General

The Earth is Not Moving

illconsidered — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 07:45:15 +0000

The Earth is Not Moving

"In order to save the dying heliocentric theory from the conclusive geocentric experiments performed by Michelson, Morley, Gale, Sagnac, Kantor and others, establishment master-mind Albert Einstein created his Special Theory of Relativity which in one philosophical swoop banished the absolute aether/firmament from scientific study and replaced it with a form of relativism which allowed for heliocentricism and geocentricism to hold equal merit. If there is no universal aetheric medium within which all things exist, then philosophically one can postulate complete relativism with regard to the movement of two objects (such as the Earth and sun). Nowadays, just like the theory of heliocentricism, Einstein's theory of relativity is accepted worldwide as gospel truth, even though he himself admitted geocentricism is equally justifiable"

Source: The Atlantean Conspiracy: The Earth is Not Moving

Offered for your reading pleasure. It is a master-stroke how a clerk working at the post office [update: er..patent office] is described as "establishment master-mind"! I really wonder how individuals can be intelligent enough to write at this level and yet believe in such nonsense.

But at the risk of making this post actually useful maybe someone can answer the question my googling was trying to answer before the article above distracted me: does Google Earth compensate for dimensional distortions due to satellite perspective?

illconsidered Mon, 07/25/2016 - 03:45

Tags

General

No, not for 2D imagery, everything is pancaked based on the location of the satellite.

If you mean orthographic (e g. rectilinear), that should be done.

The 3D areas do correct for satellite orientation. However, things like ground shadows are fixed to their 2D capture orientations.

I've used the USGS Earth Explorer quite a bit in the past. AFAIK all high resolution imagery is now in the private sector.

Most of this stuff you can figure out for yourself by just looking at google earth and finding places where buildings tilt in two different directions. That's a clear indication of an imagery seem (images stitched together).

Finally, I'm really rather rusty about this circa 2016, but in 2011 I was doing a lot of work on satellite imagery related to the Mississippi River flooding.

Thanks for the feedback, Everett. I did mean just orthographic. I just am using google earth images to make general and hypothetical plans for possible division of our lot, building placement ideas etc and the question came up. I would have been more than a little surprised if Google weren't making what should be such a simple correction. And actually, as you elude to, the evident distortions of familiar objects in some of the images give that away.

If google earth shows multiple time views of your area, then you can look at each of them, and since the odds of seems coinciding are small. In addition most states have aerial photography repositorys were for about 50 or so you can buy an image. Or if a topo map is sufficient (assuming the property is in the US you can go to the USGS web site and download maps of various vintages. (These are corrected and projected. (Actually the combo of a topo map and an aerial photo was how mapping was done at a field camp in 1972. Given the topo map, you get lat lon coordinates and can transfer that to google earth. (and vice versa) The topo map at 1:24000 should help you out as well as showing the actual height contours of the land.

Going a bit further here is a link to order aerial photos from the USGS Http: egsc.usgs.gov/isb//pubs/forms/aerialphotos.pdf.
(actually a link to an order form:
this provides info on the cost of these for example a 1:24000 print costs $10 if black and white and $25 if color.

C'mon now!

The cunning establishment mastermind, at the time he unleashed his cunning scheme to rescue heliocentrism, worked under deep cover as a clerk in a patent office.

Yes, patent office, sorry. I typed too quickly and thought too slowly...

What better place for an establishment master-mind to work? His main job was presumably to discover and suppress any unwanted inventions before they became common knowledge. He just got tired of destroying patent applications for perpetuum mobiles so he decided to scribble together a theory that would make it look even more impossible to build one, thus lowering his workload.

I do know that the Landsat data stream has to undergo a fair bit of processing before it is turned into an image. I can't remember the delay off the top of my head, but it was something like 30 minutes from memory.

Craig, in other words, what you stated, Landstat derived images are grossly artefacts, have therefore nothing in common with our visual brain system. Thank you for your contribution

we are wanting english properly not argot grunting from you freddy.

And when you want to use "other words", you are expected to use words that say the same thing, not a complete disconnect from the statements you have mangled by your ignorance.

Pious Heliocentrists are greatly emboldened by the discovery of topological semiconductors , for telluric currents in a two-dimensional world could greatly simplify the construction of an electric chair for materialist villains of the sort that endorse One Dimensional Man.

"Heliocentrists are greatly emboldened by the discovery of topological semiconductors"

No we aren't.

Ask for stronger medication. And no more self-medication.

Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year to you and your family Coby

Halpern, freddy asks you whether you will get retired in 2017, as freddy heard from your university. Freddy wishes you a fruitful last period as chemist without education in atmospheric physics.

Wow thinks that talking about yourself in the third person is something a retard thinks is clever.

Isn't it strange, though. When climate scientists are making claims about AGW, deniers refuse their claims with "But they would do, their grants depend on it" and point to an engineer or statistician or just unqualified weatherman.

When a chemist makes claims about AGW that they don't want to accept, though, suddenly it's HUGELY important that they are qualified to speak on the subject.

This is because deniers just gotta whine, since reality isn't on their side.

wow, you have terribly mistaken what Freddy was telling Eli Rabett Halpern: Freddy knows that Halpern has no education in atmospheric sciences in his curriculum. Further, Freddy does not understand that wow criticizes Freddy for wordng which he adores with Eli Halpern.Why is wow so partizan?

And that is still a moron typing there.

Moreover, everyne knows that moron is both a moron and a liar and whose words contain nothing of any intelligence or validity in the real world, and are completely fictions created by the diseased mind of the aforementioned idiot.

Freddy is the moron, and he knows it. but he's in deep denial of reality, and completely void of honesty.

Freddy, why do you have to lie so much?

Please note freddy/kai/boris/troll has had no education on maths. Or science. Or climate. And he harks to the nutcase fringe who lack training because he likes the message and cares not for the education.

And therefore his complaints about Eli's education are entirely a dogwhistle and well poisoning attempt.

Because that is all freddie/boris/kai/troll has to their arsenal. They are not equipped with reality or facts or even honest questions.

In case Eli Halpern still reads this blog, freddy would like to ask Elibunny Halpern whether Eli himself considers himself an expert in atmospheric sciences, and whether he would be friendly willing to cite the two most important - according to his own judgement - publications in climatology? This would help freddy in giving wow the right enlightenment wow apparently needs.

And Eli will wonder what the hell you're smoking given your query is vain and pointless bullshit from a retard with no relevance in the world.

Ah, and what does this troll "think" is the help I need? Or is this yet another thing that boriskaitrollbot needs to have others help tell him he's thinking?

Unmoderated Post on Moderation

illconsidered — Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:31:14 +0000

Unmoderated Post on Moderation

I will allow comments through by default for repeat commenters again, first time commenters will still need an initial approval.

I will however now be a more active moderator and delete things that are useless or unnecessarily personal from now on, except on this thread.

This is unavoidably subjective but I will try to err on the side of permissiveness. The goal will be controlling the tone more so than the content. Readers should keep in mind the fact I am in an Australian time zone, so doomed comments may be visible for many hours. I expect this blog will remain pretty quiet for the time being, though I still hope to have more to say in the future. It is in some ways an interesting time in The Climate Wars (really wild weather, new global anomaly records, politics), but also in other ways it is all so much "same as it ever was".

illconsidered Wed, 01/20/2016 - 04:31

Tags

Announcements

editorial

General

Of course it's going to be subjective. But what are the other options?

Don't apologise for something that is inevitable, it gives those wanting to demonise you a claim that is unwarranted. You either moderate and it MUST be subjective, or you don't and face the consequences of doing nothing. Which could be legal: removing links to Kiddie Porn is still moderation, and the choice of what you will moderate, even if it's "Well, I would be legally subject" is itself a subjective decision on what is moderable. Especially since those links won't say something as obvious as "Get your free pre-teen hentai pics here!".

I would suggest that a post that goes through one of the standard denier tropes listed on the SKS site being removed is as non-subjective a level of moderation as needed.

After all, if 20 years later and the disproof STILL hasn't stuck, what's the point wasting time over that 20 year old guff and reiterating the disproofs of the claim?

I think it is the right call; anonymous comments can really make a site thrive, but without management they can turn toxic. I'd consider making valued, long-term commenters voluntary mods, giving them the power to "hide" comments or the like, if it gets super annoying.

All things in moderation including moderation.

Happy 2016 Coby!

Mr. Halpern, also a good year, hopefully not too hot one for your senses, to you. Let me ask you, how you came to choose "Eli Rabett" as your nickname and why do you often say things like "Eli finds this interesting", talking in 3rd person speech about yourself? I would appreciate an explanation. Thank you.

Hi everyone.

Well, hasn't this blog devolved into never-ending fighting?
It's a long time since I last commented here, and
I'd just like to ask if any of you have changed your mind on AGW at all in the last few years?

I'm addressing this to you if you are a believer in AGW.
I mean, do you still think the alarmism is justified, or are doubts creeping into your mind?
Whadayareckon, Wow?
I'd especially like to know what you think of the alarmist's sides most prominent SCIENTIST; Bill Nye. (haha)

"Well, hasn’t this blog devolved into never-ending fighting?"

Oh, well, I guess that's over now you're here. Oh. Bugger. No, you just wanted to start in yourself.

"I’m addressing this to you if you are a believer in AGW."

Uhm, why? Are you a believer in fantasy? AGW is reality. You don't have to believe in it, it exists.

I take it, though, you haven't given up your fantasy and still insist it's a scam or some such rubbish, despite it being the warmest 2016 on record.

Because you never worried what reality said, so why the hell would more evidence change YOUR mind, eh?

"the alarmist’s sides most prominent SCIENTIST"

Who? Tony Watts? He's not a scientist.

I'm especially not at all bothered what the fuck you're trying to avoid saying either. You couldn't be bothered to say, so I really can;t be bothered to work it out. Bill Nye. Yup, he's an engineer and has a science show. But he's not a prominent scientist, not an alarmist, and accepts reality.

All of them 180degrees around from you, neither prominent, nor scientist, you're alarmist and in deep denial of reality.

I'm addressing this to you, retard.

Bahahaha!

Wow!
You are unreal!
So nasty, abusive and, desperate!
Bahahaha!

I can't believe you are STILL clinging on to this rubbish.
Your angst is obvious!
Your name-calling shows that you have NO actual science to back you up.

The wheels are falling off one of the greatest hoaxes of all time.
Bahahaha!

(by the way, I'm pointing and laughing at you, because you are SO nasty and abusive.
If you were friendly, we could have a much nicer conversation..... but we'd still be talking about how the wheels are falling off this AGW hoax.)

Remember wow, evidence of global warming is NOT evidence of human-caused, or influenced, global warming.

I was also hoping to hear from Mandas, who used to comment a lot here.
But, sadly, the most recent comments are just pointless fighting between Freddy and Wow.

Wow, why do you still bother?
What evidence of AGW has convinced you so thouroughly.
I ask that instead of posting a link to someone else's words, please explain it in your own words.
Thanks.
:-)

"So nasty, abusive and, desperate!"

If that's evidence of being wrong, you were wrong to begin with.

"(by the way, I’m pointing and laughing at you, because you are SO nasty and abusive."

Go ahead. This is meaningless, though, just letting you know.

"Remember wow, evidence of global warming is NOT evidence of human-caused, or influenced, global warming."

Really? Then what does it show is causing it?

"But, sadly, the most recent comments are just pointless fighting between Freddy and Wow."

Which you're now making pointless fighting between you and me. This invalidates this being any sort of complaint. You just want to join in.

And it doesn't prove AGW is wrong.

"Wow, why do you still bother?"

Why do you?

"What evidence of AGW has convinced you so thouroughly."

Uhm, the evidence.

Go look here yourself:

http://www.ipcc.ch

Note I did not ask you what evidence convinces you it's wrong or failing or all that bollocks because we both know it's nothing to do with evidence.

You just want pointless arguing and to spew abuse and idiocy.

"I ask that instead of posting a link to someone else’s words"

There's no words you will listen to, you only listen to words you want to hear. You have stuck to your denial for no reasons, and there are none you will listen to, you only want to be abusive and nasty and blame someone else for all your flaws.

I will listen to you, wow, if you will summarise the evidence in your own words.
Surely you can sum it up pretty easily?

You seem to be a climate scientist, so, surely with the thorough knowledge you have, you can sum it all up in a few sentences?
There's no need to be nasty, mate.
Just explain why you are so convinced.
If you want credibility, don't just tell me to "google it", or click on some ipcc link.
That is intellectual laziness, when your credibility is at stake, mate.
It's obviously a topic that is very close to your heart.

C'mon, mate.
convince me!

Oh and if you are indeed nasty, it will prove that you cannot convince me, and I've been right about this whole AGW shite since 2007!

"I will listen to you,"

Then what? what payoff for effort do I get? What end goal will happen to make the time investment valid?

Deniers deny. Listening then denying is no benefit, no change.

"Oh and if you are indeed nasty, it will prove"

Nothing.
Only that I have no care or worries about your precious ego or feelings.

It does not prove a damn thing about AGW.

But that you will do so anyway is because you have nothing of reality to support your insanity and denial.

What made you so convinced in 2007? Convince me.

Wow!
What would you get?
Mate!
You would be famous!
You would have incredible wealth and massive scientific credibility!
Isn't that worth a few short sentences?

Wow!
You can't explain something that you understand so thoroughly?
This is surprising to me, wow.
The way you speak to people, I was quite convinced you were a scientist who understands the science of AGW very well.

Hmmm....

You've just proven that the wheels are falling off your AGW religion.
You are attempting, very weakly, to turn the onus of proof back onto me.
It doesn''t work that way, mate.
It's up to the "hypothesisor" to prove the hypothesis, is it not?

Are you able to sum it up in a few well-crafted sentences?
It's settled science, after all, innit?

Go ahead.
Earn your well-deserved credibility!

'course, if ya nasty, your credibility goes down the toilet.
See how you go.

"You would be famous!"

Wrong. And worthless to me in any case.

"You can’t explain something that you understand so thoroughly?"

Oh, no, I absolutely can.

But since you posit that not explaining it means that you are incapable, your lack of explanation of what convinced you in 2007 means you don't think you're capable of doing so.

"You’ve just proven that the wheels are falling off your AGW religion."

So you've proven your AGW denial is complete bullshit? You've not explained what convinced YOU in 2007.

"It’s settled science, after all, innit? "

"It"? What do YOU mean by "it". If you mean AGW really exists and the evidence overwhelmingly supports it, then yes. That's settled. You have had 30 years at least, and 20 years even if you've been deliberately avoiding science to read the evidence and proofs yourself. And still you deny the problem, clutching at imaginary straws as "proof" that this religion you claim is wheel-less.

"‘course, if ya nasty, your credibility goes down the toilet."

Nope. Does not, shithead.

A tone argument is an argument used in discussions, sometimes by concern trolls and sometimes as a derailment tactic, it is an informal fallacy.

