly fall into the latter category.
Virtually everybody here already knows that "no significant warming" does not equal "no warming," and also that the slope of any linear regression will fail to meet statistical significance if the interval over which the data is analyzed is made short enough. So your arbitrary choice of 1995 when everybody knows that we have temperature data for much longer immediately marks you as somebody who is trying to con your audience.
Of course, if a real scientist wanted to make the argument that global warming had ceased over the last 10 years, he would not argue that there the slope is not significantly positive, because that is "absence of evidence" not "evidence of absence." So to show that the global warming has stopped or slowed, one would have to calculate 95% confidence limits on the slope over the last 10 years, and show that those confidence limits did not include the extrapolated temperature trajectory based upon measurements over a longer baseline or predicted from theoretical climate models. But of course, no real scientist would claim that, because it isn't true.
But to answer your question, I don't agree with Phil Jones's statement, because while Jones thought that global warming over the last 10 years just barely missed the 95% certainty level required for it to be described as "statistical significant," a more sophisticated analysis that corrects for "noise" arising from known perturbing factors such as El Nino and volcanic eruptions finds that in fact warming since 1995 is indeed statistically significant--in fact, warming since 2000 is statistically significant.
I don't believe that's the case, actually; at least, not in HadCRUT. A simple OLS fit will achieve statistical significance at the 0.05 level, but the data display significant autocorrelation. Accounting for that leaves us with an insignificant result, right up to the present day.
One of the simplest approaches to dealing with Neil's misinformation on this issue is to point out that, while the rate of warming in HadCRUT from 1995-present is statistically indistinguishable from zero, it's also statistically indistinguishable from 1.7 K/century, which is approximately the rate of warming in HadCRUT from 1975-1995. If the best we can say is that the warming ranges somewhere between 'completely unchanged' and 'stopped altogether', it's bloody obvious that the short dataset we're using is insufficient to draw any solid conclusions.
"I'm betting you can't answer even 1."
Oh dear, talk about asking for it...
"1 - Do you accept Professor Jones' acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?"
There has been plenty of warming since 1995. 0.12C per decade.
Read up on what statistically significant means, by the way. When the statement was made, the gradient was 0.12C per decade and this was significantly different from a flat trend to the 94% level.
It was less than 6% likely that there was no trend upward.
"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?"
Nope. Fertilizers and modern farming techniques did that whilst the effect of warming from CO2's effect in the atmosphere has reduced crop yields by 20%.
"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?"
No, nobody knows that since you've made it up.
In fact the only attempt to show the maths incorrect was shown itself to be far more false than Mann's paper. Subsequent papers using different maths show statistically identical results to the original.
"4 - Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side,"
You mean the denialists who insist that any mitigation will cost trillions and end the capitalist system in the west, cause massive famine and deaths?
No, I don't accept any of their claims.
" and Pachauri's claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was "voodoo" are wholly,"
Don't you mean 2035? And that was a transposition error when the report said 2350.
At least THEY got the right figures. You couldn't even manage that!
"5 - Do you accept that there are a number of geoengineering solutions which arithmetically can be shown would work (including stratospheric dust,"
Nope, you see the cooling effect is proportional to the volume of dust whereas the warming effect for GHGs is cumulative.
And dust rains out.
"even just replacing CO2 burning with nuclear power)"
Can't. Uranium is the ultimate fossil fuel,. Only created naturally by the extremely rare supernova.
Oh, and terrorists would love nuclear power: plenty of opportunity to steal for a dirty bomb.
"which would work at a small fraction of the cost of the war against fire, or in the case of nuclear, at negative cost?"
False false and false. Nuclear has had 60 years of subsidised work on it and failed to produce any safe, let alone cheap, power. And according to the Stern report (by an economist) says AGW action would be a net positive.
"6 - Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?"
Yes, when ARE you going to take the denialists to task for making shit up about it cooling since 1995, being a member of the house of lords, saying you were paid about 4% from fossil fuels, oops sorry, 40%... and so on.
When?
"7 - Of the alleged "consensus" - can you name 2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state,"
Name two people who are not paid by the state. Why is this a necessary requirement anyway? When Shrub was in power, he paid scientists. Yet he denies AGW and fought violently against action. He also put Pachuri in charge of the IPCC panel.
"who support catastrophic warming"
the only supporters of catostrophic warming are the Rapturists.
"if not can you explain how something can be a consensus when no member of a subset of 60% of the alleged consenting, consent?"
Uh, they do consent.
"That's what Le Roy Ladurie is about. He has direct observational data on glacial advance/retreat going back more than 500 years earlier than 1700"
And his calibration of his measurements was...?
I guess you also accept a stained glass window in Yorkshire is proof that there were grapes in Scotland during the roman occupation of the UK...
"Richard see above for what catastrophic warming means. The example you give of a 5% crop reduction would count."
So count this:
http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb3/PB3ch3_ss3
"" by the way, a year later, the warming did meet the 0.05 level."
I don't believe that's the case, actually; at least, not in HadCRUT."
It did Martin.
If you pick 1996 or 1994 you'd also have gotten statistical significance to the 95% confidence interval even at that time. Also, for trll, EVEN AT THAT TIME, the recording of Jones' interview he explained that it was statistical significant at better than 90% but not to the 95% normally used by statisticians to denote "proven fact".
Wow has put up what everybody with any knowledge of the subject will know to be 6 total, obvious and deliberate lies in answer to my 7 questions.
Any ecofascist with even the remotest respect for the truth will be eager to dissociate themselves from these lies.
Therefore, by definition, any alarmist who doesn't proves themselves to be wholly and completely corrupt lying fascist charlatans. That aplies not only yo Orac and friends but any alleged "scientist" in the field who would thereby probe themsleves to be merely confidence tricksters pretending to be scientist.
I will leave it to Orac and friends, for the time being, to show whether they are total fascist charlatans or not. I ask sceptics to stand aside and not give them cover.
We will see if the entire ecofascist movement put together contains as much honesty, integrity and human decency as my toe nail clippings.
In Wow's favour I note that not even it claimed there are any independent scientists who support this fraudulently named "consensus".
Neil C -
I have some questions, since you seem a domain expert..
1) Let us assume that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. Can you please explain why the oceans are not frozen solid?
2) Assuming there is no greenhouse effect, which natural effect exists that exactly replicates the observations, including polar amplification?
3) And no, you can't just say 'natural cycles'. Which natural cycle?
4) Models question: If you run your model 10,000 times and pick out only the few dozen runs that match what you want to happen, is that 'good science', 'scientific fraud', or 'post normal science'? Pick all that apply.
