A denier has many tactics to stop people talking about evidence. The real deniers here are those pushing a fake crisis.
To stop discussion:
- Real deniers claim something needs to be peer reviewed in order to be discussed. (Bad luck for Galileo and Einstein eh?) At the very least this slows down debate for up to a year, instead of discussing results that are right in front of us now.
- Real deniers claim it only “counts” if it comes from a certified climate scientist. (A flaw is a flaw, it doesn’t matter who points it out.)
- If it is peer reviewed, then real deniers claim it only counts if it comes from certain journals. (The climate IS what it IS, regardless of anything printed in any journal.)
- They claim something can’t be right because it would disagree with thousands of papers. They mock and laugh, but provide no evidence. Not a single paper. (Then they claim that it’s not a single paper but a “body of work”. Which disagrees with point 1.)
- Real deniers assert it must be wrong because there is a “consensus”. Notice how they won’t talk about evidence? Scientists don’t vote for natural laws. Science is not a democracy.
- If all else fails, they call people names like … “Denier!” Other variations include, Delayer, Inactivist, Conspiracy Theorist, or Do-Nothing! Since they can’t back it up, this is baseless namecalling.
- When they can’t find a real flaw, they look at “funding” and imagine one. (Real scientists research nature. Fake scientists google for dirt.)
- Real Deniers deny that instruments are right. No! The simulations are more real than reality. Trust the models!
- They threaten dissenters with jail (for fictitious crimes). Climate Criminals!
Peer review is done by two anonymous, unpaid colleagues.
You get what you pay for and peer review is free.
If a company were audited like this, by two anonymous unpaid friends, the SEC would be jailing people.
Who is the real denier?
Page 14
TURN THE PAGES (Links in red will become active as pages are published). You are on the page in the Red Square.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 + 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
This is Page 14 of The Skeptics Handbook II, a 20 page PDF.
#6 In the UK:
“People who doubt that human activity contributes to global warming are “flat-earthers” and “anti-science”, Gordon Brown has said. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6729833/Gordon-Brown-climate-change-sceptics-are-flat-earthers.html
Nick Cohen says that people who call themselves sceptics are “idiots”. He says he’s not allowed to call them “deniers” anymore. Watch this discussion if you can; he does sceptics a power of good. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/8407642.stm
The list of names must be growing by the minute.
20
Jo,
It seems to be my fate to be asking questions. As someone who doesn’t do original research but has to get down in the trenches and get his hands dirty doing something someone will willingly pay me for, I have always understood peer review to mean nothing about the actual validity of conclusions reached in a paper submitted for publication.
Am I right or wrong?
Once again I need a little help.
Some of the people I’ve been trying to convince argue as though peer review proves that the conclusions of an author are true and correct with no room left for any debate.
20
The real deniers are the ones who will not publish news reports of fraud and deceit. The real deniers are the ones who limit access to the truth, and then claim the truth is not as it appears once it is uncovered. The real deniers are the ones who claim that even when the truth is acknowledged as the truth, it no longer matters.
Welcome to the brave new world of AGW. A mixture of Wizard of Oz, Alice through the looking glass, 1984 and Atlas Shrugged. The problem is that we are not dealing with a work of fiction(except for the junk science involved) we are dealing with a bunch of fanatics who make the Peoples Cult look like a garden club.
10
“Real deniers claim something needs to be peer reviewed in order to be discussed. (Bad luck for Galileo and Einstein eh?) At the very least this slows down debate for up to a year, instead of discussing results that are right in front of us now.”
Well, peer review is the way that we know that the science is valid – experts review experts. This unfortunately takes time, but how else do we know that science was done correctly and that we are not listening to, oh i don’t know, an electrical engineer or an explosives expert or a plain old nut who claims to know something but has a political agenda. Sorry, we need scientists to review scientists – have you ever tried to read their papers? There was no peer-review in Galileo’s time, but he probably would’ve used it, and didn’t Einstein peer-review his stuff? I’ll check up on that.
The deniers don’t like peer-review because so much denier “science” is pure bunk dressed up to look like science. Deniers don’t like peer-review because the experts call their bluff. For these reasons deniers prefer the blogosphere.
Nice try though.
11
“Real deniers claim it only “counts” if it comes from a certified climate scientist. (A flaw is a flaw, it doesn’t matter who points it out.)”
Who are the “deniers” here? Aren’t y’all “denying” climate change?
And yeah, we should be much more willing to listen to a certified climate scientist because, well, they are experts on climate science. Who else would you believe?