"You are attempting, very weakly, to turn the onus of proof back onto me."

No, I'm asking you to uphold the burden of proof on your claims.

1) religion?
2) proof the wheels are falling off?
3) Fame?
4) What convinced YOU in 2007.

I'm asking because I don't know what YOU considered proof enough in 2007. And you will whoosh those goalposts to avoid listening.

And that will happen even after you've said where those goalposts are, a thing which you are avoiding like anything to do, because you really REALLY do not want to debate.

Only bullshit.

For example, you claim I'm nasty and that proves AGW is failing.

But I can claim therefore that your use of blank assertion proves your AGW denial is driven by hope, prayer and ideology and completely avoids facts and evidence.

You cannot counter that by "But that's irrelevant!" or "I HAVE evidence!" because you've proclaimed without needing evidence other than the tone of argument made to come to your conclusion.

Bahahahaha!
Wow!
You seem to be "scrambling" for justification, wow.
(especially in the way you do that "point by point" replying. Can't you just write in normal sentences?)

It must be difficult for you to keep up your unwavering belief in such people as Michael Mann, Al Gore and Bill Nye.
AGW is settled science!
Bill Nye says so!

I will let you just go back to arguing with Freddy now, wow.

Honestly, you had a chance to convince me, but you failed.
You have proven that you are nothing more than a brainwashed, leftist, dummy, who's clinging desperately to your failing ideology.
You can only defend it by nastiness and abuse.
You remind me of those anti-trump protestors who don't even know why they're protesting.
(haha!)

You have zero credibility,
and you are losing more and more each day as mother nature and especially, actual science, proves the hypothesis wrong.

I've said it before 'n' I'll say it again; it has been a political argument all along.

You seem to be avoiding saying what constituted proof for you in 2007. That's clearly because there was no proof, you just decided.

"I’ve said it before ‘n’ I’ll say it again; it has been a political argument all along"

"IT"? What "it"? What to do about AGW IS a political argument. Whether there IS AGW is not political, it's science.

"AGW is settled science!
Bill Nye says so!"

No, Bill Nye says so because the science is settled on the subject of the reality of AGW.

PS. "It's a political argument because some random moron denier on the internet says so!", right? Oh, no, for YOU there's proof and evidence in your claims, you just won't provide them.

"Honestly, you had a chance to convince me, but you failed."

Honestly, you're talking bollocks there. You were convinced in 2007 it was wrong and there was no evidence required for you to be convinced. To convince you otherwise would require Ken Ham levels of evidence. There IS no evidence that would convince you otherwise.

And not convincing a denier that they're wrong when they're convinced they're right based on no evidence or logic is not my failure, but yours.

"You have proven that you are nothing more than a brainwashed, leftist, dummy, who’s clinging desperately to your failing ideology."

Someone said, someone you listen to a lot, that this was merely political, and there you go making a politics claim. They also complained it was all abuse and pointless fighting, there you are hurling abuse and pointlessly arguing.

I guess this proves, as that person said, that your position is political and ideologically vacant rhetoric and the wheels have fallen off the AGW denial wagon, hence your sudden appearance and hate spewing vitriol.

This is so because someone you listen to a lot said that this constitutes proof of that claim.

Wow!
Good boy, Wow.
You managed to write a whole par without using one swear word!
Perhaps that means you DO care about your credibility?

But...
There's no climate science in your comment.
You are a climate scientist, wow.
Why are you not talking about climate science?
You just said the science is settled.
Can't you sum it up for me?

Also, I must mention;
You write as a classic leftist who constantly utilises ad hominems and obfuscation out of weakness of argument.

You also assume an awful lot of details to react to, I've noticed.
(whispering)
Those things only exist inside your own head, mate.
Who is "the person" you're talking about?

Again I must ask;
could you please write in standard, academic form and not this ridiculous "line-by-line" stuff, wow? It behoves you to write properly.

Lastly, I'll address your first sentence.

I was alarmed and shocked by An Inconvenient Truth when I saw it in 2006.
I was a member of Greenpeace at the time and still consider myself an environmentalist.
I wanted more information about this global warming stuff and I can assure you, my mind was set to be changed, unwillingly at first, but gradually, my mind WAS changed.
At the time, (2009) I wrote to the Australian Greens Party to get more information, ("trusted information") and they sent me a link to this very page; A Few Things Ill Considered.
I learnt a lot from this page, both scientifically and politically.

I learnt that this is a scientific hypothesis whose proponents and opponents are very clearly drawn down purely political lines.
(surely you don't deny that?)

I wondered why politics was so prevalent in this issue and my mind was changed in that regard too.
Scientifically, the two things that first got me interested were:
1. the Hockey Stick Graph, that erased the medieval warm period.
2. The leading/trailing/non-existant relationship between CO2 and Temperature from the ice cores.

Both of these things were "triggers" for my wanting to learn more and, to discovering the exceedingly non-scientific and indeed political nature of this particular field of science.
Is any other field of science "settled"?

So, I ask again for you to sum it up for me as the climate scientist you say you are.
Thanks.

"You are a climate scientist, wow."

Nope.

Weren't you complaining about point list posting and how this demonstrates you are incompetent?

"1. the Hockey Stick Graph, that erased the medieval warm period."

Nope, it never erased the MWP. It was never within MBH98 and MBH99 was extended to contain within it the period that is considered the MWP.

What YOU read was denier bullshit where they got the meaning completely wrong.

"2. The leading/trailing/non-existant relationship between CO2 and Temperature from the ice cores."

So which is it? Is it trailing or leading or nonexistent?

But the vostok cores show that CO2 cause temperature increases. Either by being released and starting off the temperature rise, meaning more CO2 is released, meaning more temperature rise, such as happened during the PETM, or by some other warming, such as Milankovich cycles meaning an increase in average insolation, which causes warming and that causes CO2 to be released which causes warming, which releases more CO2 which causes more warming, and so on.

So what lack of relationship are you talking about?

Pity you never managed a single post without abuse, though. Clearly YOU don't give a shit for your credibility.

Not that you had any to begin with, mind...

Oh, and MBH99 has a MWP. About 0.4C warmer than average. It's at the lower end of the range of reconstructions, but not hugely, even the largest difference of the weirdest reconstructions show little over 0.8C warming in the MWP.

Clearly all you did was read some denier trope in 2007 and never bothered to check up on it at any time since.

Oh, see if you can manage one single post without hurling abuse and instead stick to the facts. You've failed so far. Because if you're having to scream "leftist!" and "religion!" and other derogations against those who do not agree with you, you clearly have no actual facts to work with and have to instead scream and shout abuse at others to make them unwilling to interact with you.

But, like the retarded rightwing nutjob you are, you will be incapable of doing so and will do so as soon as it looks like you're not going to win and have no other way out than to accept the facts presented or scream abuse as if this somehow negates the need to accept reality because they're "bad people".

"I was alarmed and shocked by An Inconvenient Truth when I saw it in 2006."

Soshould anyone who hadn't learned about global warming. Which shouldn't have been many since there was a Disney informational broadcast in the 60s about it. It's quite bleak what is happening.

"I learnt that this is a scientific hypothesis whose proponents and opponents are very clearly drawn down purely political lines."

Where did you learn that? And how do you know it's the left's fault and not the right? Moreover, how does that change reality? Either it's right or it's wrong, and it doesn't matter if you're rightwing or left.

Moreover, that's a false claim anyway. The noisiest deniers are rightwingnutjobs because for them it's all about identity politics and, lacking reality or evidence on their side, they had to argue politics and smear, because they had no positive claims themselves to deal with and propound.

And the times they tried to make a prediction about the climate, well, it didn't go well. Not well at all. Every single one turned out not merely wrong but the reverse of reality.

When Pat Michaels lied to the US senate about his funding, did this ring any alarm bells for you?

When Mad Christ Moncton joined up, a man who claims to be a scientific adviser to Margaret Thatcher when he never was (she was a Chemist), whose "training" is in ancient world greece and roman culture, and who claims to have cured both AIDS and Graves disease (the latter he still suffers from, so clearly either no cure or he doesn't dare use it himself) and insists that the Crown doesn't know who is and who isn't a member of the House of Lords, therefore a habitual liar and opportunist, did that ring a warning bell?

How about Tim Ball claiming he's a climatologist when he wasn't? Claiming he was in hiding when interviewed backlit but had in the previous month turned up publicly, as he did before and since, and gave a talk at a public forum at which he'd been invited months earlier? Problematic for the denial side?

How about Pat Moore who claims to be a co-founder of Greenpeace who wasn't?

What about Soon and Ballunias' fraud? How about Wegman's plagiarism? The hiding of funding for the HI? The lack of any alternative model?

When Lomborg's CLOUD paper showed that his seeding idea was ineffective (which I could have said beforehand, there's a shitload of particulates in the sky for clouds to form around, so cosmic ray nucleation can't increase cloud cover, only cause it to happen at the expense of it happening with dust particles in the atmosphere, but the denial crowd STILL insist it could work, did that worry you?

When the internal emails of the Heartland Institute were uncovered and showed collusion to deceive, were you shocked?

When TGGWS was shown to be largely false and misleading and after the court case they had to produce a different version that removed a lot of the alarmist claims in the "documentary" (for want of a better word), whereas AIT's case ended with the judge saying that it needed some advice notes to teachers when presenting this to point out that no timeline for loss of WAIS and GIS was given, were you set back?

When deniers claimed that AIT has Al Gore saying Florida would be underwater by 2100, did you try and find the bit where Al Gore says that? If you did, given you could not find it, only reports of people saying he did (it's not in the transcript, and you will find no copy with this in to transcribe yourself), were you shaken? That deniers still insist it was said, are you shocked at the lies and deceit?

Did you check the rebuttals and proofs of inaccuracy of M&M to MBH98/99 to see how their attempt to disprove the HS was rubbish? Have you checked any of the other reconstructions since?

Or did you take someone else's word for all this "proof" of AGW's falsity, and never looked? Then demand I spend time and effort trying to educate the ineducable denier moron that is you?

So musta convinced Michael there that the denial side was, if anything, less reliable than he thought the realist side was, so he clearly could not believe their claims.

Adam, freddy does not consider Al Gore a competent capacity in climate science and meteorology. Therefore freddy does not give a nut on what a naked layman exoresses as his beliefs in an area in which such an individual has no education, takent and competence whatsoever. Freddy recommends to Adam to learn to distinguish what science is from just daily bavarding in the media.

Ah, well, I'll let you talk to adam, then.

Oh, and we have yet another sciencelbogs sock from you. Ex-Deltoid troll Batshit Betula the tree pruning moron is you too.

Hey, were you posting as Mike from Brisbane too?

And I take it that your posting in the third person is to cover up another case of your sockpuppet support of your own claims being found out with the lameass trump-level "excuse" of "I was just talking in the third person" again.

Wow.
Blah blah blah.....
Wow! you can spout some bullshit, wow.

AGW is like a religion, and its followers, like you are like religious zealots.
I am accusing you of being a religious zealot, wow.
You are the one who is responsible for providing evidence, not me.

Your religion PRETENDS to be science.
It is not based on the previously well-established scientific method at all.
Your religion is anti-life, anti-human, pro-poverty, socialist rubbish.

You are obviously thoroughly convinced yourself, but you have done a shit job of convincing me or anyone else.

Here's another angle to try:
As a leftist/socialist, can you please explain how socialism is a good idea?
Feel free to reference the current situation in Venezuela to help you form your argument.
Perhaps you could include the CO2 emissions figures for water cannons and tanks, mowing down the awful and quite pesky, starving population?

Come at me, bro!
You are weak.
Your religion is based on nothing but political zealotry!
It's a doctrine that suits the weak-minded leftists like you.

Do you think this might be a reason why no-one else is commenting here to support your religion?

I'd be interested to hear from anyone else who will stand with Wow.

Ah, you were supposed to refrain from blatant unsupported claims, "mike", given you want your complaints about a lack of evidence and fact-free proclamation to be taken as honest brokership.

Your "concerns" about AGW and its science were NONE of them about the science, but about the actions you saw and how they made you feel "alarm bells were ringing".

So I responded with the proof level you had to your insistence it is all fake: actions that should also make you feel "alarm bells were ringing" and therefore that the claims it was all wrong are also unsupportable and wrong. religious zealotry, as it were.

Do you not feel like alarm bells are ringing on your side about the actions taken by those who claim with foam-flecked screaming that AGW is a scam, a lie, a religion, proposed by leftists, entirely drawn along party political lines?

Because precisely the same proof, merely more of it, is clearly indicating that it is your side of the argument that is filled and promulgated by rightwing political hacks lying and scamming and pushing their religion like the most rabid zealots.

And if not, then clearly what you cited as "evidence" had no effect on you at all, since you ignore or clutch as holy writ that evidence at a whim to one side and not the other.

The choice of which you reject and which you refuse to accept or even acknowledge exists must therefore by from some other source.

What, then is that source for your screaming hatred of reality?

Convince me that you are capable of listening.

Oh, and thank you for yet more proof that you are projecting with your claims of political partisanship being the driver of stance.

You shout irrelevant accusations and propose "leftist" this and "socialist" that and demand I talk only of politics now.

When earlier you saw the demand to make it party political as somehow proof that the stance taken proved it was unsupportable by science.

"You are the one who is responsible for providing evidence"

I did:

The noisiest deniers are rightwingnutjobs because for them it’s all about identity politics and, lacking reality or evidence on their side, they had to argue politics and smear, because they had no positive claims themselves to deal with and propound.

And the times they tried to make a prediction about the climate, well, it didn’t go well. Not well at all. Every single one turned out not merely wrong but the reverse of reality.

When Pat Michaels lied to the US senate about his funding, did this ring any alarm bells for you?

When Mad Christ Moncton joined up, a man who claims to be a scientific adviser to Margaret Thatcher when he never was (she was a Chemist), whose “training” is in ancient world greece and roman culture, and who claims to have cured both AIDS and Graves disease (the latter he still suffers from, so clearly either no cure or he doesn’t dare use it himself) and insists that the Crown doesn’t know who is and who isn’t a member of the House of Lords, therefore a habitual liar and opportunist, did that ring a warning bell?

How about Tim Ball claiming he’s a climatologist when he wasn’t? Claiming he was in hiding when interviewed backlit but had in the previous month turned up publicly, as he did before and since, and gave a talk at a public forum at which he’d been invited months earlier? Problematic for the denial side?

How about Pat Moore who claims to be a co-founder of Greenpeace who wasn’t?

What about Soon and Ballunias’ fraud? How about Wegman’s plagiarism? The hiding of funding for the HI? The lack of any alternative model?

When Lomborg’s CLOUD paper showed that his seeding idea was ineffective (which I could have said beforehand, there’s a shitload of particulates in the sky for clouds to form around, so cosmic ray nucleation can’t increase cloud cover, only cause it to happen at the expense of it happening with dust particles in the atmosphere, but the denial crowd STILL insist it could work, did that worry you?