5) You can tilt a graph to zero the trend if you want. True/false?
6) Scientific theories are best overturned by stealing the personal correspondence of the scientists involved and digging through it for anything that can be found to be incriminating. Discuss.
Neil Craig, when and where did you actually refute the overwhelming science demonstrating AGC is real?
Neil Craig
James Lovelock is an "independent scientist" who supports the consensus.
I would also note that the "scientists" trotted out by the denialists are almost always funded directly or via a right wing/libertarian think tank. Pot Kettle Black.
Also, numerous examples of government scientists supporting the consensus when their government opposed the consensus have been provided. You have not addressed this. You are no different from a creationist troll or an antivaxxer in this regard.
Andrew says "Let us assume that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect."
No lets not. This "assumption" you make is supported by nobody else even on your own loony side of the argument. You merely demonstrate what an ignoramus you are and what standard of ignorance and stupidity the ecofascist movement aspires to.
Bhedwards I didn't. You lot did. The total failure of the entire ecofascist movement to be able to five a credible answer to all 7 of these questions, or even 1, proved it. That obviously includes yourself.
Militant True Believer - Congratulations, you have come up with the same, single, name of any independent scientist worldwide named as supporting the scam. I have asked the same question on sites and to newspapers worldwide and the only instances of people actually trying to answer were the Independent's environment corresponent and somebody on a website in South Africa.
Like you they both named Professor Lovelock so clearly he is the ONLY such person it can be claimed of.
In fact, following the revelations of climategate he changed his opinion, calling the catastrophic warming alarmists "insane".
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-think-that-sceptics-have…
6:Nil and counting.
I see none of these lying fascist charlatans have even yet attempted to behave honestly, nor has Orac. QED
Andrew says "Let us assume that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect."
No lets not. This "assumption" you make is supported by nobody else even on your own loony side of the argument. You merely demonstrate what an ignoramus you are and what standard of ignorance and stupidity the ecofascist movement aspires to.
Bhedwards I didn't. You lot did. The total failure of the entire ecofascist movement to be able to five a credible answer to all 7 of these questions, or even 1, proved it. That obviously includes yourself.
Militant True Believer - Congratulations, you have come up with the same, single, name of any independent scientist worldwide named as supporting the scam. I have asked the same question on sites and to newspapers worldwide and the only instances of people actually trying to answer were the Independent's environment corresponent and somebody on a website in South Africa.
Like you they both named Professor Lovelock so clearly he is the ONLY such person it can be claimed of.
In fact, following the revelations of climategate he changed his opinion, calling the catastrophic warming alarmists "insane".
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-think-that-sceptics-have…
6:Nil and counting.
I see none of these lying fascist charlatans have even yet attempted to behave honestly, nor has Orac. QED
So Neil Craig confesses that he hasn't refuted the overwhelming science demonstrating AGW is real.
It is also the reason that he is unable to support his own 7 claims, demonstrating any validity to his 7 "questions."
The "just asking questions" tactic is part of the methodology of all denialist movements including the climate sceince denial movement to which Neil Craig belongs.
Most recently, it has been a favorite evasion of the 9/11 Denial Movement, who demand answers to "questions" they deem have not been answered, and whose validity are bogus. For instance, a few favorites:
"The twin towers fell just like in a controlled demolition. Prove that they did not come down by explosives."
"The twin towers were designed to withstand the collision of a Boeing 707. They didn't. Prove that they did not come down by pre-planted explosives."
Neil Craig's denialism is explained very well in another ScienceBlog site, the Denialism Blog:
"What is Denialism"
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php
Neil Craig you are a self assured ignorant ideologically blinded asshole who has the same anti-science tinfoil hatted beliefs as a creationist - that is not an ad hominen it is a description.
I am self employed in the upstream oil & gas industry. I would really like AGW to be false. Bu unlike you, I am willing to accept the validity of evidence that does not tell me what I want to hear. You are the "true believer" who rejects all evidence that contradicts you ideology or that make you feel uncomfortable.
Milirant True Believer makes no attempt to dispute that he lied about the sole alleged example of any independent scientist, anywhere in the world who supports the warming alarmist fascists and that the gentleman doesn't.
Instead he goes into a string of ad hom attacks proving he is personally a disgusting, wholly corrupt, child murdering Nazi animal incapable of the remotest trace of honesty who will instantly be denounced by every single alarmist with access to this site who is not provably a disgusting, wholly corrupt, child murdering Nazi animal incapable of the remotest trace of honesty.
Over to you Orac.
PS I don't believe your claim about not working as an eco-parasite and ask for evidence that your claim is more than 10,000 times closer to honest than an obscene animal like you is capable of.
Bjedwards far form such questions being a "denialist" tactic it was derived specifically in response to a set of 5 questions that eco-Nazi Simon Singh asked. His questions were answered, very effectively, in a manner which the child murderers here are, without exception, incapable of. Singh himself, was, of course, incapable of even attempting to answer any questions matching those he had put.
Obviously learning this Bj, you will wish to apolodise for criticising sceptics for this tactic (without producing any examples) and to denounce the entire eco-Nazi movement for this tactic. Alternarely you will have proven yourself to be personally a hypocritical disgusting, wholly corrupt, child murdering Nazi animal incapable of the remotest trace of honesty. What I have said has not been ad hom but precisely on the point.
8:Nil
I find it rather amusing that neil has decided to put a counter up for his preconceived and perceived "victories" against the blog.
Which is rather amusing, because none of his arguments have been valid at all, and when pointed out by others filled with invective and ad hominems instead of defending his points.
If there was a score that was being kept, with ad hominems counting as negative, I think neil would be in the negative range.
Neil Craig: "You may be right about it beiong more probabnlt than not that there is some manmade warming. However, unless it can be shown to be seriously damaging on a world scale (ie catastrophic)"
Even a small rise -- short of the ice caps melting -- might well be quite damaging if it led to tropical diseases (mosquito-borne, etc.) spreading north. Also, droughts and similar weather disruptions hitting agriculture in the 'third world' -- places too poor to do it largely by irrigation.
If either Greenland or West Antarctica melts (much less both), we lose a good chunk of the coastal cities -- it would be slow enough to evacuate people, but the economic/infrastructural loss would be almost incalculably more than the costs of converting away from fossil fuels, or of any of the geoengineering solutions.
"I also agree with you about nuclear - it is obvious that, nuclear being the only system that can produce mass power without CO2,"
Wait, wait. I didn't say it was the *only* system - it's not (the good biofuels -- not corn -- also could; solar probably could, but would be really expensive). But it's proven, well-understood, and easily used to produce enough power. *Best* option, not *only*. (In fact, I think in the longer term - decades - the best option is a combination of nuclear, sensible biofuels, and solar - including space-based solar. But the nuclear infrastructure can be built *now*.)