10
“They claim something can’t be right because it would disagree with thousands of papers. They mock and laugh, but provide no evidence. Not a single paper. (Then they claim that it’s not a single paper but a “body of work”. Which disagrees with point 1.)”
What are you talking about? There is a massive amount of published papers? Google it or go to any university database.
Hell, Hanson’s site along has a ton of papers: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html
10
Marion Morrison,
Wait a minute. You claim that CO2 is causing or will cause catastrophic warming. You want to rather drastically limit use of anything that will emit more CO2. We ask but one thing, show us the evidence that CO2 is causing or even can cause the warming you claim. Given what you want us to do this is entirely reasonable. So where is the evidence? This has been our question to you for literally years, yet no evidence is forthcoming.
Do you or do you not have evidence to support your claim?
10
Yep, evidence is all that is being asked. It’s absense is very telling.
10
And the great James Hansen? His own statement of his research interests is a givaway.
“…trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic…,” so he starts from AGW being a given without proof. Everything after that is just supporting evidence for his starting position.
10
Roy Hogue: Post 2,
Roy, here some articles that I feel you should read. Peer Review Locks Gate
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1324.post
another article proposing changes on “peer review”: Peer Review needs Improvement
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?464.post
Roy, hope this helps but I think you should take the time and go do research on AGW….It would help…if you need help you can see other sites Joanne has at her Home page and the same at GWH.com You are doing right by asking for help though..
10
[…] around lately) – so much for freedom of speech! Funny if any of us ran our businesses like the global warming circus we’d be in jail quick […]
10
Carbon Currency coming soon
10
Marion Morrison:
Peer Review.
You’re right, peer review is part of the scientific process to validate scientific findings. Once finalised, the findings and supporting data should be made openly available for peer review. Unfortunately, alarmists have corrupted this process by not letting their research be openly available. They hand pick their mates to review and actively withold data from others. It has the stench of collusion rather than vigourous peer review.
It is incorrect to suggest that skeptic scientists don’t want peer review. They actually still follow the tried and true method and their work is peer reviewed in the proper manner. The “blogosphere” has become their domain becuase the alarmists keep them out of journals through pressure and coercion.
As examples of the tactics being employed, look at the email exchange between Roger Harrabin and Jo Abess that resulted in changing reported facts or read about Keith Spash of the CSIRO and his treatment because his economic report disagreed with government policy.
Check the leaked emails. Those involved can offer as many ever-changing explanations as they want, it certainly sounds to me like collusion between a closed group.
Certified Climate Scientist.
First, there is no actual “climate scientist”. The study of the climate involves many disciplines of science and therefore scientists of many different fields.
Second, the scientific process makes use of mathemetical and stastical methods. It doesn’t take another scientist to understand maths or statistics. Anyone can find a mistake. Certainly anyone who has experience in working with statistical or mathematical data can find an error.
While scientific fields are the domain of scientists, that does not preclude non-scientists uncovering facts. Facts are facts regardless of who finds them.
This article points out that while alarmists call those who disagree “deniers”, it the alarmist behaviour that is often “in denial”.
Science is not a consensus. It is not about who has the most papers. 1,000 papers can support a scientific theory but it only takes one paper to prove the theory wrong. The theory that man made CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic climate change does not stand up. Regardless of how many papers may agree with the theory, the fact that there is evidence to the contrary means the theory is wrong.
Thanks for your questions Marion. I hope this helps.
10
Hi Jo,
Regarding point 5 above:-
“A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.” – Abba Eban, Israeli statesman, diplomat, and scholar.
10
Hello, Marion….. you made a few statements and Roy asked you a question….Where did you go? maybe your just `checking the papers`… Marion…?
10
Denny,
I’m pretty well versed on AGW and how they have abused peer review, indeed even the scientific method. But your second link confirms that my understanding of what it really should be about was more or less correct. It’s also a bit frightening.
Thanks
10
Peer review is not fundamentally broken, it is just being misapplied. It is meant to be a relatively lightweight process to filter out papers that don’t follow fundamentally solid scientific principles. It is not a judgement on the absolute ‘correctness’ of the conclusions presented by the paper in question. If it were, fresh ideas would inevitably be filtered out due to the inertial associated with conventional wisdom.
For ‘small science’, the leaking through of some conclusions that turn out to be wrong is no big deal. For ‘big science’ that may drive significant policy decisions, it is a problem. The best way to address the problem is to have an additional layer or layers of multidisciplinary review, as is traditionally done in other government or commercial efforts (e.g., NASA, Boeing, …)
If we ever hear politicians mentioning ‘peer review’, it is an indication that the membrane between science and politics has become too thin!
10
Incorrect.