When the internal emails of the Heartland Institute were uncovered and showed collusion to deceive, were you shocked?

When TGGWS was shown to be largely false and misleading and after the court case they had to produce a different version that removed a lot of the alarmist claims in the “documentary” (for want of a better word), whereas AIT’s case ended with the judge saying that it needed some advice notes to teachers when presenting this to point out that no timeline for loss of WAIS and GIS was given, were you set back?

When deniers claimed that AIT has Al Gore saying Florida would be underwater by 2100, did you try and find the bit where Al Gore says that? If you did, given you could not find it, only reports of people saying he did (it’s not in the transcript, and you will find no copy with this in to transcribe yourself), were you shaken? That deniers still insist it was said, are you shocked at the lies and deceit?

Did you check the rebuttals and proofs of inaccuracy of M&M to MBH98/99 to see how their attempt to disprove the HS was rubbish? Have you checked any of the other reconstructions since?

There you go, proof exactly of the same calibre that you have been convinced with before.

Ergo it convinces you now.

When conversing with the right wing, all I can think is that memepic from Toy Story with Buzz and Woodie and subtitle it with "Snowflakes. Snowflakes everywhere!".

Such a bunch of thin skinned wusses offended by words that are "nasty". On the internet, nobody owes you a safespace, cupcake.

Oh look, the WoW-pollution has washed up here as well.

Don't these blog owners have cleaners?

Still whining to win, craig? I'd always guessed you looked up to trump.

Worried nobody will take notice of you, cupcake?

Sad.

Hey Craig,
Where else does WOW show up?

I'm surprised that Coby has allowed his blog to become Wow's scratching post.

Hey WOW.
Please post any evidence you may have, that does not rely solely on computer model output data.

Thanks.

Actually, I ask that question of any reader here.

Please post any evidence of AGW that does not rely solely on computer modelling.
Thanks.

"that does not rely solely on computer model output data."

MBH98.

Duh.

Svante Arrhennius also didn't have access to a computer. Check out his proof.

Wow! That's a piss-weak response, wow.
Typical of a lazy, leftist, alarmist, too.
It's up to you to provide evidence for your AGW religious beliefs.
Be a man!
Stand up for your faith!

Please post the evidence you have that doesn't rely solely on computer modelling.
I'm waiting.

I'm not sure I understand the mechanism whereby computer modelling can be responsible for record low Arctic sea ice extent:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

...how modelling could be causing the extensive world-wide retreat of most glaciers:
http://wgms.ch/latest-glacier-mass-balance-data/

Or how modelling could be causing the accelerating increase in sea levels:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ikXzCCe1bNc/U9h19XT0smI/AAAAAAAAN90/3BaMbOGCI…

Also, for the basics of how the atmospheric greenhouse effect works, It isn't modelling that gives us the absoprtion spectrum of CO2:
http://mb-soft.com/public3/co2absoq.gif

...observations of which allow us to understand how the Earth's energy balance works out:
https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/img_lrg/energy_balance.jpg

The only place where modelling comes in is in trying to understand the future of the trends we are already observing.

The worst of the modelling was the modelling done on Arctic sea ice, which vastly underestimating the rate of melting that has occurred in reality:
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/sea_ice_prediction_med.jpg

Or, if I may be permitted to re-phrase that into the Einstein-like genius of Wow-speak,
I’m addressing this to you, retard.
Only bullshit
But, like the retarded rightwing nutjob you are, ...
Oh, and we have yet another sciencelbogs sock from you. Ex-Deltoid troll Batshit Betula the tree pruning moron is you too.
On the internet, nobody owes you a safespace, cupcake.
Worried nobody will take notice of you, cupcake?
Sad.
Duh.

"Wow! That’s a piss-weak response, wow."

Proof plz, witless moron

"Please post the evidence you have that doesn’t rely solely on computer modelling.
I’m waiting."

Why? Already there in #41 and #42.

Just because you haven't ever heard of them apart from the denialist echo chamber where they dismiss it (and you swallow it whole) doesn't mean those fuckwits are correct.

That there is the evidence.

Actual measurements of AGW and the theory with predictions (that have all come to pass) sans computers.

Well well, Craig.
What a nasty, leftist, religious zealot you are!
Haha!
Algorhu Akbar!! (haha)

I'm pretty dumb, so perhaps I worded the question badly?

"Please provide evidence for CAGW alarmism that does not rely solely on computer modelling."

Everything you've mentioned is indeed evidence of climate change.
However, NONE of those things are evidence of mankind's contribution to natural atmospheric CO2 causing anything!

ALL of the alarmist predictions come from computer model evidence.
NONE of the alarm comes from actual evidence.
Surely you are aware of the ol' "correlation doesn't equal causation" thingy? (It's a bit sciency I know)

Evidence of climate change is NOT evidence of human-caused climate change!

You really are a very nasty person, to say such things to a complete stranger.
Leftists are fascinatin'!

Leftists are also THE ONLY segment of society that has fallen hook line and sinker for the crap spun by the politicians at the IPCC.

Wow.

I thought you might have understood what I wrote.
I'm asking you to explain it.

It's up to you to prove your faith is justified.
Leftist dummies often try to turn the onus of proof onto others.
That doesn't work on me.

Explain to me how what you've mentioned at #41 and #42 are non-mathematical model evidence for AGW.
Explain your faith in the IPCC and the politicians who have ripped off the taxpayers of the world!
Algorehu Akbar!

Oh, and to further clarify my point:

Please provide non-mathemetical-model evidence that shows how the "science" of AGW and CAGW is "settled science", with no further discussion allowed.

"What a nasty, leftist, religious zealot you are!"

You keep bringing religion into it. And politics.

Projection (Psychological)

1) An unconscious self-defence mechanism characterised by a person unconsciously attributing their own issues onto someone or something else as a form of delusion and denial.

"Please provide non-mathemetical-model evidence that shows how the “science” of AGW and CAGW is “settled science”"

Again, Svante Arrhenius.

Science uses maths as it s proof, so you're demanding a non science science. Which you moved to from "No computer models" because your arse was handed to you when you demanded and got what you never wanted.

Diddums.

"of AGW is “settled science”, "

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Duh.

"I thought you might have understood what I wrote."

Nope, I understood completely. You asked for a non-computer model proof of AGW. I gave it.

"I’m asking you to explain it."

Now you are. Because you're JAQing off and wasting time. Like "asking" for non-math proof of the science of climate change.

We both know it's meaningless because your only complaints against AGW have been that things "rang alarm bells". Yet far more and stronger alarm bells ring for the denialists whose bilge you spout, yet this rang nothing with you.

You do not want or demand evidence, you want to pretend it's all fake so your politics can remain undisturbed.

"That doesn’t work on me."

That's because you're in deep denial. There is so much evidence that you need proof it's all fake to discount it. It's 30 years too late to cry off that there's no evidence and no proof.

Where is that proof that it's all faked evidence?

"ALL of the alarmist predictions come from computer model evidence."

WRONG. See Svante.

"NONE of the alarm comes from actual evidence."

WRONG. See MBH98

"Evidence of climate change is NOT evidence of human-caused climate change!"

Science answers the question why the climate changes. And it's CO2 changing it now and we're doing it.

Logic proves human-caused climate change.

"Leftists"

And along with your religious projection, your politics too.

"are also THE ONLY segment of society that has fallen hook line and sinker "

Leaving the right to fall for the denial industry's proven lies. While reality shows the scientists are right and that the left is just accepting expertise.

"for the crap spun by the politicians at the IPCC."

Where is your proof and evidence?

"Explain your faith in the IPCC"

They are scientists who collate the work of thousands of other scientists. Expertise gives reason to believe their results.

"and the politicians"

The politicians have sold you a line that you swallowed. I don't believe the politicians. They mostly try their best to underplay the facts about AGW so that the big oil states and the USA can all continue to pretend there's nothing to worry about.

You're the one believing politicians and untrained idiots.

hey Wow.
This form of "copy and paste" writing you do, is it acceptable in your academic circles?
I must say I find it infantile and annoying.
Just like its content.
I suspect you are incapable of explaining the 'evidence' yourself, so you just use bluster.
(haha)
I also wonder where all the other commenters are these days.
Remember Mandas and all the others who used to comment here on your "believers" side?
I always respected Mandas, because he was never nasty like you STILL are.
Why are they not supporting you anymore?
Even Coby doesn't seem to comment much in support of you.
Have they woken up to this political hoax, or do they still believe, like you do, that the politicians at the IPCC are genuinely good people?
The UN is the vatican and the IPCC is the college of cardinals.
Al Gore is the pope. (haha)
(He's become very weatlthy on Big Climate, the holy father!)

Does any other field of science use ONLY mathematics as evidence?
(besides mathematical science of course)
Please explain how a complex system like the earth's climate is "settled science" when the only "evidence" for alarmism is mathematical models, based on ONE parameter!

It's SUCH bullshit and you've fallen for it hook line and sinker!
I know it's time for your daily prayers, so I'll get in before you....
Algorhu Akbar!

"I must say I find it infantile and annoying."

Good.

"It’s SUCH bullshit"

Ah, and your proof for that is you don't like its conclusions.

Sorry, that only is your bigotries and denial speaking. Rational humans, unlike yourself, need evidence for claims. You haven't got any. Just your feelings.

"Does any other field of science use ONLY mathematics as evidence?"

Yes, Chemistry uses almost entirely mathematics too. Geology is massively maths. Computer science is almost entirely maths. Engineering? Totally maths. Biology? Apart from dissections, maths too.

"Please explain how a complex system like the earth’s climate is “settled science” "

Please explain why AGW is not. That's what you asked about before.

And it's settled science because the scientists have looked at the evidence and all come to the same conclusion: AGW is real and it's happening and explains the evidence extremely well while every other avenue of explanation is incapable of doing so.

"Why are they not supporting you anymore?"

They don't have to. Why does nobody support you, betty?

Trollidiots like yourself have driven them away, because answering morons luike yourself who demand A then when it's given say "no, I meant B" then "Nuh, uh, I asked C" is just meaningless.

You'd decided for your political and ideological outlook to deny reality and deny AGW based on your feels and until reality and AGW "feel" OK with you, you will not change, no matter what evidence is presented.

Like Svante Arrhenius and MBH98 and Cook et al. All non computer evidence and proof of AGW and it being settled science.

You don't feel right when presented, so you refuse to allow it to penetrate your denier skull. And no evidence will change your mind, since evidence never made it up in the first place.

So they left because you're a moron denier and like other moron deniers, there's no value in pandering to your idiocies and they have left.

"He’s become very weatlthy on Big Climate"

He became very wealthy long before it.

And odd that you hate the wealthy so much. Wealth envy is again a projection of the right. "How DARE they be rich without being like ME!!!!!". Because to the right success means you are right and if you are right you must agree with the rightwinger or they might be wrong, so if you're successful (which to the right means wealthy), you must either be a rightwinger like them or have scammed people which means you're not successful you're just a crook and they can ignore the weath as unearned.

Rich envy from the right.How pathetic.

"this political hoax"

Proof please.

" alarmism "

Proof please.

"when the only “evidence” for alarmism is mathematical models, based on ONE parameter! "

Lie.

It's not based on one parameter. However you may be thinking of that denier loon Mad Christ Monkfish whose "model" was like an engineers' caricature of one and where the one parameter to work on was the climate sensitivity which he made to be very low then used his "model" to show that the climate sensitvity was low.

Climate science models do not use only one parameter.

"when the only “evidence” for alarmism is mathematical models"

Proof this is a problem, please.

Not playing any more, "mike"? (ha ha)

Need to get more ammo from your superiors in Right Wing Central? (ha ha)

Haha!
Your leftist thinking is funny.
But I find your writing difficult to read.
I know you'll try to insult me for that, but I think you're a bad writer.
I'm sceptical of whether your style is acceptable in academic circles.

I really must highlight this bit! (haha)

"Yes, Chemistry uses almost entirely mathematics too. Geology is massively maths. Computer science is almost entirely maths. Engineering? Totally maths. Biology? Apart from dissections, maths too."

I challenge you to show me any topic of study in the fields of science you've mentioned that uses mathematics as its ONLY source of evidence.
I hope you will read your comment again and see how wrong you are.

I do admit to misusing the word "parameter"
I meant "a line of evidence", meaning, models are one line of evidence in scientific inquiry.
I did not mean to imply that models use only one parameter.
I hope that clears that up.

Since your mind is obviously closed on the climate science aspect of the AGW hoax, perhaps I can get you to acknowledge a different aspect of the issue?

The Big Climate unelected government-corporations are pushing for shutting down of fossil fuel sources in place of inefficient and expensive renewable sources, which only result in two things:
Less reliable power, and
Increased cost of power.

The rich can handle the increased cost of electricity and fuel and groceries, etc, but the poor cannot.
Why would Big Climate be doing this?

Since you are closed-minded about the AGW hoax, I wonder if we could have a technical discussion about the various forms of electricity production and why it's against physics to be closing down fossil fueled power stations?

"But I find your writing difficult to read."

Well, yes, a lack of education makes your reading skills inadequate to the task.

"I challenge you to show me any topic of study in the fields of science you’ve mentioned that uses mathematics as its ONLY source of evidence."

Determining the chemical characteristics of a molecule requires computation in quantum mechanics. 100% mathematical models and only capable of being done in a computer due to the massive amount of calculation done.

"I meant “a line of evidence”, meaning, models are one line of evidence in scientific inquiry."

Then your claim was meaningless babble. Nothing new there.

"Less reliable power"

Lie.

"Increased cost of power."

Lie.

"The rich can handle the increased cost of electricity"

But not if you use renewables because they make more cash when you buy fossil fueled power which is only possible from their sources. Oil fields under your house are not yours.

Funny how you follow fake money and ignore the real money trail when it leads right to the rightwing nutjobs who feed you the line to keep you snookered.

" inefficient"

Irrelevant. Since no fuel is burned it matters not how efficient it is at turning a photon in to electrical potential.

And SPV at commercial scale is already as, or more, efficient than the internal combustion engine.

" and expensive"

Wrong.

"which only result in two things:"

Wrong again.

And i will note that you have yet to fulfill any obligations on proving any of your claims that have been questioned before. Also that you insist on making it based on party political lines, making the ones patently wrong on the subject you and your ilk.

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/

Are you well-versed in the technical aspects of electricity generation?

You seem to think that solar and other renewables are more powerful and/or more efficient than fossil fuels?

I'd love to have a technical discussion with you on the various efficiencies and physics of all forms of electricity generation if you'd like?

Part of the reason I know AGW is a political hoax to feed the greed of UN elites, is that they are shutting down coal-fired power stations as a matter of "urgency", in place of renewable sources that are orders of magnitude weaker, more expensive and pollute just as much in their manufacture, mining, and production, as well as being inefficient at producing electricity.