But yes, nuclear opposition among environmental groups is counterproductive. But it doesn't prove anything about the science of climate change -- rather it proves that much of modern environmentalism (as a *political* movement) isn't science-driven, or at least has a tendency to compromise science to ideology.
Those don't match the results I get. Starting in 94, you can get a trend that's barely significant or barely non-significant, depending on whether you use monthly or annual data, and on whether/how you account for autocorrelation. Starting in 96 gives a barely non-significant trend in all cases except an OLS fit to monthly data.
nc @ 66:
Chanelling Homer Simpson, eh? Always a way to impress people...
Neil: I am still waiting for you to justify your claim that crop yields have increased by 10% due to increasing CO2, or is this something you plan on forgetting about until you are dealing with a more naive audience?
It's pretty absurd to demand an "independent" scientist, since all scientists are dependent upon a source of funding for their research, and for basic research such as climate research, virtually the only sources are (a) publicly funded institutes such as NSF and NASA, and (b) "think-tanks" funded by industry to support a point of view that favors their sponsors. So it is a safe bet that almost all competent climate scientists will have received public funding. It is worth noting that the point of view of scientists who are publicly funded or who work for US government agencies has been no different during the Bush administration, which was openly opposed to strong international action to curb global warming, and the current administration, which has been more supportive. So the facts do not support the implication that publicly funded climate scientists are somehow "under the control" of the government.
But let take James Lovelock, a very rare example of a scientist who, while not an expert in modern climate science, has some real accomplishments in relevant fields and is not publicly funded. Do you really want to embrace his views? For example,
It is worth noting that while Lovelock doubts the reliability of global climate models, he reacts as a true, rational skeptic would to heightened uncertainty, realizing that if there is uncertainty in the projections, it is on the high end as well as the low end. As a result he's worried that the impact of global warming could be greater than projected, and that climate scientists may be underestimating the risk of near-term climate catastrophe:
And he's very worried indeed:
So tell me, Neil, are these really the views that you wish to endorse?
I will say this much, when Neil Craig goes Godwin, he doesn't go halfway. Anyhow, back to analyzing of the drill stem test conducted by morons who flared 2000 bbls of oil over a week of (umpteen thousand dollar a day) offshore rig time but who were too cheap to spend an extra grand for (high resolution) quartz pressure gauges.
NC:
Even my 5 year old daughter can understand the concept of a hypothetical question. Perhaps some remedial reading comprehension classes are in order?
6:nil to me.
Andrew that rather looks like an ad hom. If you have evidence that I have been unable to read comments gere (and presumably also to write them) you will be able to produce it. Otherwise you will wish to apologise, assuming you possess some slight trace of integrity.
Militant Believer do I take "it is a safe bet that almost all competent climate scientists will have received public funding" as an acknowlefgement that, despite diligent attempts, you, like everybody else have been unable to find any scientist whatsoever, not paid by government, who supports this fraud? Do I also take it that you do not dispute your only alleged example actually accuses you ecofascists of insanity?
Richard, had you not suffered from the afirementioned lack of reading comprehension, you would have noted that I have left it up to ecofascists like Orac to point this out & dissociate themselves from the pile of lies masquerading as an answer. However if you will publicly acknowledge that, if I produce such evidence, which the ecofascists have refused to mention, it will prove that they and you are indeed disgusting, wholly corrupt, child murdering Nazi animal incapable of the remotest trace of honesty and that6, as soon as I do so you will publicly apolofise. If you are not prepared to apologise if proven a liar then there is no point in doing your research work for you.
NJ I note your acknowledgement that you are unable to discuss on a factual basis, presumably because you know the fact prove the ecofascists liars. Ditto Nova.
Intercost if you have any evidence that malaria has spread north of where it used to be (it used to be endemic in Murmansk) or that massive melting of Greenland or Antadctica is taking place (Antarctica is actually growing) and sea level catastrophically rising (it isn't) that would indeed be evidence of catastrophic warming. I ask you to produce some. What I said about nuclear is that it is the only way of producing MASS power. Bio cannot produce much, solar cannot prosuce baseload because there is no sun at night. Absolutely everybody who claims to believe in catastrophic warming and opposes nuclear is either wholly corrupt or deliberately trying to produce catastrophe.
11:Nil
I await an apology from ever single eco-Nazi who claims there are ever any circumstances under which they wi8ll not lie to murder children.
NC:
I'll be sending the bill for an exploded irony meter, and having snot cleaned off my monitor.
12: nil.
Neil: What on earth are you ranting about? I ask you to justify your claims and you accuse me of being a "disgusting, wholly corrupt, child murdering Nazi animal incapable of the remotest trace of honesty".
It is far from normal for someone to go off the deep end so quickly and with so little provocation. In all seriousness, visit your nearest mental health advisor as quickly as possible.
Neil Craig is an example of the left side of a Dunning-Kruger curve, unable to provide proof of his claims, unable to accept information and evidence from others, and totally wedded to his argument. In short, he's a moron with a low capacity for communicating and most likely a very very very small penis that causes him undue anguish in public situations.
Also, he's like a petulant child. Go away Neil, your ignorance isn't going to win any of the academics and professionals. You haven't been debating, you've been yelling at streetlights and getting angry when they don't answer you.
@Neil Craig
And do you still contend that Lovelock, who believes that "you can't put a trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere without something nasty happening," who worries, "Are our sea defences adequate? Can we prevent London from flooding? This is where we should be spending our billions," and who argues that "climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while" is somebody who can be counted as a disbeliever in catastrophic global warming?
Are you really so desperate to find somebody rejects the global warming consensus that you are willing to embrace a guy whose views are actually more catastrophic than the consensus?
Just asking...
It's always fun to get a denialist like Neil Craig to come out and reveal himself for the irrational fruitcake he is.
What a pity for him that nature and science ignore him despite his directives to the contrary.
nc @ 75:
I note your acknowledgement that you are unable to understand when someone points out that you are not only unintelligent but unable to recognize they are calling you unintelligent, thereby demonstrating your woefully deficient skills in reading comprehension.
Query for the crowd: Since nc is outnumbered as well as outclassed intellectually, he is being forced to respond to increasing numbers of posters, thereby eating up even more of his finite time. How long before he realizes we are toying with him like a cat does with a near-dead mouse and flounces off in a spray of misspelled obscenities?
He has been here a week; I give him perhaps one more.