Reproducibility of results is the way we know science is valid. Ability to predict future events is the way we know science is both valid and useful.
It often requires an expert to get some particular technique to work, but it does not require an expert to be able to check whether that technique does work. For example, I don’t have the skills to build and pilot an aircraft, I do have the skill to check whether it is flying once someone else does the hard work.
My first preference would be to believe a thermometer.
Who actually certifies these experts? Whose signature is on the bottom of their certificate of expert scientist? I’ll give an answer to my question… another expert scientist certifies this expert scientist.
If I say that the world sits on a giant turtle, then what does that turtle sit on? Another turtle… ok what does that turtle sit on. Turtles all the way down, but down to what?
The recursive turtle problem the same as the recursive authority problem — it’s a system that sounds convincing until you try to get to the bottom of it, then you realise it starts from nowhere. There is no ultimate source of authority, just a club of people who guard the Gnosis, letting small numbers of extra people into their club. No one outside the club knows what the Gnosis looks like, because it is too secret and special to show.
I’ve been through a reasonable number of them. Hansen made some predictions around a decade ago about where global temperatures would be at today. He was a long way off. Most of the published stuff is either highly theoretical computer modelling, or unreproducible data series where the raw input data has been lost and the methodology is complex and mystical.
You are welcome to bring up a small number of references and people will point out what is wrong with a few papers, if you can find a paper that actually provides references to either their input data, or their code, or enough information to reproduce their effort then I’d be quite impressed.
Peer review is nothing more than a convenience of the academic publishing industry, which is an industry that did very well by being the gatekeeper, controlling the channels by which scientists could communicate. The Internet has made all that obsolete, the gatekeeper no longer serves a purpose and the channels of communication are openly available to all.
10
Not so. I’ve published a few papers in my time. Peer review is where your paper is reviewed by one of your peers. They challenge you, the question your approach, they ask for references, they check your maths for silly mistakes. Publishers listen to reviewers who will voice an opinion – not necessarily to the author.
In any field of endeavour, there is no GUARANTEE coming from peer review that what you publish is correct. Perhaps less embarrassing – if they find a whoopsy. But correctness assumes some absolute truth (after all if its not correct, it must be incorrect). And in many fields – even mathematics – it’s possible to be wrong, and reviewed. Or right, and reviewed.
The collective body of stuff we call knowledge is slowly and painstakingly built in this manner. Peer review is not perfect, it is used because it is the best system we have for having some level of credibility – basically because in general the alternatives are worse. It is founded on the principle of great people actually standing on the shoulders of giants.
However, there will always be those who are the true revolutionaries. For these, surviving peer review, being understood, is difficult. Things which are too radical are no longer standing on the shoulders of giants, its going off an making your very own new giant. Getting that understood and accepted is difficult because its not building on existing knowledge, its a new start. Such, for example, as Einstein – dreaming up relativity – the truly new and bizarre theories take a great deal of time to gain acceptance. Peer review hinders those, but in the main, peer review is of some benefit.
For every example of peer review being lousy, there is a counter example where it helps. In my own case, peer review caught a few minor errors, and helped in clarifying my explanatory text. It was of some, but not huge, benefit. My reviewers never passed judgement on CORRECTNESS – at least not to me. And nor should they. My conclusions are mine. The reviewers are there to help me explain my findings.
An important point, though, and one that has been made here a number of times is that the review process can be corrupted. This happens in any field – ask a physicist or astrophysicist who can’t get published because his ideas on origin of the universe are a bit too radical for the reviewers to understand, or the publishers to accept. This kind of censorship does go on, rightly or wrongly… and these people are usually published in the end but it can take some time.
For another example, the researchers Barry Marshall and Robin Warren discovered that many stomach ulcers are actually caused by a bacterial infection (Helicobacter Pylori). They found this in the 1980’s, and suffered for years of ridicule and inability to publish before it was eventually accepted in the medical community. Nobel prize in 2005 for that… something like 25 or 30 years it took: Peer review can stifle.
Peer review does not mean publishers or reviewers have open minds. If the review club is small, getting a countering view heard is a difficult thing to do.
So please, understand a little about what peer review means and how it works. Saying that it means the publication is correct, is in fact incorrect.
10
Peer review only works when all the data and methodology is submitted with the paper, so that it can be checked by anyone with the skill base to do so….. Without that, “peer reviewed” papers are no better than fiction.