You've been well and truly duped by politicians, wow.
WOW!

The low educated misinformed is named Adam and has no clue about electrivity generation, but suffers from untreatable logorrhea.

Wow! Adam!
You've been well and truly duped by elite politicians.

"renewable sources that are orders of magnitude weaker"

Bullshit.

", more expensive"

The reverse of reality.

" and pollute just as much in their manufacture, mining, and production,"

Complete codswallop.

" as well as being inefficient at producing electricity."

Still wrong. See previous. Repeating lies don't turn them into truths.

"You’ve been well and truly duped by politicians, wow."

Says someone who has been duped by the righwing politicians...

Sad

Freddie, boris, kai, sunspot, barry, michael, adding more socks won't change the fact you're talking bollocks, mate!

Haha!
Wow!/Adam!

You are actually weaker than I had thought.
Your responses are child-like.
To be honest, I think you and your ilk are sad and pathetic, and I mean that in a genuine and sincere way.
I don't mean it as an insult.

I feel a bit sorry for you, even after all your nastiness and carrying on.
I hope you'll keep following your religion, until it becomes so embarrassing, that even you can't stand it anymore.

The entire AGW hoax will be a half-day primary school subject in 300 years time.
People will study all these comments on the "ancient internet" and wonder how they evolved past such "global brainwashed thinking".

Keep up your good work Adam.
It seems you're a lone-voice these days, even on this blog, and I do feel sorry for you.

"Your responses are child-like."

Since your argument is infantile, I see no need to put effort into it, freddy.

"I hope you’ll keep following your religion,"

Again you're the only one going on about religion.

"I don’t mean it as an insult."

Bullshit. It's your only desire. Hating the science, those who know it and those who say what it is.

Do you think I'm Freddy?
I can assure you, I'm not.

Your reply has cemented my previous comment regarding your aloneness and your childishness.

I do feel a bit sorry for you, mate.

Sure you're freddy. Just like I'm adam.

Your confusion is really your creation, not mine. Live with. You put a lot of hate and anger into believing it's all a hoax because you've been fed lies.

I must say that for someone who seems to have ruled this forum with the iron-fist of a leftist dictator, you are surprisingly non-intellectual.

I s'pose you've spent a lot of time pondering the fact that you're the last alarmist here?
Maybe Coby is keeping the blog active just for you?

For someone who lives inside their own anus, your claims there are nothing unexpected. It's meaningless whine and whinge, proposed because your arguments have been nonexistent and destroyed with little effort.

So you're attempting to make me wrong by the fact I've posted.

Sorry freddy, this won't float.

Just like your other "ideas".

Haha! You really do think I'm Freddy!

I assure you, Adamwow, I'm not.
You can't use that as an excuse.
I really must say I'm taken aback by your ineptitude regarding your ability to argue for your religious beliefs.

You are a typically weak-minded leftist who really has no idea of anything except your political religion, which is diminishing in its popularity and credibility with each passing day.

Algorehu Akbar!

Bahahahahaha!

Sure. Just like you really think I'm Adam.

"You can’t use that as an excuse."

An excuse for WHAT?

"religious beliefs."

The only one calling religion and partisanship is you, freddykaiborismike. And you insisted that this proved the side making the claim of that absolutely wrong.

So you're merely proving your denial of AGW is a fraud.

"political religion"

And you're doing it again. Making batshit claims twice doesn't make it any less batshit or any less wrong.

Sorry, your rightwingnujob ideology is incapable of handling reality, but AGW is real and your denial of reality is a cranial infarction brought about by your stupidity and ease by which you are programmed by the politicians who are using you to keep lining the pockets of themselves, their friends and their donors.

sigh
For what? ....
as an excuse for not responding with reasoned thought in defence of AGW.
I am not any of the other people you seem to think I am, wow.

How 'bout this?
Do you personally, consider the IPCC to be trustworthy, with regard to climate science?

That's a simple question. Let's see if you can give a simple answer, with only reasoned thought and not insults, or diversions.

"For what? ….
as an excuse for not responding with reasoned thought "

How on earth would you be freddykaiborismike be an excuse for that?

And I've already managed far more reasoned thought than you have in your unreasoned and irrational batshit crazy attacks against reality. But you don't WANT reality, since it doesn't conform to your political outlook.

"Do you personally, consider the IPCC to be trustworthy, with regard to climate science?"

If I answer, then what? JAQing off is what you#re doing and answering this will merely garner another twenty questions, all leading.

If I answer, then what?

Why is answering even necessary? Already been answered many many times.

So, it'll be easy for you to answer again, then.

Do you trust the source of the AGW alarm, the IPCC?

I've answered your asinine and meaningless questions before, yet all that's happened is you've spammed "religion" "politics" "religion" "politics" "religion" "politics".

So what if I DO answer that one? 20 more questions?

"the AGW alarm"

That would be denier blogrolls like WtfUWT and co2scam et al.

You know, the sites YOU get your political hack job disinformation from.

I'm only asking 1 question, mate.
You're attempting to divert by making excuses for answering questions that don't exist anywhere but inside your paranoid, leftist mind.

Do you trust the IPCC?
The UN IPCC is the source of AGW alarm that is based solely on computer modelling.
Do you trust the politicians to give you, personally, the true and correct scientific advice on AGW?

It's a simple question, mate.

And I'm only asking questions. My post #56answered your earlier ones, out of many, yet here you are bleating "alarmist" "religion" "leftwing" "politics".

So if I answer, what then? 20 more questions? More "religion" "politics" "religion" "politics" "religion" "politics" "religion" "politics"?

"The UN IPCC is the source of AGW alarm "

Lie.

"Do you trust the politicians"

WTF?

Make your fucking mind up, retard.

IPCC or politicians.

i take it you don't believe Inholf when he says that there is no AGW, then, moron? He's a politician. And you will not trust them at all. So you must think that AGW has to be real.

"based solely on computer modelling."

And you know this is a lie. Yet still you repeat it. Proof all on its own that climate denial such as yours is fake and a fraud.

Oh, well, I guess you do, implicitly. and faithfully, follow the teachings of the politicians at the IPCC.
I'll take your lack of answer as a resounding YES!

OH! Do you think the IPCC is a SCIENTIFIC organisation?
Haha.
Sorry, I shouldn't laugh.

I'm feeling more and more sorry for you, wow.
You're a lone voice in the AGW wilderness here at A few Things Ill Considered.
Is there no one that will speak up in support of you, the IPCC, Al Gore, Michael Mann, and Bill Nye?

The confusing but fascinating thing about your behaviour, is that you can be the only voice representing your beliefs on this blog, yet you can still be so nasty and arrogant.

From a psychological point of view, it's fascinating.
From a political point of view, it makes perfect sense.

It's a pity you're so batshit crazy that you don't even comprehend what you're saying.

I take it that you accept SENATOR Jim Inhof's word that AGW doesn't exist, moron? Or do you reject the claims of politicians?

"OH! Do you think the IPCC is a SCIENTIFIC organisation?"

It is.

Sorry. Just because you "think" (in the loosest sense of the word) otherwise does not make it so.

HEre's a list of scientific institutions that have made a statement on AGW.

http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2017/01/07/stateme…

I take it you accept the claims of science institutions, dumbass?

"yet you can still be so nasty and arrogant."

You deserve nasty,shithead. If this offends you, try not being a scum sucking toerag.

And it's not arrogance when I do know more than you, it's plain fact. Try learning something and put some effort into catching up.

And neither nastiness nor arrogance are evidence of me being wrong or you being right. But you being wrong is in the evidence of reality in front of us. Even if you deny it.

"You’re a lone voice in the AGW wilderness here"

And you're the lone voice of insanity here on AFTIC. Therefore you are inherently wrong, apparently.

Haha! I love it when vacuous leftists attempt to "accuse your opponent of that for which you yourself are guilty".
Wow you are a vacuous leftist, wow.

You are the only voice on this once-respectable blog who still supports the politicians at the UN.
You have been totally and utterly fooled by their fake graphs and models.
You have also been thoroughly fooled by the ol' sciency thing of "correlation does not equal causation".
Evidence of climate change is NOT evidence of human-caused climate change.

Is there anyone reading this who will speak in defence of wow?
Anyone?
Anyone?

So I take it that you do just believe whatever the politicians say when they admit to knowing nothing about the science, then freddy.

Sad.

"leftist,"

Again with the political insistence, proving your claims are invalid.

"their fake graphs and models."

Nope, they were real graphs and models.

Oh, and they were also accurate:

http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.ht…

How did your politicians do? Very badly.

"Evidence of climate change is NOT evidence of human-caused climate change."

But evidence of human caused climate change is evidence of human caused climate change. And magical thinking doesn't replace science. Human causation explains it. Magic (your option) does not.

But you just believe the politicians when they say they're not a scientist but that it's all fake.

Because you're a gullible rightwingnutjob.

"Is there anyone reading this who will speak in defence of wow?"

Ah, so you admit you have been incapable of proving me wrong and you want an easier target to try.

So sad.

And there you sit screaming like an incontinent monkey with sandpaper underpants repeating what your lords and masters in the senate and congress tell you.

Pitiful

And I note you're also on the conspiracy nut claims of a New World Order plot being hatched at "Jew Central" otherwise known as "The UN".

Dun dun duuuuun!

Pathetic. Anything your rightwingnutjob president and his lackeys push your way you swallow, no matter how insane or unbelievable.

" “accuse your opponent of that for which you yourself are guilty”.
Wow you are a vacuous leftist, wow."

So you're saying you're a vacuous leftist, dumbfuck.

Haha!
I think your swearing and salivating is hilarious!
Arguing with you is like arguing with a goat!
Haha!

erm...... what do you mean by using the term "Jew Central"?
Have you got something against Jewish people?

So argue a lot with goats. Explains the badly formed half-thoughts you tried out.

Oh, right, I forgot, the dogwhistle you white supremacists use is "Globalists" which totally doesn't mean jews. Except when you do.

And I see you agree that you're a vacuous leftist.

Oh, notice how you insult and use foul language? You don't get to whine about it from others when you do it too. Not without being a hypocrite and negating any value or force behind the accusation.

Sorry.

I also see you agree that you will obey the exhortations of politicians.

Weak willed you are.

Go "Baaaaa" for your masters.They need to shear you.

On Facebook, click on the small "gif" button in any text bar; Type in the word "goat".
See the second gif that appears?
The goat with the tongue?

THAT'S YOU!
Bahahahahaha!

I'm finding you very entertaining, wowie!
Keep up the good work!

I've gotta ask you; Are you an Islamic Supremacist?

Aaaaw. So you're still in junior school, mike.

And here you are with the grown ups,being all grown-uppy and stuff. How cute. Now go tell daddy how big and brave you've been.

But I guess this proves your crusade against reality has foundered.

I see you are still bleating for the shearing by your masters too.

Hitler was a socialist.

AGW is crap.

Allahu Akbar!

Well that was short, meaningless and pointless. Just like you.

Still, you gotta protect your politicians' words against reality. Pesky liberal biased reality.

And you think North Korea a democratic republic too.

Reality is Nazis are rightwingers, hence your love for their politics (Trump won on those policies, progressive and liberal though they were, they were laden with authoritarianism and white nationalism, 100% nazi propaganda. Watch some Goebells sometime and see Trump and Spicer do the same thing), and NK is a dictatorship.

I'd love to talk more about conservatism, leftism, nazis, right-wingers, and all that wow.
But I don't think you'd be game.
:-(

Bleating again? Time for your masters to shear you again. You love it when they take advantage of you!

Heh. You draw the lines along politics, proving your denial machine is a scam!

Nah. I knew you would be way too chicken to talk to me about that stuff.

How about a technical discussion on the efficiencies of various sources of electricity?

Nup! Too chicken.

I notice that we're STILL waiting for someone to join in the conversation in support of you, wow.
I remember the good ol' days here, in 2009.
I was a rare "denier" back then.
You had lots and lots of friends.

How funny to think that you STILL think it's real.

So you're still a lapdog of the rightwing politicians. Sad.

And envious of people who are clearly smarter than you. Sick.

Hey, you want to talk about science instead of your usual hobby horse obsessions of political parties and religion? How about we discuss the science of AGW:

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1

Go through it page by page.

” “accuse your opponent of that for which you yourself are guilty”.

" Are you an Islamic Supremacist?"

Hmmm.

Revealing.

But do you have the chutzpah to go through the science instead of your go-to childish tantrums about your political naivete and religious indoctrination?

So, first page, first line of the summary for policy makers.

Liza V Alexander. Associate professor. University of New South Wales.

Politician or not politician? You make the claim they're all politiicans. Does this stand up to the first line of the first page of the WG1 report?

No.

Oopsie.

Never read what you whine about did you, dumbass.

Reading hard, are we?

You're right wow.
The IPCC is like the Holy See.
The holy priests/politicians would never lie to you.

You just continue to believe everything the IPCC tells you, mate. Good onya.
Nothing will change your mind.
Your science is settled.

Sadly though, you seem to be the only one holding onto your faith.
No-one here at AFTIC is coming to help you battle the heretics like me.
Surely, with such solid holy science from the Vatican... erm... the IPCC, there would be someone to back you up?

Hold onto your faith, wow.
It shows your strength of character!

"You’re right wow."

Good. We both agree that you were 100% wrong about the IPCC before the first sentence of the IPCC report finished.

Not seeing any discussion about the science, though.

Not capable of it, are you.

Ok then wow.

Here are two simple questions for you regarding science.

Do you consider Geology to be science?
Do you consider Geology to be concomitant to study of climate?
(I have more questions, of course)
I'd love to talk about the science of climate if you'll acknowledge that climate science existed before the IPCC.

I do not trust the IPCC.
I do not hold any credibility for them at all.
The IPCC is a political organisation.

None of that is in any of the IPCC report, dumbfucknuckle. Sorry you have been hallucinating. Stay off the heroin and go read the IPCC report for the first time in your meaningless existence. And when you get back to junior school ask teacher to teach you your letters again, you appear to have lost them since infants.

So the IPCC isn't written by politicians. You don't know what is in it. You don't WANT to know what's in it. You can't comprehend what is in it. You refuse to even try.

That about the shape of it?

What about mulish incompetence and ignorance is in your special-needs definition of science? Because that's the only "science" you have displayed so far.

When you've read the IPCC, then ask questions. If the answers to them is in the IPCC report, I'll just tell you to read it.

Nobody cares if you trust the IPCC. Such distrust is based on ignorance and assertion that is flat out fabrication.

Your assertion about it being written by politicians is wrong before the first sentence is finished when you read the IPCC report.

So you don't trust a figment you made up.

Nobody cares. Distrust your imagination all you like.

Suggestion for Michael:
Read what the IPCC publishes:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

None of it is opinion. It is all published science from all over the world that is then collated by groups of people who all have to agree on which bits to include and which bits to leave out.
This committee style approach is the reason why the IPCC assessments have unerringly proven themselves to be very conservative in nature, as well as being grounded in solid and uncontroversial facts.