First, this is an off the charts non sequitur. Second, if 60% of scientists work for the state and more than 60% of scientists accept the consensus then mathematically there must be some private sector scientists who agree with the consensus. This survey finds that 90% of the scientists surveyed accepted that the Earth is warming and 82% accept that human activity is a significant contributing factor.
Tres I note you make no attempt to name any independent scientist who supports warming alarmism. Note that if 60% of yhe scintists are not paid by the state and 60% are you have some difficulty with simple arithmetic
NJ still just ad homs. Outnumbered tndoubtedly but outclassed - tell that to your 120% chum.
BJ again you frmonstrate that you cannot answer any of the questions and are only capable of ad homs.
trill I note that only person you can quote as being on your side withoiy being paid to, isn't, and calls you insane.
Jay - in short you are incapable of producing any facts or answering difficulat questions and are reduced to ad homs. Fortunately I never descend to such things you obscene, child murdering, thieving, fascist parasite.
Richard still waiting for you to confirm you will apolofise if I come up with the evidence you are wrong - something which I have left it up to any remotely honest ecofascist would have gad to already have told you is easily available if you look. The rest is simply rudeness, t9o be expected from fascists like you.
Andrew ho ho ho.
17:Nil
Is anyone surprised that Neil Craig cannot and will not support his own claims?
Do you think you have earned anything but derision, Neil?
So the one person you cite as a scientist with some relevant credentials who has not been paid for his work is actually more concerned about catastrophic global warming (as clearly seen from his comments here) than those who are paid for their work. So what is your point? That the government is paying scientists to understate the risk of global warming catastrophe?
Just asking...
It appears that the author of Respectful Insolnce (subtitle "A statement of fact cannot be insolent." ) has decided to defend an attack on me by Krebiozen on the Ann Coulter thread by censoring any truthful reply.
May I say (perhaps I may not here) that I believe lying & censorship, as the only possible defence against facts is indeed incompatoble with any claim by Orac to have any respect for science and is compatible only with fascism.
BJ & trill you are just repeating yourselves and demonstrating, yet again, that no factual anser can support your cause. I recognise you & Orac as representing the very highest standard of integrity to be expected from anybody in the "environmental" movement - you have lived down to expectaions.
20:Nil
@Neil
I think you should probably pull your paranoid head of your ass and learn how spam filters work, not to mention realizing that Orac has better things to do than sit around twiddling his thumbs as he keeps an eye on the spam filter waiting for your fabulously enlightening pearls of wisdom.
Apparently Neil's journey to LaLaLand is complete.
(Neil, dude, hint: at least one of your posts that was caught in the spam filter (I don't know how many you sent) has shown up; maybe you should chose an approach that does not lead to your posts getting caught in the automatic filter)
Gosh, Neil Craig still evades supporting his claims.
What are you scared of, Neil?
An attack? I questioned the "overwhelming evidence" supporting radiation hormesis you claim you have on your blog. Maybe you should check out Pharyngula, and see what they think of your ideas over there. Then you'll find out what an attack is :-)
The question is repeated because you have failed to give any answer, factual or otherwise. So here is the question again:
So the one person you cite as a scientist with some relevant credentials who has not received government funding for his work is actually more concerned about catastrophic global warming (as clearly seen from his comments here) than those who are paid for their work. So what is your point? That the government is paying scientists to understate the risk of global warming catastrophe?
Just asking...
@trrll
And watch again as neil instead evades the question, instead throwing out ad hominems and adding to his "scoreboard".
I say that at least neil provides a good laugh and some entertainment value, but nothing else.
Well if it wasn't Orac proving himself a fascist, on several threads, or more likely if he is trying to row back from such proof this will appear:
Kreb anybody who checks what you say about my link http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/03/low-level-radiation-eviden… will see that you are lying
#1 of the For Hormesis links is an overview wholly unrelated to what you say http://www.alamut.com/proj/98/nuclearGarden/bookTexts/Rad_hormesis.html
#9 is Professor Cohen on his research which found precisely the beneficial connection between radon and cancer which you assure "undoubtably" cannot be claimed by anybody. It appears doubt is indeed possible, indeed statistucally proven.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1998/cohen.htm
I can, of course, understand why you have "learned nothing" that disturbs you prejudices in "30 years" since you clearly never allow facts to interfere with them.
I ask you to acknowledge that my reading of these links is correct and your contention that the latter is a "dating agency" is non-factual.
Neil is a very funny man, very self-absorbed. He seems to think that I stay up late waiting for each new pearl of "wisdom" that he lays upon this blog that might run afoul of the spam filters, so that I can release it to the mockery it deserves. Here's a hint, Neil: I tend, like most people, to be asleep between around midnight and 5 or 6 AM. Now, I live in the Eastern time zone of the U.S. You appear to be posting from somewhere in the U.K. There's a five hour time difference. So, between the hours of around 5 AM and 11 AM, while you're there typing away your nonsense, I'm sawing logs, and then I get up and go to work, at which point I might or might not have time to check the spam filters. In other words, by the time I get a look at the blog each morning, it can easily be afternoon in the U.K.
It had already appeared where you originally posted it before you posted here complaining about how you'd been censored, you daft sod.
I'm beginning to think that Neil's self-esteem depends on people persecuting or laughing at him, because it proves that he is the equivalent of Galileo. Making a feature out of a bug, as it were.
The possibility that his comments are held up by an automatic feature of the blogging software is not as flattering as the theory that they are being suppressed for a few hours by a vast conspiracy, and you are going to have a great deal of difficulty in convincing him otherwise.
However since those posts "caught in the spam folder" haven't appeared we must assume Orac decided not to allow them. And has now started to row back in embarrasment.
I note that though Orac has enough energy to deny his censorship & throw in an ad hom accusation of sillinness and sodomy, he still refuses to answer any of the questions or produce any evidence.
Trill in scientific discourse your plea of insanity is no defence.
22:Nil
Could someone show me where Orac accused Neil Craig of sodomy.
It is you who has been hurling insults. My comments about your mental stability were intended as serious advice.
I've worked as a scientist - of course I am willing to change my views if presented with adequate evidence. That's what scientists do.
Now, how about backing up your claim that crop yields have increased by 10% as a result of increasing CO2?
I'm a scientist, I do over 40 hours of literary research a week, on top of failure analysis and other similar tasks. I fully support the science behind the theory of global climate change, I've done the stat analysis myself on various data sets and I'm familiar with many of the trains of evidence.
And I've never worked for the state or accepted grant money from them.
So Neil, can you actually name some fraud for me, or will you just continue to throw out insults and random accusations.
And if you want someone to accuse you of sodomy, you might just head out the back door and ask your sheep.