10
Roy Hogue @ #2:
As others have pointed out, peer review only checks for gross errors, it is not a guarentee of correctness. Further, in many cases the author will suggest a list a potential peers for the editor to consult. Of course, the more papers you have published, the more you are a “recongnised expert” and the more likely you are to be asked to perform a peer review. As Wegman has shown, in climate science the process has become somewhat incestuous, with people who have co-authored papers “peer reviewing” each others work. Plus the leaked emails are suggesting that the very some coterie of people have worked behind the scenes to actively suppress dissenting papers, either directly as reviewers or by applying pressure to the journal editors. If true, this is a significant distortion of the scientific process. It certainly seems that, for instance, Pielke Snr, has evidence that this indeed did happen.
And no, Einstien’s seminal papers on relativity were never peer reviewed before publication, peer review having only been introduced in the 1960’s or so.
10
Lucia has posted an excellent letter
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/petr-chylek/
10
Oh, I should point out that authors of papers can be (and are) contacted from time to time by readers. It is one of the obligations that comes with publishing a paper. A paper should include a full disclosure of your methods, your conclusions, and if you have enough space and you are doing simulation – your code. Or a subset. Or the really important methods used in it.
And having published you have placed yourself, your methods, and your conclusions in the public domain. YOU DO NOT OWN SOMETHING THAT IS PUBLISHED (a fact acknowledged world-wide in patent law).
So when you get contacted by somebody asked for your source code, or input data, or for more information – you have a moral if not legal obligation to help them out. To provide the data. To disclose. Otherwise you are trying to be half pregnant.
The point of publication is to expand the body of knowledge.
Sadly this has been corrupted over time in research institutions so that to get ahead, you MUST have a publication record, you have to get research grants. Researchers are not paid to sit in some tower and dream up neat stuff. There is never enough money, so everyone has to play the game.
Want promotion? Then you need to have published your quota of papers (quality being subjective, is not usually counted, how to you determine it? So sheer volume of published papers is what counts.)
Want research grants to keep going and paying your own salary? The write grant applications. (And how do those who dole out the research grants decide who gets the funds? Why – its based on the application. YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT SOUND GOOD. Catastrophic sounds good.)
These twin evils unfortunately corrupt the process terribly.
Somebody with a list of hundreds of published papers tells you ONLY one thing. They are good at writing papers. It does not tell you anything about the quality of the papers, or the worth of their content. That is judged only by history.
And how do I know these things? I used to work in a research institution… a somewhat unconventional one that I can’t say any more about. But I do know how the game is played. I played it for a number of years.
10
“Wait a minute. You claim that CO2 is causing or will cause catastrophic warming. You want to rather drastically limit use of anything that will emit more CO2. We ask but one thing, show us the evidence that CO2 is causing or even can cause the warming you claim. Given what you want us to do this is entirely reasonable. So where is the evidence? This has been our question to you for literally years, yet no evidence is forthcoming.”
Well Roy, I had to look back at what I wrote – I didn’t say anything of the sort. In fact, I didn’t even write “CO2” anywhere. You just had a pre-programmed knee-jerk reaction. Congrats.
And are you serious that there is no “evidence” for AGW? I am not convinced that such a thing exists, but plenty of scientists believe there is evidence. Go to Academic Elite databases, for instance, or Proquest. If you don’t belong to a university library, try looking around this site
http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html
Or read James Hansen’s stuff – if you disagree with his science, then fine, but please don’t play dumb that there is no “evidence.”
10
“It is incorrect to suggest that skeptic scientists don’t want peer review. They actually still follow the tried and true method and their work is peer reviewed in the proper manner. The “blogosphere” has become their domain becuase the alarmists keep them out of journals through pressure and coercion.”
I must disagree. Again, go to any database – look up global warming. There are plenty of scientists (Pielke, Bryson, Botkin) who publish widely on global warming in both the popular and scholarly press. And there are plenty of others too, particularly the geologists and solar physicists (although I would still rather listen to a climatologist or climate physicist). The ‘they-are-blocking-the-truth’ plaint is simply a tired tactic of the blogosphere denier camp to give themselves a bogus sense of drama and self righteousness. You have a couple of emails from one place across the pond which implies that a certain group of scientists will no longer do business with a journal which perhaps is no longer publishing viable science.
Personally I don’t know if AGW is real or not – I sure as hell hope not – but I have come to believe that the cyber-debate is pretty darn poisonous to whole atmosphere.
10
For those interested in finding out about “peer review system”, the following should clear the air.
“The system of `peer review’ was established during the nineteenth century as a means to uphold quality control in science and to exclude patently flawed science from the publications of the scientific community, known as `journals’. This of course involves something of a trade-off between the wider social values of free speech and the narrower values of preserving the integrity of science itself”.
and
“Once any monopoly is established, abuse and corruption soon follows, and it is the climate sciences which have led the way down that dangerous path”.