Here are answers to two simple questions.

Decimalisation happened in 1971
Montevideo.

Yes, they're answers to different questions, but then again you asked different questions to the ones invited. So precedent is set.

Hello Craig,
It's nice to see that at least one person is here in support of wow.

Sorry, but I simply do not trust the IPCC to release correct, real, and proper information, that doesn't serve the political agenda of the UN.
I've read a lot about the corruption of peer-review and everyone is aware of the money involved in Big Climate.

Also, ALL of the 'evidence' for alarmism comes from computer model data.
I simply do not agree that the science of AGW is "settled".
I remain sceptical.
You're obviously convinced though, aren'tcha?

I politely ask you to outline, in a few sentences of your own words; what evidence has convinced you so thoroughly that CO2 is the only/main cause of climate change?
(please do not post a link. I want to hear it from you, personally)

Thanks.

"Sorry, but I simply do not trust the IPCC"

Sorry, nobody cares.

Your fear is clearly a product of your delusion. Or faked.

"Also,"

Your claim is also a product of your delusion. Or faked.

"I simply do not agree "

Your disagreement is also a product of your delusion. Or faked.

"I remain sceptical."

Except you have already made up your mind, hence are not skeptical. You could be deluded, though. Or faking.

"I politely ask you to outline"

Read the IPCC.

Although I was addressing my comment and question to Craig, and not you, wow, it still seems you are incapable of summing it up in your own words.
Anyway, AGAIN!
I challenge you, wow.
You, personally.
Please go ahead and sum up in your own words, the evidence that has convinced you so thoroughly of how exactly, mankind's emissions of CO2 is causing warming of the earth.

Have a go at replying without being abusive, or ridiculing, or obfuscating.
You purport to being an expert on AGW, so you must be able to explain it pretty easily, hey?

Craig, I'd still like to hear from you, as wow's only supporter so far.
Thanks.

I did sum it up in my own words. It also reads as an instruction:

Read the IPCC report.

NOBODY cares who yo don't trust. Your distrust is either faked or the result of delusion.

Until you read the IPCC report, nobody cares what you claim about it because it's a claim based on pure and willful ignorance.

Read the IPCC report.

You have been challenged, personally, to read the IPCC report.

And refrain from any unfounded accusation based on your paranoia, delusion or political ideology defences.

Because every time you do that you prove AGW is right and terrifies the rightwinger and libertarian ideologues.

It is however very clear that you were whining about how I had no support (need none, that is a logical fallacy to claim it as indicative of anything at all) not to actually make the claim that there is nobody else accepting reality against your denial, but only so that you can find a new toy to play with that will not refuse your idiotic demands for the pointless denier runaround you want to engage in.

Read the IPCC.

You have never read it because you were told first that it was all a huge UN conspiracy. For something or other.

I'm sick of you, wow.
You're intellectually lazy and have zero credibility.

I'd rather wait for Craig to reply.
Craig, I'm hoping you can sum up your belief in AGW better than wow can.
Don't be lazy like wow and just say "read the IPCC".

I want your own words to sum up why you believe in AGW caused by human-kind's release of CO2.
It won't take long, since you seem to be pretty convinced, and you must have a solid understanding of it all.

I'm hoping for such statements as:
'I believe CO2 is the only cause of the current warming, because of numerous lines of evidence, such as the tropospheric hotspot, and ice-core data, and lessons from history'.... etc, etc...
You know what I mean?
Thanks.

Wow, I know you'll produce another few "stream-of-consciousness" comments, that don't say anything of value, so, to be honest, I'd prefer to hear back from Craig.
Cheers.

"I’m sick of you, wow."

If you look on a map for "Oceanea" you;ll find where the people who care live.

"I’d rather wait for Craig to reply."

Yes, you want someone to play with who will play your game, your rules and hunt the goalposts for oyu.

The proclamation I have no credibility really doesn't work since you have made claims about the IPCC reports that are absolutely factually false and found to be so in the first sentence of the WG1 report. Moreover you have proclaimed you will NEVER read it because you don't trust it. Proving that you have made a decision proudly ignorant. There is no credibility there.

"I’m hoping for such statements as:"

Well go ahead then, answer your own question. Feel free. Saves bandwidth and time if you do it in notepad on your own computer.

Just a bit of helpful advice "mike".

Me? I looked at the IPCC reports. Read them. Checked them.

If there's anything in those you dispute, then come up with it.

"Wow, I know you’ll produce another few “stream-of-consciousness” comments,"

As opposed to your stream of unconsciousness comments.

Sorry, cupcake, you don't get to order me around. Make your own blog. Make demands there.

Nobody cares what you want here.

"I’d prefer to hear back from Craig."

Yes, you already said that.

Are you in the habit of repeating things so often? There's a minor mental affliction that causes that. I don't think you can ask for medication to treat it, though, they'll just take you to a specialist.

"It won’t take long,"

It doesn't from this end.

Read the IPCC.

The weeks long delay seems to be happening on your end of the internet. Just beyond the keyboard.

wow.
Sum up the IPCC report for me.
That is my challenge to you.

Again, nobody cares what your paranoia tells you, it tells us that you are making claims out of a carefully inculcated ignorance that you are adamant at keeping.

And if you don't trust, them then reading their words doesn't make you trust them by hypnosis, so your terrified refusals indicate even more strange, unhinged crazy talk from you.

Read the IPCC.

Ask about it.

Sum it up?

"Here is the collected evidence and conclusions of thousands of scientists' work around the world".

You can also read a summary here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

And if you don't know what the IPCC report is, why are you so terrified of reading it?

And how can your ridiculous claims about the IPCC report be in any way, shape or form, based on knowledge when you don't even know what the IPCC report is?

Like I said, unhinged.

My god you are draining to deal with wow.
I've explained my position time and time again, to you.
You will never, ever understand.

As someone who arrogantly purports to be such an expert, you STILL haven't mentioned any detail of why you are SO convinced by the IPCC.

You are nothing more than a weak-as-piss leftist who seems easily led by corrupt politicians.
You pretend to be knowledgeable, but you really are not.

I'm also still waiting for Craig or anyone else, to support you.
Why is everyone so quiet here at AFTIC?

Again, not bothered about your paranoia.

Unless you've read the IPCC reports, you and everyone knows that your claims about them are based on ignorance.

"I’m also still waiting for Craig or anyone else, to support you."

Not what you said earlier.

"You will never, ever understand."

No, I absolutely understand. You're an ignorant paranoiac.

"You are nothing more"

And still more than you can handle.

Sad.

"leftist "

Just your paranoia and projection here. To you it is entirely party lines. So everyone else must be. So you blame them for it.

"led by corrupt politicians."

And this is your paranoia and ignorance speaking. But it actually describes you very well, if you were capable of seeing it.

"You pretend to be knowledgeable"

There's no pretense about it.

You're just ignorant and have no better recourse.

Sick.

By the way since you now claim this is what you're waiting for:

He did support me:

August 28, 2017

Suggestion for Michael:
Read what the IPCC publishes:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

On August 30, 2017, Michael of Brisbane dribbled...

"Sum up the IPCC report for me".

Read it yourself.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

It is a very clear document, written with the layperson in mind.

On August 29, 2017, Michael of Brisbane babbled...

"... I simply do not trust the IPCC to release correct, real, and proper information, that doesn’t serve the political agenda of the UN..."

That opinion can have no merit whatsoever until you read the IPCC report and justify your opinion by showing what it is in the report that you think is incorrect.

If you haven't read it, you can't possibly know how reliable it is. It is fully referenced throughout so you can easily go and check the primary sources for all the information that is summarised in the report.

WOW!
You two dummies are totally incapable of defending your own beliefs!
Why are you so bad at this?
I'm asking you to defend your religion yourselves!
All you can do is tell me to read it myself?

You two leftists are funny!
I say leftists because only leftist thinkers are closed-minded enough to blindly and arrogantly follow Al Gore and his mates at the IPCC.
Perhaps you could try pointing out small sections of the IPCC report that you can use to convince me that the information is true and credible, and not alarmism based solely on computer modeling.

C'mon! Defend yourselves!
Stand up to your intellectual enemy!
Explain your devotion to AGW!

You seem to be missing it every time, moron.

We don't care what your paranoia says.

Read the IPCC.

Either its convincing, in which case your petulant and stupid demand is answered for you, or it's not in which case you still know what convinced us.

But your claims about the IPCC and climate science are out of complete and willing ignorance and screamed out merely because you are a paranoid delusional maniac.

In which case obeying your demands is the worst thing we can do for you, since it will only feed your insanity.

Read the IPCC.

It's not hard at all.

Even a modest intellect, well within the remit of the vast majority of the human adult population in full mental heath, can read and comprehend the contents.

So far your claims are all 100% falsified by the contents of the IPCC, which is still valid because your crazy paranoia is ABOUT the report's content, not its evidence or conclusion.

We have one dummy completely unable to read.

You demanded to know what convinced me. Read the IPCC, say I.

"NOOOOOO!!!! I want you to say what convinced you!!11!".

Read the IPCC.

"***NO!!!!!***".

Read the IPCC.

"Is there nobody else here, you're here on your own, luzer, because you're a luzer and you ahve nobody here to support you!!!!"

Craig turns up (again). Says Read the IPCC

"I WANT SOMEONE TO TELL ME WHAT CONVINCED THEM!!!!!!"

(oddly enough nothing is mentioned about how there's someone else here now. Nor that he's here alone. Luzer)

We have.

You do not want that answer, but it is the answer.

Read the IPCC.

You wanted to know what convinced us.

Read the IPCC

Then you'll know.

" follow Al Gore "

And again, a claim from your ignorance that if you read the IPCC report you would know is incorrect.

He's not in any of the report.

Meanwhile you follow Sen. James Inhofe. Your assertion of sheepdom is your way to cope with your woolly coat and frequent requirements to be shorn. Pure projection.

Religious Zealot 1:
"Read the bible! Then you'll be convinced of my beliefs!"

Religious Zealot 2:
"Read the koran! Then you'll be convinced of my beliefs!"

Religious Zealots Craig and wow:
"Read the IPCC report! Then you'll be convinced of my beliefs!"

Bahahahaha!

Well you don't want what you asked for. Not a lot anyone can do for you. The only thing that can be concluded is you never wanted it in the first place.

But your ridiculous projection is pretty much all you have.

I guess you'll be sticking with the false reality going forward. Because you just can't leave Inhofe alone, can ya?

"Read the IPCC.

Either its convincing, in which case your petulant and stupid demand is answered for you, or it’s not in which case you still know what convinced us."

Can you read?

Read the bible!
Then you'll be convinced of my faith!

Read the IPCC report!
Then you'll be convinced of my faith!

Haha!
You are intellectually weak and cannot defend your beliefs at all.
You STILL haven't even tried!
(I s'pose I shouldn't laugh. It does seem a bit mean to laugh at someone who doesn't have the slightest chance of regaining credibility)

All I'm asking is for you to briefly sum up your beliefs in your own words.

Good grief.

On September 1, 2017, Michael of Brisbane blathered:

"Perhaps you could try pointing out small sections of the IPCC report that you can use to convince me that the information is true and credible, and not alarmism based solely on computer modeling."

Er, well if you had bothered to read the document which you assert is unreliable despite the fact you don't know what is in it, you would know that the document we advised you read contains nothing in relation to modelling. Nothing at all.

Basically, you have no idea what you are talking about and are simply repeating unsceptical propaganda you have imbibed from somewhere.

Hello Craig.
Welcome back to the conversation.

I have actually read numerous IPCC reports.
That is the reason I don't trust them.
I have been interested in this debate for many years and have a pretty good understanding of it.

I truly do not understand why you cannot sum up your beliefs in just a short par or two.

I suspect it's because you know that no matter which "evidence" you point to, it is based on computer models.

innit.

Adam and Craig: To make it easier for you to understand

WARMER IS BETTER THAN COLDER REGARDLESS OF WHY IT'S getting warmer, if it's even getting warmer at all.

You communists and green ideology fanatics move on lost ground abd nobody cares about what you cry here on a blog nobody but a few read, so you totally waste your energy.

"I have actually read numerous IPCC reports."

Bullshit.

Go read the IPCC reports. For real this time.

"WARMER IS BETTER THAN COLDER"

That's why the Sahara is where most of the biggest cities are...

Dumbass.

" it is based on computer models."

Svante.

MBH98/99/

Not models.

Never got an answer to mine. Why should anyone answer? If it's answered, what then? Because we both answered you in our own words, yet you are still here demanding we give a different answer.

Which is what I predicted would happen.

If you mean something to happen, explain what it is you intend to do when you are answered and what decides whether you will accept your complaint as answered.

Hi Coby,
If you're still checking in here now and then, I'd like to know your opinion of this article.

Wow.
I know you will respond like the mindless leftist fool you are, which I find rather entertaining, to be honest.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/24/delingpole-now-400-s…

Mike, you don't run the blog, so your demands are meaningless. the fact that you have to try to find a new plaything to JAQ off to and try to force into something you want them to say indicates how little you're capable of defending or even defining your "facts".

And breibart? Really? Want to cite Age of Aquarius too?

"like the mindless leftist fool"

You proclaimed that AGW was false because those pointing it out were partisan and rude.

So this spat of shite from you proves dellingpole is wrong.

Haha!
You're a classic, Wow!

I don't think I've met anyone as closed-minded, arrogant and nasty as you.

You are an excellent example of a leftist thinker!
You are STILL clinging to your fellow authoritarians at the IPCC. (haha)

Luckily, these days, leftists like you don't have much credibility.
It turns out that when called out to back up your faith, you have nothing but insults and arrogance.
You are weak, and have no intellect by which to change your mind as new information comes to hand.
I think you will believe in AGW for the rest of your life.

I'm also wondering why you and I are the only ones here.
This blog used to be bustling, back in 2009.
Now there are just a few tumbleweeds, and wow sittin' on his porch, whittlin', ready to yell, toothlessly at any passers by.

Haha.

"I don’t think I’ve met anyone as closed-minded, arrogant and nasty as you."
Do you drive them off with your closed-minded arrogance and nastyness? Moreover, still an ad hom.

"You are an excellent example of a leftist thinker!"
Since you're making this partisan, you're proving AGW denial is fake.

"You are weak, and have no intellect blah blah blah"

More ad hom. Tell me did you check ANY of the papers to see what they said? they don't say what dull old pole says they do. But he knows idiots like yourself will not check. It's been debunked by several people and you've never even researched if it's correct.

"I think you will believe in AGW for the rest of your life."
And you will believe in the shibolets of your righwing masters all your life.

"I’m also wondering why you and I are the only ones here."
Because you have nothing valid to say, cupcake.