As usual, more unintentional comedy gold from neil.
I am half tempted to put up my own scoreboard, just to count how many ad homs and unreasoned and illogical arguments neil puts up, just for the fun of it.
"of course I am willing to change my views if presented with adequate evidence. That's what scientists do"
OK Richard thats all I asked.... from you and the others making the same complaint.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
also on
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/02/co2-rise-means-for-crops-m…
This graph actually shows that 20% of growth is due to the current increase in CO2 but I thought it proper to be more conservative. It would be argumentative to demand the full lot.
There is nothing remotely controversial about saying more CO2 increases plant growth. It has been proven many times and is inherently obvious since plants eat CO2
I must admit I do not expect any of the others to actually apologise. They, including Orac, obviously have no respect for science.
In any case if any of you had actually believed that your alleged doubts on this one question was the reason for not answering it you would still have wanted to answer the other 6.
Is somebody now going to try, knowing that if supportive (& not obviously untruthful) answers cannot be given to all 7 the catastrophic warming story is a fraud?
Jay if you are going to identify yourself as the sole scientist anywhere in the world who is independent and supports catastrophic warming I would have to know who you are. You can contact me through my blog if you prefer.
How specifically am I lying? All the links I referred to on your blog were still there last time I looked. What order they appear in on the page is of no relevance at all.
I clicked on this link on your blog, and got a page that seemed at first glance to be advertising a dating agency. I see now it is actually a high quality source of scientific information dead link with the domain for sale. I apologize for my grave error.
You are not an eco-fascist!
Neil Craig, apparent mutant spawn of Tim Curtin sez:
There is nothing remotely controversial about saying more O2 increases people growth. It has been proven many times[1] and is inherently obvious since peoples eat O2
[1] Soylent Green Research Letters, vol. 32, February 2005
Greenhouses. You extrapolated from greenhouses? Seriously? First of all adding CO2 won't help plants that are constrained by other resource limits such as water, or light or nutrients. This is not a problem in the controlled environment of a greenhouse. These resource limits are however a much bigger constraint on crop yields than the CO2 supply. Secondly you've taken the increased CO2 levels in isolation, not taking into consideration the climate changes that come with them or the problems for plants (heat stress, drought, and floods etc.) that come with them. A good primer on this can be found here.
Ooops, First try is in moderation (that damn fascist Orac!)
Greenhouses. You extrapolated from greenhouses? Seriously? First of all adding CO2 won't help plants that are constrained by other resource limits such as water, or light or nutrients. This is not a problem in the controlled environment of a greenhouse. These resource limits are however a much bigger constraint on crop yields than the CO2 supply. Secondly you've taken the increased CO2 levels in isolation, not taking into consideration the climate changes that come with them or the problems for plants (heat stress, drought, and floods etc.) that come with them. A good primer on this can be found here.
Richard said "of course I am willing to change my views if presented with adequate evidence. That's what scientists do"
I guess that shows me for allowing myself to believe that there were any circumstances whatsoever where any of the fascists here would ever behave with the remotest trace of honesty.
Richard you have been given the evidencce you demanded , indeed considerably more than the evidence and your objections are clearly wholly dishonest.
Your objectin that scientific experiments cannot be done in greenhouses, apparently because the laws of physics, and biology, do not work within greenhouses is a doctrine unknown to science and can never be claimed by anybody with the remotest trace of respect for the discipline.
Your objection that the experiment was done by changing only 1 factor, the amount of CO2, proves you don't even know what scientific experiment is. Experiment is done, precisely, by isolating particular factors and seeing what changes happen.
Your objection that global warming is going to produce other damaging changes is (A) irrelevent to whether CO2 has the effects it undeniably* does (B) a lie anyway - warmed climates have higher crop yields.
I again point out that anybody in the ecofascist movement, who has the remotest trace of honesty will feel obliged to say what a lying anti-scientific piece of filth Richard is. (Kreb, who on the Coulter thread, is claiming to be involved in scientific discussion this means you)
I note that, of course, none of the liars here have even attempted to answer any of the 7 questions. That proves, undeniably* that you one and all know catastrophic warming to be a total fraud.
Note that Jay, the self styled only independent scientist in the world who supports catastrophic warming, so far refuses to identify himself. The conclusion must be that he is no more a scientist than Richard, Orac or the other lying parasites.
* I use the term "undeniably" in the normal sense that it cannot be honestly or even credibly denied - it is obviously possible to deny anything: that black is different from white, that Orac is contemptous of science, or the non-existence of the tooth fairy.
23:Nil
I have been following this discussion for some time although I haven't contributed because of time constraints.
What I find especially striking is how Neil Craig's choice of phrasing reveals how unscientific his reasoning process is. In his last comment he states
Science is a collective process in which a large number of people engage in attempting to replicate or disprove the results of other people's experimental findings and either confirm or dispute them. It also involves taking their hypotheses, calculations and explanations as a basis for new experiments to attempt to verify or disprove them.
What is essential to this process is the possibility of honest and even credible disagreement.
This morning I peeked into Richard Feynman's book, "Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman", looking for a specific quote and stumbled upon an earlier section (about pg 250) where he describes how he and Murray Gell-Mann came up with a theory of beta decay which predicted that electrons should come out from the decaying nucleus symmetrically in all directions. (with reference to the angle at which the proton recoils from the neutron) A very good experimenter, Valentine Telegdi, measured the number of electrons and found that 11 percent more came out in one direction than the others. He mentioned this at a conference and wrote them a letter in which he said that
Feynman and Gell-Mann considered how to respond and realized that Telegdi was a very good experimenter and would be much better than they at finding something wrong with his experiment. So they decided to just wait. Two days later they got another letter from Telegdi who had found out from their theory that he was disregarding something. When he took that into account, his results agreed with their theory.
What is important is not who turned out to be right or wrong, but that both sides were willing to consider that they might be wrong and responded to the disagreement by looking at their own work in more depth and considering the possibility that they might be wrong.
In contrast, in this and other threads, Neil Craig has made lists of statements or questions. Other commenters have responded to those in detail. But, instead of considering that he might be wrong or even attempting to respond with a better explanation to persuade others that he might be right, Neil Craig chooses to call the person attempting to reason with him
Sorry, Mr Craig, but your concept of science is "no F-G".
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?"
From what I recall of 3rd-year plant biology, many crop species (maize, sorghum, millet and for some reason cabbages) use the C4 pathway for photosynthesis, where the limiting factor is the amount of light. Those plants don't benefit from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Most other plant species use the C3 pathway (let's ignore the CAS pathway for the moment). This does benefit from higher CO2; sadly, though, it is sensitive to ambient temperature, with the efficiency of carbon fixation dropping off in warmer climates. Any global warming would hit these crop species badly.
let's ignore the CAS pathway
Should read "CAM pathway" (I'm resorting to the WWW now).