Read the full article at John L Daly’s site here
http://www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm
10
“peer review is part of the scientific process to validate scientific findings. Once finalised, the findings and supporting data should be made openly available for peer review.”
Couldn’t agree more. Any reasonable person would.
“Unfortunately, alarmists have corrupted this process by not letting their research be openly available. They hand pick their mates to review and actively withold data from others. It has the stench of collusion rather than vigourous peer review.”
Again, if this is the case, then heads should roll. Of course, the IPCC, NOAA, James Hansen et al make their stuff available online. Why not disprove them with your own science instead of constantly vaguely alluding to “collusion”? Or must the deniers hack emails?
10
Marion #4
I’m sorry to say you can’t be any more wrong.
If you wish to find out about peer review pls see my post above.
John Daly also tells of a story on how he ‘tested’ peer review in climate science in a fool proof way. “Peer Review and Censorship – A Case Study”, in the same article above.
10
Uh huh. According to his obituary, John Daily (R.I.P.)”John established a company manufacturing the two marine electronic devices he had invented” and ended up “teaching electronics and economics” before deciding he wanted to become a climate scientist and publishing with a non-science publisher (Bantam Books).
See a problem here?
Why should I believe this guy over a climate scientist? Why should I believe this guy at all? You may be convinced, but are you really being objective, Baa?
The corporate engineer and / or the non-climate scientist who have done little to no peer-review work on the subject are generally the people who shout the loudest.
10
Australian ABC allowing publication of one skeptical viewpoint on DrumUnleased which mentions some very mild parts of the climategate emails.
It apparently still is not politically correct to highlight the actual evidence of fraud in these emails.
However, note that this is a right to reply to Bary Jones strong AGW piece,
so there is still a “call to authority” bias in favour of AGW.
and ABC’s idea of balance is one skeptic article for 10 pro-AGW articles.
Part of the problem is also that the environmental groups are very well funded and are constantly making pro-AGW press releases that the media cut and paste.
10
Marion #29
You dissmiss too easily. Take the time to visit the web site, there you will see contributions from many scientists, peer reviewed and all, references and biographies.
Also, do you really believe everything in the IPCC reports are from “climate” Scioentists? Geologists have no role? Physicists have no role? Astronomers have no role? etc etc
I am called a skeptic because I have an open mind, I take the time to learn from all corners. (yes I have a copy of the IPCC ARG4 on my computer) I also regularly visit the Real Climate web site and others.
What do you do other than dissmiss somebody because they are an engineer without even taking the time to read what they have to say?
How can you make an INFORMED decision if you don’t listen to ALL sides?
10
Well you can’t accuse Prof Schneider of being an alarmist or a denier. He finds it more convenient to say nothing at all, turn on his scrapers and shoot through leaving this distasteful Climategate business to the robust concensus arguments of the United Nations’ uniformed heavies.
BTW, Steve McIntyre has a brilliant analysis of the paleoclimatic “hide the decline” deception. Bringing together both official IPCC documentation from 1999 onwards and relevant Climategate emails. If anyone really wants to know the history of the concerted and fraudulent efforts to rid the world of the inconvenient Medieval Warming Period, this is a must read. I have no doubt it will be cited many times into the future.
10
Finally, some reporters breaking ranks at the BBC.
The “Who is the real Denier” issue debated on the BBC
Watch the BBC ThisWeek program
10
Marrion Morrison:
In case your not aware Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri the head of the IPPC is also an engineer. Infact a railway engineer. So using your argument we should’t believe him either.
Pachauri’s Bio
http://www.rkpachauri.org/bio.php
10
Ups… that should read IPCC.
10
Well, see, this is the problem, my friend. I am a layperson as I suspect you are too. I suspect we are both reasonably intelligent people. But we are not scientists (or at least I suspect you are not) and we lack the requisite training to determine who is telling the truth and who is not.
Have you ever sat on a peer-reviewed scientific board, Baa? Do you have PhD level training in climate science? Have you ever worked as a scientist for any of the agencies that monitor the climate or taught climatology at a university or worked in a climate lab? If you have not done any of these things (or anything that is equivalent) then how can you determine whether or not you are being lied to – by the IPCC or Tim Ball or James Hansen or Lance Endersby or Big Oil or whoever? Unless we really understand the science and have done our own research we have to rely on our sources to tell us the truth.
John Daily or the IPCC or NOAA or John Stewart for that matter could tell us that little green frog-people are changing the atmosphere from a space ship buried in the arctic and (if we are truly honest) we’d have to admit that we really have no idea whether or not that is true. We might as well be arguing on the root cause of cancer or the composition of Europa’s ice fields.