"Now there are just a few tumbleweeds"
Ah, bit YOUR tumbleweedness proves AGW is false. Whereas my tumbleweedness proves AGW false too.... According to your intent here at bringing it up.

The total defeat of Adam in any "discussion" about "climate change" invented by the communists is documented. Now as scienceblogs is shutting down, Adam has lost everything and is forced to change his life, hopefully to the better for him and those who don't like him.

Did you read the article, wow?

To which papers do you refer when you say they've been debunked by several people?
(haha)

I love that you are STILL clinging nastily and arrogantly to your faith in the IPCC and Big Climate.

I love it!

"Did you read the article, wow?"

Nope. Didn't need to. The source says enough. But then again YOU never read the source either, did you? What is the headline again? 400 papers saying global warming is a ,yth, right? So how come a section is about how wind turbines cause environmental damage? Nothing at all to do with AGW.

You complain *I* didn't read it? YOU didn't.

As alien as it gets

illconsidered — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 02:20:08 +0000

As alien as it gets

Humankind has touched the surface of the solar system's most alien of objects.

Image taken from NAVCAM top 10 at 10 km – 10.

There are no words...

illconsidered Thu, 11/13/2014 - 21:20

Tags

Is that a hockeystick I see before me?

"Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? Or art thou but
A dagger of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the heat-oppressèd brain?
I see thee yet, in form as palpable
As this which now I draw."
(Macbeth)

In Space, No One Can Hear Your Shirt

Krugman and Climate

illconsidered — Tue, 15 Jul 2014 21:59:58 +0000

Krugman and Climate

Aside from the climate blogosphere, Paul Krugman's "Conscience of a Liberal" is my most regular blog visit. He does not usually have a lot to say on climate change (which is mildly disappointing) and I have seen only very shallow and casual dismissals of the, to me compelling, notion that perpetual growth as a requirement for economic prosperity is problematic (which is very disappointing). It is however, usually very interesting and I have learned a lot about economics, something very apropos given the ongoing global crisis. I do enjoy the political snark as well, as long as it is reality based!

Uncharacteristically, he has made quite a few posts and op-ed columns over the last few months centering on climate issues and I have been keeping tabs on that (literal sense here, I have 10 tabs perpetually open meaning to post about!). So that I can finally close these down, here is a quick rundown of all that content:

Salvation Gets Cheap - A discussion of some economic optimism regarding the costs of climate change mitigation, specifically good news about the solar energy industry. This column has an example of the casual dismissal of perpetual growth skepticism I mentioned above. After the caveat "(I hate it when pundits try to make every issue into a case of “both sides are wrong,” but, in this case, it happens to be true.)" he says "On the left, you sometimes find environmentalists asserting that to save the planet we must give up on the idea of an ever-growing economy; on the right, you often find assertions that any attempt to limit pollution will have devastating impacts on growth. But there’s no reason we can’t become richer while reducing our impact on the environment." That "but" only really addresses the concern from the right. This is not to say the "left" position he has presented is necessarily correct, but it certainly is not dealt with in his column.

Crazy Climate Economics - a discussion of the anticipated Republican response to the (at the time) coming new EPA regulations. The headline captures well the flavor of that discussion!

Cutting Back on Carbon - this is a good one on how a Chamber of Commerce search for bad economic news regarding carbon regulations is really an "own-goal". Their as-pessimistic-as-possible prediction is for a cost to the US economy of $50 billion per year. This may be many month's income for a guy like me (hello blogging fees!) but it is just 0.3% of a $17 trillion economy. This is a tiny price tag given the existential threat climate change poses to society.

Energy Choices - Here Krugman turns his attention to a letter to the Financial Times from Roger Pielke Jr and finds him sadly lacking in intellectual honesty (...or competence, Roger really likes to keep us all guessing on that one). Money quote: "This is actually kind of wonderful, in a bang-your-head-on-the-table sort of way." Welcome to our kitchen, Paul!

The Climate Domino - another op-ed column on the (then proposed) EPA regulations of coal fired power plants and specifically how it relates to the "But China!" objection to any US climate policy.

Interests, Ideology and Climate - Dr. Krugman thinks that ideology is more important than the Koch factor in the climate denial machinations. Here's an excerpt:

So why is the opposition to climate policy so intense?

Well, think about global warming from the point of view of someone who grew up taking Ayn Rand seriously, believing that the untrammeled pursuit of self-interest is always good and that government is always the problem, never the solution. Along come some scientists declaring that unrestricted pursuit of self-interest will destroy the world, and that government intervention is the only answer. It doesn’t matter how market-friendly you make the proposed intervention; this is a direct challenge to the libertarian worldview.

And the natural reaction is denial — angry denial. Read or watch any extended debate over climate policy and you’ll be struck by the venom, the sheer rage, of the denialists.

Incentives and Technology - just addresses a little blow-back from his take-down of RPJr above (Energy Choices).

Yes He Could - An op-ed giving praise to Obama's accomplishments in the passage of ACA (Obamacare) and his actions around climate change. I don't know how much praise Obama merits with respect to action on climate change, but the accomplishment falls short of what is needed regardless of whether it is the best that could be done or not.

The Big Green Test - a discussion of long-time republican Henry Paulson's op-ed calling for republican action on climate change and more generally how this fits with conservative approaches to economics.

Depression Economics and Climate Policy - a debunking of the "reform conservative's" answer to calls for climate mitigation action, i.e. "not while the economy is hurting". (I'm sure some years down the track it will be "not while the economy is booming"). Krugman says economically that this is exactly the time for agressive government intervention, while stimulus spending is sorely needed. This point was actually the cause of my initial Obama disappointment. I thought that the moment of crisis when he took office was exactly the moment for fundamental changes, economic, political, social. Kind of a "disaster progressivism" approach ala Naomi Klein's disaster capitalism, substituting change because we need it to solve the problem for change because that's what we wanted to do anyway.

And that does it. It is a relief to close those tabs

...discuss if you wish!

illconsidered Tue, 07/15/2014 - 17:59

Tags

> "... while reducing our impact on the environment.”

He should have said "reversing" rather than "reducing" there.

I'd like to see someone like him give us a hypothetical for discovering another 'New World' -- in the sense Columbus et al. did -- and deciding what if any level of 'impact' would be sustainable.

Then move the clock back to where there were still giant sloths and mastodons as the top grazers and do the same exercise.

Nobody remembers that bison were a poor replacement for the original big grazers, and few admit that cattle fail as a replacement for bison.

Look at the whale pump story. What if we'd not screwed _that_ trophic system up by taking the top predator off? How much more CO2 would the ocean ecosystem be managing now if it were in good shape?

Paging Dr. Krugman. An economist is just a partially educated ecologist with a sideline in imaginary ecosystems like banking.

I agree, now it is essential to reverse our environmental impacts to some substantial degree, and then any new regime must be a net 0 impact. I really fail to understand how this is compatible with any meaningful definition of growth.

An economist is just a partially educated ecologist with a sideline in imaginary ecosystems like banking.

Good one!

"I have seen only very shallow and casual dismissals of the, to me compelling, notion that perpetual growth as a requirement for economic prosperity is problematic (which is very disappointing)"

These are not shallow and casual dismissals. Economists have spent a lot of time and effort studying and explaining this fallacy, and Krugman knows this literature well, as he helped Nordhaus in his early work. What has been casual and shallow is the dismissal by some scientists (Meadows and Meadows are perhaps most infamous) of elementary economics.

Indeed, perhaps the most powerful argument for curbing global warming quickly and soon is that the cost of doing so is very low, a small fraction of one percent of growth, probably not even noticeable in the larger scheme of things. And this is according to a number of estimates that typically make pessimistic assumptions about induced innovation that might come about from actually pricing greenhouse gas emissions.

Look, there are plenty of economists who share your passion for science and interest in saving the planet. But what you're doing here is roughly equivalent to an economist casually dismissing evolution as obviously flawed and casual dismissal of creationism. Smart economists that share your will politics will dismiss you (appropriately so), as just plain ignorant.

You should do better.

Hi Michael,

"These are not shallow and casual dismissals."

What is your "these" referring to? Regardless, I do not mean to say economics is flawed, rather only that I can not find anything that seems to me is seriously addressing the issue that perpetual growth as a requirement for economic prosperity seems to me problematic.

I would be very interested to read something that addresses that directly, from Krugman or anyone else. If you can explain, or point me somewhere (specific) I would be keen to engage.

Thanks.

coby, so you are a "degrowth" activist, true?

I don't know what a "degrowth activist" is, so can neither confirm nor deny your allegation.

coby, it's someone who sees a cancerous growth and thinks it would be a good idea to prevent it growing worse.

Kaibot doesn't believe that is necessary if he, personally, has to pay a damn thing for it.

I.e. it's a neocon loon in his teens.

Coby, others,
It might help your discovery if you first defined what you mean by growth, whether it is a goal or a result, then surmise why it is or isn't needed.

Pauline, it may help us to say what you expect to understand if we answer that question.

A few queries for you and the other neocon deniers:

Is rioting a good thing because of all the extra industrial activity needed to rebuild and restock?

Is growth a good thing in and of itself? If so, why? If not, then why must we grow?

I dont expect anything. The answer is for you.
_
So, you're also calling for the end of carbon by 2050, or are you the denier, neocon or otherwise?
_
please clarify the last two. they're not making sense.
It might help to define what you mean by growth.

I dont expect anything.

Then feel freeto accept nothing.

Here it is:
...
You're welcome.

So, you’re also calling for the end of carbon by 2050, or are you the denier, neocon or otherwise?

Do you want to give an either/or option where the two are at least somewhat relevant to each other? The calling for the end of carbon, being unstated as to what you mean there, is orthogonal to being denier, neocon and only, by covering anything else, "otherwise".

Of course, you will avoid any comment other than one to make your name appear, so this query is mostly to educate any noob deniers that they need to up their game to stand a chance of being taken seriously.

Thanks for nothing. If you don't need it you're off to a great start discussing growth.
-
The end of carbon by 2050 means exactly that. Shut down of all sources by 2050. It's the only choice to minimize the coming climate mayhem.

> shut down all
You understand how the perfect can be the enemy of the good?

Yeah, you can do that, but you won't accomplish much to help the world by consuming no carbon fuel whatsoever.

Do something that nets out positive.

For example, go buy a piece of waste land and grow topsoil on it. The way to be carbon neutral is to turn more into carbohydrates than you burn as hydrocarbons.

Start when you're young, as it's a 200 year project.
Here's how: http://www.alibris.com/The-Earth-Manual-How-to-Work-on-Wild-Land-Withou…

Yeah, I know, one person doesn't make a significant difference, but it's good exercise, keeps you outdoors a lot, serves as an example of at least trying to do it right.

And you'll have to keep track of how much carbon you burn, and estimate how much you fix. That'll educate everyone around you and inspire them as well.

Just sitting and burning zero carbon doesn't do that.

Already way ahead of ya on that one Hank.
At the end of the day though, we have to net negative globally.

_
It’s actually worse than we thought.
The warming continues at record levels.
Many areas will see climate depart from normal ranges as early as 2025 to 2040.
We have seen the beginning of the 6th great extinction.
The human population may dwindle by half as early as 2050.
_
oh, and this time . . .
. . . there will be no ark.

wow, the dwindle risk is grossly related to the west's dangerous behavior towards president PUTIN.

as "climate change" has not been shown scientifically convincingly, forget it, no danger.

PaulinMI
Carbon neutral kingdom
November 13, 2014

Thanks for nothing.

If you're going to get our panties in a bunch because you get nothing when you ASK for nothing, then why not just stay in your room and pout like the angsty teenager you are, Pauline?

You're definitely not going to go to all the effort of explaining what you want, are you. So your disappointment is entirely self-manufactured by you so you can feel as though you've been hard done by the world.

Feel free, but on your own dime, your self pity sickens me.

wow, the dwindle risk is grossly related to the west’s dangerous behavior towards president PUTIN.

Do you want to try again, but this time NOT in baby-talk babble, dearie?

as “climate change” has not been shown scientifically convincingly

As climate change HAS been shown extremely convincingly to those whose minds aren't closed off to anything they don't like, you're an arsehole.

Wow,
you must have trouble accepting gratitude.
I was thanking you for what you gave.
-
Again, I don't want anything, the definition of growth is for you to determine in the context of your use for your discussion.
-
If you so choose.
nothing to do with me, for me or otherwise.
-
oh, and thanks for the kind words.

wow

instead of blathering "... As climate change HAS been shown extremely convincingly ...." you MUST provide at least three statements which support your claim more specifically

Wow,
you must have trouble accepting gratitude.

Nope, I have no trouble in that regard.

However you appear to have a problem in reading English sentences.

instead of blathering “… As climate change HAS been shown extremely convincingly ….” you MUST provide at least three statements which support your claim more specifically

Yup. Easy, moron-boy.

1) IR absorption by CO2 and not N2/O2.
2) Temperature rates rising in the night more than the daytime, more in the winter than the summer
3) Temperature rates rising despite a reduced solar output

Any chance of YOU supporting your insane blather about how "as “climate change” has not been shown scientifically convincingly" with anything other than a head-up-your arse refusal to look?

Ahh, let's have some more fun at the expense of the loco local.
Shall we go back and look for the "question" to which he refers?
Well, we could, except there isn't one! What a maroon. Tirade after tantrum for something which does not exist.
-
This guy is too funny.

Every time you post, we do, Pauline. Every time you post.

A new study using robots from below the ice in the antarctic sea found unexpected (from the perspective of the CAGW aarmists) thick ice, much thicker than expected. This is poison to the warming church.

You chicken littles have NO IDEA what the IPCC claims for the ice thickness, dildo.

"**Wow**", are you still able to digest honest scientific information or are you already too old or conservatively trapped in your mental prejudices?

Kaitroll, I've ALWAYS been able to digest honest scientific information.

When will you provide any yourself?

wow, your proposals do not match reality, sorry.

BTW, who is kaitroll??? Can't you spell correctly a commenter's name?

non-sequitur, freddie.

wowbot, tertium non datur, hic et nunc, morituri te salutant. apes domini licet bovi.

ps: I hate Manchester United

The same lack of content as always, troll.

As you don't speak italian, blatherian, you cannot juge any content in this language. Therefore, yo have to live with your reality.

Other question: what will you do when global temperature decreases by 0.5K by 2025?

PS: I hate Manchester United

Gee, freddykaiboristroll is so stupid, he doesn't even know they no longer speak Latin in Italy. Many do still understand Latin, though, and they will wonder what these disparate phrases are supposed to mean. Especially that last one makes no sense whatsoever.

marco, the problem YOU have is that are there so many "climate criminals" who are so much more educated and intelligent than CACGW activists who envy their betterness.

BTW, I addressed wow-troll, AND NOT YOU. how many socket puppets do you play, troll?

freddykaiboristroll, you did not address anything in my comment. Now, we know you work with sockpuppets, so it is understandable you think I would do the same. But welcome to the real world, where there are honest people like me who do not have a psychological disorder that requires them to use sockpuppets. And yes, you can take that as an accusation that you have a psychological disorder. Get yourself treated, freddykaiboristroll, before your disorder transgresses into a condition where you become a danger to others.