Key phrase from a wikipedia article: "C3 plants cannot grow in hot areas because RuBisCO incorporates more oxygen into RuBP as temperatures increase."
In other words, the "currently detectable destructive action of alleged global warming" include an end to rice and barley production; without any concomitant improvement in the productivity of C4 species. This would not be good.
@ Neil Craig:
That is not what he said. You are being wilfully disingenuous. He said "adding CO2 won't help plants that are constrained by other resource limits such as water, or light or nutrients. This is not a problem in the controlled environment of a greenhouse." (Emphasis mine)
For you to accuse him of dishonesty is mendacious and hypocritical in the extreme.
Squirrel if you had actually been interested in scientific principles you would long ago have criticised the various peopel here, who, instead of providing answers, engage in ad homs. Your contention that, in science, nothing can ever be denied is rubbish.
I am well aware of Feynmann's views having blogged on his speech about Cargo Cult Science and how very well both catastrophic warming and LNT, depending on people in white coats making assertions without the evidence, fits it.
Doktor you repeat the question and then refuse to answer it. Nobody disputes that some plants are less affected by more CO2 (or water or temperature) than others or that others are moreso. That is how "average" effect is made up.
Julian - Richard made an enormous point about the experiments being carried out in greenhouses or as he put it "Greenhouses. You extrapolated from greenhouses? Seriously?" How exactly experiments in how plants absorb atmospheric changes is to be managed without them taking place in an enclosed atmosphere is something I look forward to seeing Richard or you try to explain? Not being "willfully disingenous, hypos"critical and mendacious in the extreme" I am sure both of you will rush to do so.
Or not as the case may be.
Note that "the only independent scientist in the world who supports catastrophic warming" has still to identify himself.
And that no ecofascist writing here, reading here or having heard of this site feels able to answer even 1 of the 7 questions which every alarmist who actually believes the scam must be able to answer.
26:Nil
Shorter Neil Craig: QQ QQ QQ
Laughable.
In order to claim any sort of 'victory' on this thread, Neil has to completely ignore almost everything anyone else has stated or linked to.
No, you gave one minor and far from conclusive piece of evidence.
Firstly that wasn't Richard, it was me. Secondly that's a strawman. I didn't say anything that could be honestly construed as saying scientists can't or shouldn't do experiments in greenhouses; they can and should. The point is that you can't legitimately draw rock solid conclusions from these experiments regarding the world outside the greenhouse. Your QED from this one piece of evidence is way premature.
True, but the problem is all you learn about is that one factor. Outside the greenhouse CO2 isn't isolated, it interacts with and its effects are affected by other factors in complicated ways. You simply can't draw firm conclusions about how CO2 acts on plants in the outside world from greenhouse experiments. Well you can but you're wrong to do so. Here's an analogy. A biotech firm discovers that chemical "X" kills tumor cells preferentially over healthy cells in a lab culture. Would this company be justified in going straight to commercial production of their "miracle cancer cure"?
Actually it's the net effect of CO2 that's relevant.
Not so fast.
Once again it wasn't Richard. Furthermore, and this may surprise you, it's possible for people to honestly disagree on the significance of a single bit of evidence. Try considering the possibility that people are honestly unpersuaded by the greenhouse evidence.
If nobody was attempting to answer them, then what the hell are you responding to? Think. But here, I'll answer the first 2. 1. Yes, he said that. So what? It doesn't mean what you think it means. Do you seriously believe that you made some sort of point with that? 2. I deny that anybody has any business making any firm claim about the effects of increased CO2 on crop yields so far. We just don't have sufficient evidence to be doing so.1 further observation: Your conclusion "that you one and all know catastrophic warming to be a total fraud" does not logically follow from the lack of answers you consider suitable.
FACE. A review. "Finally, the stimulation of yield by elevated CO2 in crop species is much smaller than expected."
How is Richard in any way lying? You are the one who claimed in #19 that "the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth by around 10%", and have yet to provide evidence that crop growth has been improved at all in the real world. Wow has provided evidence that "Although the elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 that raise temperature can also raise crop yields, the detrimental effect of higher temperatures on yields overrides the CO2 fertilization effect for the major crops."
Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean that they are lying. If you explain why experiments in a greenhouse where temperature is held constant are more meaningful than the real world where rising CO2 leads to increases in temperature, I'm sure there are people who would be willing to discuss this. I suggest you rein in the "obscene, child murdering, thieving, fascist parasite" bullshit, it makes you look like a lunatic.
If experimental evidence of faster cropm growth in a high CO2 atmosphere is not sufficient evidence to ask "Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth", as is claimed here then it is clear there are no circumstances whatsoever under which such people will ever accept any sort of evidence.
Note that for a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable. That is the difference between gravity or particle physics and witchcraft, catastrophic warming, creationism and LNT.
If, because the catastrophic warming scam would be exposed, experimental proof of improved growth must be suppressed the warming alarmists are demonstrably further from being scientific than the creationists or even flat earthers.
If you can find a way to increase atmospheric CO2 without increasing global temperatures, you will indeed have found a way to improve the yield of some crops. Good luck with that.
Otherwise, crop yield will be reduced by increasing temperatures as the article Wow cited explains.
"If experimental evidence of faster cropm growth in a high CO2 atmosphere is not sufficient evidence"
It isn't sufficient evidence to show that a higher CO2 atmosphere on the planet earth would increased crop yields.
In the old days, deniers used to deny the CO2 as a greenhouse gas by saying that since the CO2 was measured in a lab, not the planet earth, you couldn't say what effect the CO2 has on the earth's atmosphere.
Since that stopped being a runner, they've forgotten all about it.
"Note that for a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable."
What does that have to do with your claims? We've shown that you're hypothesis is false. It is YOU who won't accept any evidence.
But you're getting hysterical, since your arguments are unsound and it's shaking your confidence.
A natural emotional reaction that intelligence and training will allow you to calm.
There are additional problems with the physiological changes brought on by higher growth. E.g the production of natural insecticides is not increased and therefore the toxicity of the plant to natural predators is reduced. When the leaves are eaten, the plant is unable to grow as well and insects will eat more plant matter because they are able to.
Neil has nothing other than hope and a blind hatred to drive him.
Infinity:Nil.
What you like to call "catastrophic warming" is indeed falsifiable. The most direct experiment would in fact be the exact course of action you're advocating - do nothing and see what happens.