The only thing we laypeople can do if examine our sources. If our sources appear questionable (questionable credentials, motives, or associations) than we must dismiss them for the same reason that we would not go see a doctor who takes money from big tobacco or an auto mechanic who over charges us. Most people on this site seem pretty willing to dismiss entire organizations which don’t agree with them but fall for a guy like Daily.
We don’t, in short, know enough and should probably let the scientists wrangle it out without our amateur voices garbling up the text. Blogs like this one are simply incendiary and full of dogma (not to mention poorly written) which equates to poorly done propaganda. And I suspect, Baa, that most people posting here don’t really, honestly care about the “science” – what drives them are their political beliefs. I could be wrong on that last point, but I really doubt it (we’ll see how long it takes somebody to call me a “liberal”).
Cheers for now.
10
Marrion,
That is the most patronising crap I’ve ever heard. Now you are saying that the people in the lab coats are right no matter what and that we should all just bow our heads and agree – no matter what.
Well, I for one, say F*@ck that.
10
Mr. Morrison,
So sorry for the “knee jerk” response. It’s implicit from people like you that humans are responsible for warming. You push people at me who make exactly that assertion, yet I can’t come back with the one question you can’t answer. Who do you think you are?
You shove Hansen at me, but sorry again, I’ve seen enough of him to last a lifetime. Anyone who has the gall to stand up in front of a Senate hearing and demand that certain oil company executives whose opinion he finds inconvenient be tried for crimes against humanity is someone I’m entitled to write off. The Constitution condemns him.
You all think you’re so slick and sophisticated and you demand that we kiss up to you! Sorry yet again but I won’t go down that road!
10
Marion wrote:
BINGO.
EXACTLY.
Now perhaps we get to the core of the problem.
The scientists can go battle it out all they want – I don’t give a toss.
But when my politicians decide that the science is COMPLETE, CORRECT, IRREFUTABLE, and FOOTPROOF, and as a consequence want to change our economy, and tax us, then I have a problem.
Sure its politics. But it’s BAD POLICY to go around saying that there is a disaster a-comin (when in fact the evidence is patchy at best, and fraudulent at worst), and to claim that the evidence is irrefutable, when it is still hotly debated.
And that my friend is why I get cranky. Doing things for the wrong reasons (and lying about it) is dishonest, dishonourable, and disastrous.
10
Dean,
Sock it to him! He says he isn’t qualified to determine the truth but has no trouble pointing us at only AGW promoters.
10
aaahhh but there is the nub of this. The scientists on one side “have not allowed” the scientists on the other side a voice. The “case study” I refered you to is a case in point.
Also, let me ask you this…are you an airline pilot? No? Can you tell when an airplane is being flown badly?
Are you a coach of an elite sports team? No? Can you tell when a team is playing badly?
In my original contribution to the “peer review” discussion #26 I suggested bloggers read the article sited. Even had a case study. I didn’t try to convince people one way or the other. More information, useful to some maybe not to others.
There is no denying that due to the IPCC process since the Rio Summit of 92, many volumes of info has been available from one point of view. Pointing to other points of view can only be healthy, but you knocked over my suggestion without having read what was suggested, you dissmissed it out of hand because the author was an engineer.
If you had read it with all it’s relevant links and came back with reasons why you didn’t accept it’s premise, fair enough, but you didn’t. Argueing for the sake of it are you?
10
ahhh yes, Dr Hansen. Lets believe him but not John L Daly. Is this the same Dr Hansen who in 1988 (21yrs ago) gave an interview to a fellow alarmist Bob Reiss who was in the procees of writing a book on AGW…
‘Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?
While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
Hansen was interviewed just this week on our ABC Lateline program, guess what? Still making the same alarmist predictions. Should we give him the benefit of the doubt? What do you think?
10
Well, hate to say it, but Hansen does have the credentials (Ph.D. Climate physics, Iowa) and he’s done decades of peer-reviewed work on the subject, not to mention his dissertation was on the greenhouse effect on Venus, he works for NASA and for Columbia University and he’s put PDFs of all his paper online at his NASA website, many done in conjunction with other scientists. Pretty strong stuff. The deniers really hate this guy and I think it’s because he’s a formidable scientist with the chops to prove it.
So if I had to choose between Daily and Hansen, I’d have to choose Hansen for (what seem to me) to be obvious reasons.
Most of the bad press Hansen, the IPCC, the EPA, and the NOAA get comes from the blogosphere and most of these seem to be generalities and unsupported allegations. I’ve come to believe that there is a certain body of people who are simply looking for a reason to dismiss the guy, no matter what, and will grasp at anything.