Kai never does, Marco. When it's said anything, it's found that it has been debunked PDQ and this means it can't pretend to know things.

Non-sequitur and bollocks is all it has left.

Some children shouldn't be allowed on the internet, Kai is one.

Gee, freddykaiboristroll is so stupid, he doesn’t even know they no longer speak Latin in Italy

It also doesn't know that English will happily include foreign languages for the apposite phraseology. Kai doesn't understand the limited dictionary of words it has been taught in school to date, so thinks that the inclusion of latin *must* mean it cannot be English.

It's just so passe.

Marco, re: Italians speaking Latin, remember kai was taught by xtian fundamentalists, the finest minds of the fourth century, when Italians *were* speaking Latin.

wow-troll, the problem with you and marco is that you as monolinguists suffer from minority complexes. I cannot help you with this. BTW, did you know that "renewable" energy from solar panels produces ZERO watt when it is dark outside?

That's ok Freddy.
Solar power is only used during daylight hours.

Seriously, Freddy, get some professional help. I have met my share of delusional people, but you are hors catégorie. You simply cannot even once acknowledge an error, like mistaking Italian for Latin, and writing a few disparate Latin words that are meaningless.in connection, or just plain meaningless (the last few).

And then you call *me* monolingual...

wow-troll: again terrible deficits in education (like monolingual Macro), your bollocks: ".... fourth century, when Italians *were* speaking Latin..."

Lecture for wow-troll: there were no Italians in the 4th century, you idiot. Go to your community library and read a history book. Incredible low level of basic school education among green activists

Macro, the word "serious" is out of your scope, since you are a clown

Freddy, I wish *you* were a clown, but it is clear from all your comments you are mentally deranged. Get help.

Freddy, it might be best if you didn't try (and miss) at educating others.

There was a part of the world called "Italia" in the 4th Century AD.
Question: Where do you suppose this was?

Here is an excerpt from Plutarch's Lives, Pyrrhus, written about 75AD:
"Pyrrhus offered also to return all the prisoners he had taken in the fight without ransom, and promised his assistance for the entire conquest of all Italy, asking only their friendship for himself, and security for the Tarentines, and nothing further. Nevertheless, most were well inclined to a peace, having already received one great defeat and fearing another from an additional force of the native Italians, now joining with Pyrrhus."

So, clearly, there was a place called "Italia" and its inhabitants were collectively identified as "Italians".

Craig, it was even earlier than 75AD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Italy

Supposedly the term was already in use 400 BC for part of current-day Italy.

Solar power is only used during daylight hours.

You mean when the price and load on the network is highest? Well goshdarnit!

PS I guess nuclear power is only used while the nuclear power stations are working, right?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/04/nuclear-power-statio…

BTW, did you know that “renewable” energy from solar panels produces ZERO watt when it is dark outside?

BTW did you know (of COURSE you don't: you're an ignoramus!) that solar power isn't synonymous with renewables?

Did you know that we have... duhn duhn duuuuuhn... WIND POWER too?

BTW did you know about solar thermal power?

Gosh, looks like the denier morons don't know much about anything other than hate.

wow, macro, craig, YOU cannot teach anybody (like me) who is absolutely superior to you in any mental dimension you can or cannot imagine. That's a fact.

PS: you ignornants really believe that any living organisms that lived in remote times in today' Italy frontiers can be called "Italians": you three are really very strange clowns devoid of any historical and biological education

PPS: I hate Manchester United

The only reason we cannot teach freddykaiboristroll is because he has a mental disorder. If Coby happens to know his real e-mail address, he may want to direct a psychologist to take action, because it won't take that much longer before freddykaiboristroll does something that causes physical harm (either to himself or to someone in his near surroundings).

Children,
Sister Mary Elephant would be so proud!

Wow at #52,
Correct. Precisely.

olet marii industria aunque wow non placet virumque tenevit. patavit cliatico fundes vam te quevit, dominus vobiscum tantum malum prohibit

"The only reason we cannot teach freddykaiboristroll is because he has a mental disorder"

No, the fruitcake IS a mental disorder.

Pauline, #57, so you agree your earlier post was compost at best, consisting of the half truths that are the worst lies of all. Well done.

The loco local should google "context".
(thanks again for the entertainment, I'm sure the crowd is pleased as well)

wow-troll, the main reason why you cannot teach freddy is that the level of your education and knowledge is far below that of freddy. Digest it, child

No, pauline, it's because he, just as you, is a complete moron.

indeed, you DO need to google context, then work on a thing called "comprehension" when you read the results, dearie.

That there's a 4 sylobel word by the loco one.
I'm gonna hafts look that one up.

Look up the word "sylobel" too...

It is clear now that COP20 was a terribe catastro and Paris 2015 the end of the IPCC and delusioned "climate change" policy. This is part of the explanation why childish morons like wowtroll, macro and others behave so incivil and cowardly anxious.

It's clear you have no ability to make that claim.

Freddy,
One way or the other Carbon emissions will need to be cut by half by 2020. That's increasingly evident with the likelihood of blowing past 2C increase and heat accumulating faster than ever as 2014 closes as the hottest year ever.

COP or no COP, it's not going to be pleasant.
Hope you're ready Freddy.

wow, your english is too terrible: listen child: I made the claim, hence I WAS ABLE to make the claim. Can you grasp this simple concept?

Kaibot, when you're finally growing pubic hair, THEN you can start calling others "child".

You can make the claim because you've never worried about accuracy or facts, but your claim is, as mentioned earlier for those with operating hippocampi, your ability is not able to make the claim.

Only your ignorance.

wowtroll, define "gippocampus", blatherskite. i am sure you have no idea about what you are talking, troll.

No.

Do it yourself if you don't know what you're talking about.

wowtroll, no, it's your duty. you must clarify the idiocies about which you are moroning. do some work, you lazy grapulog.

It is sad to observe that climate morons like wowtroll start talking about animal biology fundamentals without ANY education and formation on the topic, and are even unable to define what they tried to exeforilim.

Only In It For The Gold: Neither Optimist nor Pessimist, Just Activist

illconsidered — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:54:41 +0000

Only In It For The Gold: Neither Optimist nor Pessimist, Just Activist

Only In It For The Gold: Neither Optimist nor Pessimist, Just Activist.

"We must stop treating the natural world as something to exploit, and start realizing that it is our home. If we do that, we can thrive."

illconsidered Sun, 07/13/2014 - 13:54

Tags

General

other blogs

climate change

Science: The #1 tool for activists. Yeah.

Not sure I get your point, Erayor...? (Assuming this is dry sarcasm)

Do you prefer activists to use ideology as their primary tool? Any activism should be motivated by reality and science is the best tool for understanding reality.

Besides, the post does not make any comment on the relationship of science to activism.

This week's empty blog

illconsidered — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:29:08 +0000

This week's empty blog

Just a quick note to regulars and those who like to visit the weekly GW News Roundup about its absence. Unlike past delays, this is not just me having more on my plate than usual. For the first time in very close to 7 years I have not received het's compilation of links, nor is it at his own site. Nor have I received the next chapter of "The Bottleneck Years".

I'm a little worried, and I got no response to an email inquiry. I certainly have appreciated his heroic weekly efforts and really hope there is nothing serious amiss.

illconsidered Fri, 07/11/2014 - 04:29

Tags

General

HET

Sorry to hear this...hope he's all right.

Is it so strange that he needs a break after such a long period of intense climate alarmism lobbying?

Thanks Coby (and thanks to H.E.T. for years of good work)

I hope his family knows about his work
http://www.hetaylor.ca/index.html

And I'd really like to contribute toward keeping that live, or making sure the Internet Archive has it -- rather than see the registration expire without being taken care of.

Anyone know?

I am planning to contact his family regarding the final few chapters of The Bottleneck Years, I will also ask what they know of his website. It is all very simple HTML, it could be copied though that of course does not preserve incoming links.

Consensus, Criticism, Communication | Planet3.0

illconsidered — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:29:02 +0000

Consensus, Criticism, Communication | Planet3.0

Consensus, Criticism, Communication | Planet3.0.

This is a well written and comprehensive discussion of the "97% consensus" message, have a look!

illconsidered Fri, 06/27/2014 - 07:29

Tags

Thanks Coby. As the article points out, consensus really is a meaningless concept in science. What matters is the evidence.

And on that score, 97% is a low number.

I suspect 97% is an understatement...

97% of what???

Precision required.

97% of 100% of course.

Duhhhh!

mandass, wrong answer! to what is 100% related? specify

freddy - it was the right answer.

Just because you are mathematically challenged (ie stupid) does not mean everyone else is.

mandass, your concept is not convincing.

Of course not freddy - evidence and facts have never been able to convince deniers like yourself.

Here is a picture of me caring --->

TED - Gavin Schmidt on climate modeling

illconsidered — Mon, 05 May 2014 10:19:37 +0000

TED - Gavin Schmidt on climate modeling

In the video below Gavin Schmidt gives a "TED Talk" on climate models, taking us from an overview of their construction to the resulting emergent processes and their skill at reproducing much more than a global average temperature trend.

Gavin is an excellent communicator and a true hero in humanity's fight against itself over the impending and tragic disruption of our global ecosystem services. Well worth the 12 or so minutes to watch!

illconsidered Mon, 05/05/2014 - 06:19

Tags

It is very nice . thx

Relating to Japan's space solar harnessing project,http://www.iflscience.com/technology/japan-wants-put-giant-solar-farm-s… , If microwaves produced by limited energy supply can be deflected and redirected by HAARP within our atmosphere, and also when focused can open massive holes in the ionosphere and ozone layers, what can be done tenfold with unlimited energy from the sun? Microwave the entire planet if a malfunction were to happen, and tethering anything to the earth could result in claimed ownership of atmospheric regions beyond the mess of airspace regulations already in place as well as creating the idiotic opportunity of harnessing our planets water through these technologies in the future. Microwaves super excite water molecules, but they also cause what equate to lightning bolts if they encounter metals, and metals exist in dirt, rock, magma, and with chem-spraying barium, aluminum and strontium into the atmosphere. Very very dangerous path to pursue.

HAARP? (groooaannnnn - not another conspiracy)

Looks like we better get Sean Connery back - sounds like the plot of Diamonds are Forever.

What I sense in the video is the missing guidance of Gavin by his mentor and still mental superior Jim Hansen. Left alone now at GISS the guys there have a truly difficult life now showing own profile and credibility.

Has this blog already died? Where are the low-profile climate alarmists mandams, woew etc?

Is it really true that Gavin is the new GISS director? I cannot believe this since he is only a computer modeller and no meteorologist.

That's always been your problem freddy - your worldview is constructed around beliefs rather than facts and evidence.

mannda, you are plainly wrong. I rely only on facts. My question was, whether Gavin is really the new director of GISS?

".... I rely only on facts....."

Great joke freddy! You are a funny man!

One of the biggest problems for humanity

illconsidered — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:41:13 +0000

One of the biggest problems for humanity

Via un-climate-related readings, I came across this gem (from the victim article of the link):

My job is to assess not the rightness of each argument but to deal in the real world of campaign politics in which perception often (if not always) trumps reality. I deal in the world as voters believe it is, not as I (or anyone else) thinks it should be. And, I'm far from the only one.

This is from the mouth of one of the Washington Post's political mouthpieces, Chris Cillizza. Readers here will be more than familiar with the fundamental problems with this attitude. I just wanted to note that the only two worlds he sees that he could be dealing with are "the world as voters believe it is" and what he "thinks [the world] should be".

What the world actually is, does not even make the list of possibilities.

It is laughable except that many of the issues being decided and discussed through that lens are a matter of life and death for thousands, millions and even 100's of millions.

illconsidered Tue, 02/11/2014 - 05:41

Tags

editorial

General

mainstream media

Yes, this is one of the most striking aspects of the very bizarre way in which the media has dealt with this story.

While I don't condone the concept alluded to and the context may imply otherwise, I don't fault the Cilliza for not mentioning the world as it is. The entire paragraph is written in a normative sense. There's no implication that he doesn't realize that there's the world as it is. He's a political writer dealing with persuasion in the world of entrenched beliefs. He even complements Glenn Kessler's deeper analysis. He's stating his belief in what voters will believe, not on what's true. He makes that very clear, even while tacitly agreeing that Kessler is correct.

What would you expect in a country of reality TV junkies, a country in which a huge number of people salivate in anticipation of the ADVERTISEMENTS to be shown during the Super Bowl and endlessly analyze which was best?

Those who care are getting what they want.

http://pressthink.org/2014/02/behold-how-badly-our-political-journalist…

"I don’t fault the Cilliza for not mentioning the world as it is"

What, inundated with morons who consider ignorance as valid an opinion as informed opinion?

Not true.

The moron just yells louder.

"He’s a political writer dealing with persuasion in the world of entrenched beliefs."

No, he's employing an entrenched belief to continue his belief's primacy: AGW is false! He KNOWS IT!!!

"What would you expect in a country of reality TV junkies"

Tell me, you work in marketing, don't you?

Because I've noticed that marketers seem to believe EVERYONE is a moron. Except themselves, of course. An intelligent film that doesn't "Colombo" itself to the conclusion right at the beginning, is not "marketable" because people want "something easy to understand". And trying to stretch those people will merely result in a flop.

Inception.
Matrix.

Both examples of movies that "marketing" thought would fail because it doesn't cater for the lowest common denominator.

Did well because the "lowest common denominator" occasionally LIKES to be mentally exercised. As long as it's not done to show off the "smarts" of the promoter.

A glaring spotlight on what has happened to political journalism.
When journalists expound on the sizzle without a comment about the steak it's small wonder that the proles unknowingly vote against their own best interests.
The topic is not difficult to explain.
Many whose only reason for working was because of health insurance benefits will be able to retire or find work more suited to their talents. The money now being hoarded to offset health emergencies will be spent, thereby increasing demand and employment.
Two sentences and his column would actually inform the readership of where the beef is instead of how the fumes will be wafted to distract the hungry masses.
Terry

If the press offered us some alternative to this horserace drivel it would not be an issue. But this IS what journalism does.

@wow

Did you read it? It has nothing to do with AGW. Non sequitur much?

Nah, I run an engineering firm.

@mt

Yup, I read that yesterday. But I contend that those who want more than the horserace drivel find it. There are even outlets that engage in enough insightful self-analysis to run articles on "do we engage too much in pandering to the lowest common denominator or fail in our mission by engaging in this horserace drivel?" I heard just such a feature the other day on BBC world news for example. Admittedly, you're not likely to see it in Fox News (though I don't partake so I can't say for sure).

The point is not that information is unavailable for those that seek it out. The point is that those who are too busy to seek out more than a little news get lunacy packaged as news.