More generally, if any of the various lines of evidence pointing to significant AGW had given different results, THAT would be falsification.
Unfalsifiable means that no set of data would be inconsistent with the hypothesis. That is grossly untrue here.
Neil,
Your claim is "adding CO2 to Earth's atmosphere has increased crop yields." That is a claim about real-world crop yields: very little of humanity's food supply comes from greenhouses.
First, show that crop yields have increased. Then show that the CO2 level is the cause, rather than, for example, improved plant varieties or increased use of fertilizer.
But the first step is crucial: if something hasn't happened, explaining why it should have is not experimental science.
A couple more complications. One from wheat. And one from soybeans.
Kreb if Wow's article is correct and high temperatures reduce fertility the Brazilians must be hoping for cooling so that the dester of the Amazon can reach the levels of fecundity of northern Canada.
Wow the irony of denying "deniers" (another ad hom) right to say that greenhose evidence doesn't count (perhaops you could produce some evidence of it) while saying that this is good alarmist "science" is clearly lost on you. I still ask you to produce some falsifiable evidence of CAGW, or indeed some link to where you have described the various end of the world cults as scientists because their predictions are all provable (or otherwise) someday. In fact the millenarians are much more scientific because the warming alarmists say catastrophic warming started in 1979 so we are already a quarter of the way to 2100 so that if the calim is not false we must be seeing a quarter of a catastrophe, which would clearly be evidentially noticeable.
Vicky you are clearly as ignorant of the subject as the average ecofascist. Crop yields worldwide have increased far more than 20% precisely because of better crop yield and technology, all of which the murdering eco-Nazis have been uninterested in or opposed to.
29:Nil
What? There is an optimum temperature range for every crop. Temperatures outside that range, too hot or too cold, reduce yields. Here's another article about this that might help.
For one thing with average year round temps of 80 F or 25 C the amazon isn't all that hot right now. For another thing it is vulnerable to AGW.
1. Nobody is denying your right to say anything. 2.Nobody is saying greenhouse studies don't count,they do. We're saying that they are not sufficient to support sweeping claims about worldwide agricultural output. As for evidence the FACE studies I mentioned earlier are producing much more mixed results than the greenhouse studies.
Ummm...what? Preview is your friend.
Nobody here believes in CAGW, that's a denialist strawman. As for plain old garden variety AGW, here are a couple of things I would accept as falsifying AGW.1 The discovery of a new to science negative feedback large enough to negate CO2s warming effect. Remember the main plank of AGW is that rising CO2 levels should produce higher temps. All the known natural negative feedbacks have been accounted for and they are not enough. 2. A new to science source of warming large enough to produce the warming we've seen so far and does so in a way that mimics a greenhouse effect i.e. simultaneously cooling stratosphere and nighttime lows and winter temps rising faster than daytime highs and summer temps. Once again known natural sources have been accounted for.
Once again CAGW is a strawman.
Ignoring your bad math, you're still wrong something like AGW doesn't work in a nice linear fashion, it's a snowball effect, modest changes at first with larger and larger effects later. And FWIW we are seeing changes consistent with the early stages of Warming.
Nobody here is against those things. Who do you imagine that you're arguing with?
29:Nil
Kreb if the Canadian tundra got warmer sensible farmers would tend to replace their current wheat strains with ones that fit a warmer climate. If alarmist theory depends on them not being that smart it is clearly either moronic or dishonest.
However I am most interested in Tres comment
"Nobody here believes in CAGW"
If true rather a pity that it took 127 comments for any alarmist to get round to mentioning that none of you support an alarmist case!
Anybody want to disagree with Tres statement or has our disagreement obscured the fact that you all agree with me that nothing is happening which justifies spending $ trillions in ameliorating the alleged effects?
If there is no dispute that looks like game over.
AGW doesn't have to be catastrophic to be a problem worth addressing. Ignoring the problem is likely to be more expensive than addressing it.
If it is worth spending trillions merely to ameliorate warming it must, by definition, be catastrophic.
If Tres says it is not catastrophic but pretends it is worth spending that thenn he is, by definition, a wholly corrupt, lying thieving fascist parasite with less integrity or human decency than my toe nail clippings.
Obviously the same applies to every member of the alarmist movement.
I note nobody, not even eco-Nazi in chief Orac, here now disputes Tres' acknowledgement that all the catastrophe claims they and others have been pushing are deliberate lies.
No. It must be by definition worth trillions of dollars,nothing more. Some perspective. Global GDP is about 62 trillion dollars. 1 trillion dollars is about 1.7% of global GDP. Spread over 20 years that's 0.09% of global GDP per year. 10 trillion dollars (much more than anybody is proposing to spend) is a little less than 1% of global GDP per year. This is hardly the birth of Global Big Brother. This is especially so considering that the bulk of the money is nothing more than redirecting energy investment that is going to be made anyway from some forms of energy production to others. To be worth addressing AGW, the costs of neglect must merely be greater than the costs of mitigation. On the best information available to date AGW comfortably meets that threshold.
Do you even know what "by definition" even means? I suppose some of the dispute here is about what you mean by "catastrophic". Since you mixed AGW with millenarian doomsday scenarios my assumption is that your definition is somewhere in the neighborhood of "apocalyptic". Since no serious supporter of the consensus is making such claims, and in fact such claims are pretty much exclusively found in the deniers' strawman version of AGW, I reject the use of the term. I do think that Pretty Bad Anthropogenic Global Warming (PBAGW) is bad enough to be worth addressing even though it's unlikely the world would come to an end if we don't.
You do like to make sweeping claims from single data points don't you?
I doubt that anybody,even "eco-Nazi in chief Orac", is paying attention to this thread anymore. It's just you and me sweetheart.
If they are all in hiding it is because they know the entire catastrophic warming fraud has been proven a fraud and neither orac nor anybody else is able to dispute it would making themselves loot dishonest and idiotic.
Your contention that the eco-fascist programme would only cost trillions over a century is clearly untrue since it costs more than that, in foregone growth, annually, now.
In any case if you honestly believe wasting trillions,, which if spent on things like clean water supplies could save millions of lives, isn't catastrophic you will be on record as having publicly denounced those who called Fukushima a "catastrophe" as lying corrupt eco-Nazis who are not 1/1,000th part honest. I would really enjoy reading the links where you say that Tres, but am willing to place a side bet that you will again prove to be a wholly corrupt, thieving, eco-Nazi piece of filth. No offence.
Actually, Mr. Craig, I think the reason why nobody's responding to you is because you come across as the type of person who wears their underpants on their head. Seriously, "eco-nazis"? Do you know what the actual Nazis did? Do you? Do you?