Unfortunately for Hansen, he gives people fodder. If I am at all dubious of the man it is because he seems over-zealous in his private life and associates himself with radical leftist organizations and causes – which is always a bad idea for a scientist in the public eye. I personally feel much more comfortable with, say, Botkin or Pielke, both of whom are critical of AGW research but neither of which outright dismiss it.
And, as I said before, I really, really, really hope that Hansen et al are wrong. We’ve got enough troubles without climate change. But humanity has already vastly altered almost every aspect of the physical Earth, and much of it not for the good, so I have to wonder why we think the atmosphere should be that much different…
10
It’s implicit from people like you that humans are responsible for warming. You push people at me who make exactly that assertion, yet I can’t come back with the one question you can’t answer. Who do you think you are?
Knee jerk. It’s textbook. You will be mad at anybody who does not agree with you. And I didn’t understand the last part of that.
That is the most patronising crap I’ve ever heard. Now you are saying that the people in the lab coats are right no matter what and that we should all just bow our heads and agree – no matter what.
Well Dean, if you don’t believe them then you should probably be able to disprove them. Argue with your doctor then if you don’t like your diagnosis. Argue with the engineers if you don’t like the structural supports they use. Go ahead. Don’t be talked down to. Show those darn experts that you won’t be made a fool of!
And Baa, I’m still not convinced that the AGW plane isn’t flying straight or the AGW isn’t playing well. Again, the vast majority of the voices raised against them are people I wouldn’t necessarily want in my cheering section.
10
*Oops, I rambled below. I think I wrote more clearly on my website (link above)
Heck, I don’t claim to know much about science, but unlike some I know when I’m being swindled. I also know how to do enough research to learn Al Gore, along with Enron and Goldman Sachs, cooked up a carbon trading scheme, spent years putting fear into the public (with thorough propagandizing of school kids)about all sort of global climatic calamities in his movie, complete with drama and special effects, to cause concern and tug at compassionate heart-strings… all this (in order to get their carbon trade scheme enacted), a carbon scheme that (because corporations will be able to swap carbon credits) is hardly an environmental ideal for true clean air. But no one is willing to question this carbon scheme, because (I believe) they’re afraid to look like they don’t care for the planet. But if they really cared, they’d pay closer attention.
Since way back when Al Gore and Tipper were grilling Frank Zappa and other rockers about whether to censor their musical content, I knew Gore was a phony blowhard. Then he started sweating and screaming (in his dramatic Tennessee drawl) about our most certain peril.
I watched and heard people afraid, yes, afraid to question the great Gore and all the govt paid experts. Two men in Hollywood, standing in front of me in a movie theater line, a few years ago – had this conversation: man #1: Can you believe (fill in name here) questions global warming? Man #2: (Gasp!) shaking his head in pity for the inhumanity of it all, and looking like he couldn’t imagine a person with so little soul could grace the earth.
That’s when I knew we’d all gone completely crazy.
Why? because all these years, whenever I’d meet someone in the related sciences (geology, biology) I’d pick their brains (I’m curious like that) about all sorts of things: minerals, space, micro and macro physics… (I don’t know a lot, but I like to try and learn more), and in doing so I’d have honest conversations – about solar flares, the earth’s rotation, condensation, historic weather patterns- and how these all play into our climate. These scientists I spoke with didn’t pay much attention to anything the global alarmists had to say, because so many things play a role in climate – I got from them that it’s often hard to say definitely. Still Gore yells “The debate is closed!”
When I started hearing “The debate is closed!” from sweaty old, music-censoring wind-bag Gore. I didn’t stand in line and grovel: yes, sir! My bullshit detector went BOING! And hit its limit. Hell, no, when someone says “Don’t look behind that door!” I want to look behind THAT DOOR. Who the hell is Gore, a man than makes CO2 sound like some sort of black tarry soot – and not a natural need of life? He’s hardly a genius. Isn’t that obvious? As a matter of fact, he’s quite literally a buffoon.
Have many adults been so admonished to stand in line and put on blinders, that they no longer see the foolish emperor standing buck-ass-naked?
And then those suspicious CRU emails came into public. Scientists jumped ship. Pointed fingers. Made excuses. NASA has not provided data that’s been in question. Obama refused to investigate. Why, If the science is solid show it?