What's on the front page, what's on the evening news, what's in the glossy newsmagazine in the dentist's office?

It appears that journalists are actually incapable of distinguishing between two million jobs lost and two million vacancies opening up.

I mean, Cokie Roberts is supposed to be one of the smarter ones.

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/10/274549204/politics-in-the-news

"@wow

Did you read it? It has nothing to do with AGW. Non sequitur much? "

Robbie, do you know what "analogy" means and what "analogous situation" implies?

Get a grown up to read you a dictionary.

I cannot help but wonder what knowledgeable people are to do when a species like Homo sapiens is confronted with a colossal planetary emergency that it appears to have induced. Do human beings not have an original, overarching obligation or perhaps an absolute duty to warn of such a dire situation? What honor should be bestowed on first rank scientists and other esteemed professionals in possession of well-established science who pose as if they "see no truth, hear no truth and speak no truth" regarding known causes of the clear and present danger while mainstreamed, false (preternatural, pseudoscientific) knowledge is deliberately allowed to stand unchallenged as if it represented the best available science?

Power concentration is the problem. Gullibility evens out overall in the main.

But if you're powerful, you are innured from the consequences of externalities. See gated communities. If you're powerful, then you'll lose most in a fair game. therefore the "rational" (i.e. psychopathic antisocial) choice is to deny any problem or at least delay any change and then if change must happen, have the burden on "everyone else, where it belongs".

And if you're powerful, you have ample resources to peddle your screed.

@ wow:

I hated for it to come to this. But I'm not in marketing and have no opinion on whether it is believed (presumably universally as you see it) by marketers but, speaking for myself, I don't believe that everyone is a moron. I do, however, believe that there is a subset of the population that consists of morons and I see that you are a member of that subset.

@mt: While it may be true that one has to dig to find reliable information, that's a symptom of what people want. If "they" (the class of people presumably including Wow) demanded more fact based information, it would be provided. I don't think very many are deluded into thinking that articles in the nature of that written by Cillizza are talking about the world as it is (though maybe he IS discussing the meta-world as it is). So, what you see as a cause, I see as a symptom.

"I hated for it to come to this"

Then why did you start it on this trajectory, Robbie?

Indeed if you hate to do it, there must be some other hate you hate more going on to make it get here.

And if that's the case, then, hey, maybe there's something *I* hate. After all, other people are independent thinkers and not mindless automatons with you as the "only real human".

speaking for myself, I don’t believe that everyone is a moron

Then your statement in your opener's last two paragraphs was complete bollocks, so why the hell did you make it?

@Wow:

I stated certain things with respect to how I viewed the cited article. You responded with an irrelevant comment. I pointed out its irrelevance. You rationalized it and threw out a gratuitous insult. Now you tap dance around it.

As to the second paragraph of my original post, as I stated subsequently, there's a subset of the population whose elements are morons. You and I might even agree on that. I mentioned a "huge number" but certainly didn't indicate that it was the entire population.

In any case, you'll note that I haven't insulted you here, and won't, it's not fair to the blog owner. So, back on topic, Cillizza discusses politics in terms of gaming strategy and interprets the news through that lens, rather than taking a position on whether that's the way it "should be." Politics as a sport. It's clearly offensive to some, those people should ignore it.

My claim is that any misinterpretation of his paradigm is the fault of the reader, not the writer. He states what he's doing with complete clarity. Take it or leave it. Those who want a different paradigm will have no trouble finding it.

Look at what you're working with -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10640518/One…

"I stated certain things with respect to how I viewed the cited article"

And I stated certain things with respect to how I viewed your view.

Apparently your view is that only you're allowed to do that.

Catching up...

illconsidered — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 18:42:04 +0000

Catching up...

Things have been quiet here, even more than the usual slow pace...

I am back now from a trip to Europe where I left the family with the kids maternal grandparents and I won't see them for nine weeks in all. This was a bad plan, but it was the plan. I have been home for a couple of weeks already, but I managed to lose my laptop traveling. Yes, that is a big pain in the behind and it has made many previously simple and efficient things more difficult. Mind you, it could have been much worse as the external hard drive I always keep in my laptop bag was not in my laptop bag and this is where the real pain would have been felt! While on the subject of losing things, my wallet fell out of my camel pack while on a two hour night-time mountain bike ride in the woods a mere week and a half later! But on that one I lucked out big time and found quickly it the next day when I went back to look, very lucky on many counts...

That's just a lot of blah, blah, blah to excuse the absence of adult supervision, which should improve now.

I have also fallen behind in the weekly installments of The Bottleneck Years by H.E.Taylor - three chapters behind, which is two more chapters behind than I thought I was. I just published one and we will have three two-chapter weeks to catch up. How are people liking it so far? I am enjoying it.

Since not much has gone on here except sparring with the resident troll, I thought I might post these three real live interviews with an actual climate troll that went around a while ago. As hard as it is to believe, they are often real people (maybe even multi-millionaires ;-)

Part 1 - Meet the Troll:

Part 2 - The Troll Slayer:

Part 3 - The Showdown:

A long time ago, troll slaying, or at least zombie slaying, was my purpose. It was something I tried to do with calm, civility and tenacity...but somewhere along the line I lost my way. <sigh>

illconsidered Sun, 07/14/2013 - 14:42

Tags

Announcements

General

Interesting as those three videos were (and they were interesting), I have to ask in all seriousness, "what have we learned here?"

Good question, Rob. I admit I had the same reaction. There was no epiphany, no resolution, not even a very satisfying result in the "showdown".

My philosophy for replying to trolls/zombies/sincerely misguided posters has always been "do it for the lurkers", which again does not really get at how, or why try, to reach these individuals.

Unlike the real trolls that live under bridges and feed on goats, on-line trolls feed on responses.

And like all lifeforms, they die if they don't feed.

coby, what would you do without the resident climate trolls craig, mandas, etc.? for me this would be so boring.

Time to admit you were wrong about the Arctic sea ice "recovery, "freddy"?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

What else are you wrong about?

Nothing happening here folks. Move along. Its all perfectly normal.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/storms-roll-into-melbourne-after-day-…

Good to know mandas allows that singular weather events can be used to determine the current measure of global war . . ., er, climate chan . . ., er, extreme weather.

That requirement that we rely on pal, er, peer reviewed science was becoming so tedious.

Coby,
Back from Europe ?
To where ?

And how long did it take on a sailboat?
. . . just sayin'

Good to see that Paul still can't read.

Can you see anywhere in my post where I suggested that that was an accurate measure of climate change Paul?

And yeah Paul, fancy me insisting on a reliance on peer reviewed science to frame the debate - how tedious!. It would be much better if we just stuck to uniformed opinion wouldn't it?

But now that you mention the issue of 'singular weather events', I have to say thanks for demonstrating just how ignorant you really are, and how, in the absence of any credibily evidence based argument, all you are able to do is to build strawmen and to cherry pick the shit you want while ignoring everything else.

Singular weather events are not sufficient to prove climate change. But it takes a very special brand of ignorance to repeatedly state that 'singular weather events' do not prove climate change, on the hundred and hundred of occasions when 'singular weather events' out of the ordinary keep occuring over and over and over and over and over again. ONE of those singular weather events - by itself - does not prove climate change. But only someone with their head so far up their arse that they can see what they had for breakfast can deny that ALL of the broken weather records taken together is in some way normal.

But then, we knew that about you already Paul.

sorry mandas good to know that this is the first year in which weather records were broken, i didnt know.

and also, a bit confused here, "hundreds . . . out of the ordinary", hmmm, sounds contradictory. but I'm sure you can clear this up and define which weather pattern was caused by CO2?

thanks,

Oh really? When commenting on a post about climate denier trolls?

Only to be expected I suppose.

Pauline, cast your eyes over this graphic.
https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2009/temps_2med.jpg

What *I* see is that the weather is indicating a change in climate.

What do *you* see?

Paul

You ask me to clear it up for you and define which weather pattern was caused by CO2? I think you meant which weather pattern was caused by climate change resulting from CO2, since it would be a stupid question to ask which was caused by CO2 alone. So I will answer that one for you.

Well Paul, every single weather pattern in the world was caused by climate change. And that is so obvious that it takes a special form of stupid not to understand it.

Weather is a product of the environmental conditions. The weather is caused by the rotation of the Earth, by the arrangement of the continents and the height of the land (mountains etc), by the tides, by the vegetation and ground cover, by the moisture content of the soil, by the temperature of the ground and the temperature of the sea, etc.

And since a lot of those factors are influenced by climate change (temperature, soil moisture, etc), then the altered conditions of the climate cause altered weather patterns.

So do you get this fundamentally simple point Paul? Only an idiot would ask if a particular weather event was caused by climate change - because every weather event is caused by the existing climatic conditions. Change those, and you change the weather.

Got it?

mandas

your statement

"... when ‘singular weather events’ out of the ordinary keep occuring over and over and over and over and over again ..."

has nothing to do with saying, it is a layman's wishful thinking.

"freddy", you may have missed this:
https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2009/temps_2med.jpg
...which perfectly illustrates what Mandas is attempting to explain to you.

Ahh, mandas, got me.
I did use the word cause, didn't I?

So, of course, what I meant to say -
Which weather pattern change is linked rising CO2 levels?

I think you'll have a largely different response.
(Since your latest straw man devolved to the obviously simple)

Paul

You ask this:

"...So, of course, what I meant to say - Which weather pattern change is linked rising CO2 levels?...

So how about you go back and read my post again, since I have already explained this. Ah, why bother, you apparently can't read very well, so let me make this as plain as possible for you.

Every single weather pattern change in the world is linked to rising CO2 levels, because the changing climate is changing the weather. Why are you not getting this?

So, global war . . ., climate ch . . ., er, extreme weather has devolved to everything which is nothing or nothing which is everything and koooks reign over reality.

Good grief.

So what's your point Paul?

Is it too hard for you to grasp that weather is a product of climate - and that if you change the climate you change the weather?

How about you let us know what is so difficult to understand about that.

We'll have to defer to Pauline's extensive experience of kooks reigning over reality.

Here is the reality, though:
https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2009/temps_2med.jpg

Can you see what the weather is telling you, Pauline?

mandas, your argumentation is pure tautology, therefore pure nonsense, totally unscientific:

1. it is far from certain that global warming exists (mess with temperature stations, eg look at surfacestations.org) and the many obscurities about "global temperature" calculations with many up-homogenzations of temperature data, eg by NOAA and GISS

2. you stubbornly repeat your major misbelief that everything re earth's climate and weather is dependent on little bit human co2.

you should start to look at clouds as major factor, after the sun, affecting earth's surface temperatures.

i recommend to you that you read the IPCC AR4 about clouds, where you can learn that the IPCC admits that the level of scientific understanding of clouds is low. you should accept this.

What you should all accept is that the Greenhouse Effect does not exist, it is an illusion.

What Greenhouse Effect?

From real physics:

Temperature of Earth with voluminous real gas atmosphere with mass therefore weight under gravity,

mainly condensable nitrogen and oxygen: 15°C

Temperature of Earth without atmosphere: -18°C

Compare with the Moon without atmosphere: -23°C

Temperature of the Earth with real gas atmosphere of mainly condensable nitrogen and oxygen, but,

without water, think deserts: 67°C

Which is the real "thermal blanket" around the Earth?

Where is the physical process of the Greenhouse Effect claim that "greenhouse gases warm the Earth 33°C from the -18°C it would be without them?

At best this is mass delusion, at worst, this is "scientists" without even an elementary grasp of the physical properties and processes of matter and energy:

who cannot tell the difference between real gases and the fictional ideal;

who have not noticed the whole of the Water Cycle is missing from their models;

who have not noticed they have no rain in their Carbon Cycle;

who have zilch capacity for sense of scale and cannot tell the difference between their claimed trace gas carbon dioxide which is practically 100% hole in the atmosphere "thermal blanket" and the real gas air nitrogen and oxygen with mass therefore weight under gravity which weighs down on us around 14lbs per square inch, a ton on our shoulders;

who think our millions of degrees hot Star we call the Sun is a cold star of 6000°C, which is around the temp of the Earth's innards;

who think our real millions of degree hot Star the Sun therefore radiates insignificant amounts of longwave infrared heat, which they have, it has to be said, idiotically calculated by some 'planckian' method based on the thin 300 mile wide visible light atmosphere around our millions of degree hot Sun;

or, who claim there is some "invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse at TOA preventing direct thermal infrared from the Sun entering", unknown to real physics;

who have not noticed the Solar Constant, which is the measurement of how much direct longwave infared heat energy from the Sun arrives at the surface by the amount it heats matter at the surface, has been moved in their GHE energy budget to TOA and misattributed to visible light from the Sun;

who claim it is visible light from the Sun which heats matter, which is a physically impossibility,

who are therefore unable to see where the real missing longwave infrared heat direct from the Sun is in Trenberth's comic cartoon, being fraudulently used to pretend it comes from the "atmosphere under TOA backradiated by greenhouse gases"..

etc., etc.,

Do the rest of us in the world who rely on you for accuracy as you claim to be scientists a favour -

stop your posturing. You have no knowledge of physics basics.

The Greenhouse Effect is an Illusion, it is not physically possible, it does not exist, it is hoax to promote AGW.

It is the biggest science fraud to date and the longer you continue to promote it the longer the fraud will continue to the detriment of real science, and real scientists.

There is no physical process to get the “33°C warming by greenhouse gases”, its an illusion created by the science fraud of misappropriating the minus 18°C and applying it where it does not belong..

CT
You seem amazed that a warmer earth brings more high temp records than low temp records.

This is as important as "97% consensus" and "two warmest decades".

Good grief. What a Gish Gallop of incoherence and ignorance from Myrrh...it is hard to choose how and what to respond to. 67oC desserts? On Earth? Visible light can not transmit energy to the earth's surface? The sun is not around 6KoC on its surface, but rather "millions of degrees"?

I think Myrrh should head over to Climate Etc and discuss his blog science theories there.

No Pauline, I am not at all amazed that a warming earth causes a bias in certain weather events.

That pattern of weather events is one of the indicators of climate change. And it is global.

Coby

Freddy has been quiet lately - it looks as though another troll has raised his ugly head to see if we will feed him.

Perhaps we can harness this truly inexhaustible source of troll energy and finally say good-bye to the carbon economy for ever!

mandas, you cannot "feed a climate troll", you are just ugly arrogant as you appear to think that you are a better individual due to unexplainable reasons.

the problem you have is that your speculation of a warming planet due to human influences cannot be substantiated by scienctific methodology

you are the troll, the true non-science troll, devoid of knowledge how science works. you are just a lay person, a believer, and no scientist, since you admitted to work as wildlife park manager in down under.

Coby and other hand wringers,

All you need to do to rid the world of carbon is get off the couch.
Your opportunity is limitless.

When we see you acting like its a crisis, well, then, we may reevaluate.