Hiding? Have you considered the possibility that they are simply bored with arguing with a ranter?
Citation needed.
If the benefits are greater than than the costs then the money isn't wasted.
Have you tried coherence?
Do you ever consider playing a song that consists of more than playing the same note over and over again?
Yes i do Grey.
Nazis believe in mass murder of human beings. The German Nazis murdered about 35 million and you Nazis have tripled it.
Nazis believed mere facts must give way to the "triumph of the will" like you.
Nazis believe in censoring free discussion by vindictive attacks on the people making them and ultimately by force as you do (force is obviously limited across the internet but scum like Hansen have called for the imprisonmentof people for doubting the catastrophic warming whic you all know to be a deliberate fraud.
Unless there is evidence to the contrary I must accept the lying thireving Nazis here as rerpresentative of the movemnet.
Grey if you have any evidence of the underpants scenario you claim you will be able to produce it. If not you will, if there are ever any circumstances under which anybody should treat you as remotely hionest you will apologise. If not if there were any circumstances under which Orac or any other eco-Naxzi here were to be remotely trusted they would dissociate themselves from scum like you.
Tres you have already acknowledged that the entire catastrophic global warming story is a deliberate fraud and the refusal of any alarmist to dispute you shows it is known to be such by at least almost all its proponents. If you have any further point to make please first provide evidence that it is at least 10s of thousands of times closer to honest that the highest standard of honesty to which you ever aspire.
Any evidence for your claims? At all? An accusation of mass murder without evidence does not help your case.
Your last post alone is enough to provide very strong evidence of the "underpants scenario".
Citation most definitely needed for the Hansen accusation.
You have never shown any regard for evidence or even an understanding of it.
The "underpants scenario" is Grey's way of calling you a crank, a nutter, a loony. Compelling evidence (there's that word again) for which is your obsessive godwining of everybody you disagree with while representing yourself as holding the moral high ground. Your way of disregarding spelling, syntax and even a basic level of coherence also supports the case.
No I haven't. Your reading ability is equal to your writing ability.
That does not logically follow.
What would you accept as evidence?
What I find ironic is that Niel (Underpants Scenario) Craig arrived in a thread on hormesis with respect to radiation exposure, yet he appears completely unable to understand how atmospheric C02 has a hormetic effect on crop yields. A little bit of C02 is a good, even necessary thing, but a lot would reduce crop yields due to changes in temperature, rainfall etc.
I think Underpants Scenario is a great code phrase for announcing the arrival of a whackaloon troll.
So still no supporter of warming alarmism willing to say that the claim of catastrophic warming their movement has made is not a total and deliberate lie.
Their argument, if I may digbify it with the term resolves to the claim that I wear underpants on my head. This claim represents the absoluter pinnacle of honesty to which any of the child murdering Nazis here ever aspire to, and by trend to which virtually all warming supporters anywhere do. By defibnition nothing any of you Nazis ever say, on any subject, can ever be credited by any decent human.
Perhaps shooting fish in a barrel but Militant Witchburner clearly has no idea what the hormesis effect he lectures on is. He produces no evidence that CO2 increase directly reduces fertility - and of course there is none as anybody with any honesty here will acknowledge :-) (no I don't expect it).
He also displays his total ignorance (admittely no more total than that of the other Nazis here) in claiming that increased temperature "would reduce crop yields due to changes in temperature, rainfall etc. This would presumably explain cave paintings in the middle of the now enormously fertile Sahara showing that during the Climate Optimum, when it was up to 4C warmer than now, it supported lush vegitation, buffalo and hippopotami.
Or was it some extinct breed of hippo that didn't need water? Idiot.
Denialist projecting troll is denialist and projecting.
tresmal
I think this is a textbook case of advanced Nazi Tourette's.
Why would we defend a claim we've never made? Since catastrophe is your term, not ours, it's up to you to define it, with regard to AGW, and to provide examples of someone here making such a claim. Remember AGW doesn't have to be catastrophic to be a problem, it merely has to be bad enough to be worth addressing. If you reinterpret what I've just said into some sort of admission that AGW is a fraud,and you will, you will be demonstrating that you're a thousand times more dishonest than all the other people on this thread combined.
If I were a "crank" no intelligent person here would have any difficulty giving an answer to my questions which would show I was wrong.
Instead we have Tres saying and the rest of the child murdering ecofascists agreeing that global warming is not nearly as bad as the Fukushima reactor "catastrophe" but that it is also so bad we should spend thousands of times (perhaps hundreds of thousands) simply to ameliorate it.
Obviously while this repersents the pinnacle of honesty to which any arlarmist here & presumably elsewhere ever aspires, it is impossible & could not, under any circumstances, be claimed by anybody who aspired to the remotest trace of honesty.
@neil
That's rich, neil. You certainly do know how to make yourself look like a fool, as well as giving us a good laugh at your expense.
Everyone here has given you honest and truthful answers to your loaded questions, along with cited papers and evidence. You are the one that has willfully and doggedly ignored these answers, instead invoking Godwin's law constantly, attacking anyone who disagrees with your narrow worldview, and generally making yourself look like an idiot.
In short, you haven't come here to argue points like a rational person, you instead have come here trying to pick a fight (and losing badly), and then using some deluded mindset to make yourself seem like you are winning.
The few good things I can say about you is that you are a good example of how not to look like a complete asshat when trying to argue a point online and that you provide me with good laughs at how unintentionally humorous you are.
While accepting, Nava, that your claim that "everyone" here has "given honest and truthful answers" to these questions:
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" are wholly, completely and totally untruthful and would have to be openly denounced by anyone on the alarmist side who has any trace of honesty?
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 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?
... represents the pinnacle of honesty of which you or any of the other thieving Nazi parasites here are capable the fact is that nonbody has done so. Anybody can see that. I grant 1 person claimed to be answering without actually doing so, none of the rest of you have even tried that much deference to reality.
Now if you have any evidence whatsoever that any of the alarmists on this thread can ever, under any circumstnaces, achieve any sort of behaviour infinitely more honesty than the very highest standard to which you child murdering Nazi animals, including Orac, ever aspire I will await seeing it.
I note that even under that standard Nava makes no attempt to pretend that, as previously acknowledged, the catastrophic warming scare is anything but a deliberate fraud.
Normally I avoid exhuming old threads, but this is just too rich. Neil Craig, having been ignored with his climate-based Gish Gallop @ 145, and in true crank fashion, being unable to let a topic alone, has posted the identical nonsense over at Pharyngula.
I think it's about time people started gettign worried about this!
This is not the first time that "Mend a Relationship" has posted that very same remark.
I hate necromancing spammers.