Now the govt agencies involved are in severe propaganda mode: They harp on the fact that the emails were “leaked” and how HORRIBLE that is – as if (if these emails do prove manipulation of data) this wouldn’t be one of the world’s most DEVASTATING SCANDALS to rock science, truth and human trust in years; The propagandists say “Oh, the leaked info was cherry picked.” “The science is solid” “There’s a consensus”. They all same the same sheep-like things. They dismiss having to show the raw data. They dismiss MIT physicists in climate sciences and many other very reputable scientists. The media (in the US, anyway) simply parrots whatever the govt agencies (IPCC,CRU, etc) say.
None of this raises red flags? Well, to me it did. So I started – like many others – to do my own research, and began seeing groups of scientists, who have all sorts of various hypothesis on the world’s climate which are not exactly global warming doom and gloom, who are being ignored by the govt paid scientists (sorry, when people are paid to come to a certain conclusion, ie to conclude the same ideas that Gore and his UN buddies have been belly-aching about for years, you don’t think those govt paid scientists (after receiving millions) are going to come to the Gore/UN conclusion?
So I actually hold the many other scientists ideas to be at least as worthy, if not more. But the media, govts, CRU, IPCC, act like these most prestigious scientists who disagree with the “hockey stick” theory, are silly – even if they can say exactly why (due to missing historical warming periods, etc) they have big problems with their findings.
All this, and yet we’re being rushed into a severe carbon tax, simply because Gore, the UN, Obama have an agenda. But we people, apparently, are not worthy of receiving more info. Govt scientists turn up their noses, “It’s already been peer reviewed. We don’t need to show anything.”
All these huge warnings tell me something doesn’t smell right in Copenhagen
10
Can you delete my post (above) I sound like a rambling idiot. I should’ve just said: I don’t know much about science, but I do know when I’m being lied to.
10
Marrion Morrison (#36)…
I have some measure of sympathy for the argument you have put forward here. You are correct, that we have to decide who we can trust as sources of information.
My starting point, a few years ago, was this… if dangerous global warming can be caused by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, then why oh why have there been previous periods where temperatures increased while CO2 decreased, and previous periods where temperatures decreased while CO2 increased. I asked a lot of people this question, and nobody could explain to me why the current period is supposed to be different from other historical periods. Nor could they explain the corollary, i.e. if previous climate change was previously caused by factors other than CO2 in the air (because CO2 concentrations were not changing), why can’t those same factors be the main causes of the current change.
As far as I know, these questions are still unanswered. So you see, my first objection is related to the clearly faulty logic of the CAGW hypothesis.
Well, there’s a long journey from there. Slowly, gradually, the pieces start to fall into place. Al Gore’s famous movie comes out, and what he says is obviously dishonest. People start questioning the AGW claims, and the arguments justifying them display the type of logical fallacies that Joanne Nova discusses in the Skeptics Handbook. You see regular examples of scientists, and others, who say they accepted the AGW idea, but after looking into it, they changed their minds. On the other hand, you never hear of a sceptic becoming a born-again warmist. You hear from and meet scientists who were part of the IPCC, who speak out against the biases and political process that overrides the scientists’ input. You hear from scientists and others who say they will not openly or publicly question the AGW dogma, even though they privately dispute it, for fear of losing their jobs. You hear about outspoken sceptics who receive death threats. You start to notice that a lot of sceptics appear to be focussed on the empirical observations, whereas the warmists seem to be primarily defending a belief system. You notice that AGW alarmists continue to make statements about climate change that are directly contradicted by the empirical observations. You start to wonder WHY the alarmists are fighting so hard to promote their belief system, but at the same time rigorously avoiding engaging with sceptics in debate – and then you start to find some very persuasive information (psychological, political, economic) that starts to explain why.
And so on. I could keep writing this list all night, and eventually I would get to Climategate. But my point is, after a while it becomes blindingly obvious who to trust, and who to distrust.
10
JS (#33)…
Thanks for pointing us to that BBC interview. Although it is distressing to see intransigent unsceptic claims being supposedly based on science, (which they can’t be), it was a very interesting segment, and certainly significant to see not only credence being given to sceptic arguments, but in fact those sceptic arguments being so clearly put by the interviewer himself.
You know, I just don’t get this. I have heard the bald-faced statement a few times in the last few days, that taking into account all the factors, increasing atmospheric CO2 is the only plausible explanation for the current warming. Sheesh! Do these people really think that thay can reach this conclusion? Almost in the same sentence, he also says that we are dealing with a very complex system. Too right we are! It just blows my mind that anyone can think that “we” know enough about the interaction of everything that contributes to global climate, to say that they can apply simple arithmetic and get CO2 as the answer. Dearie me, we should be honest and admit that “we” hardly know anything yet.
10
Michelle in #46 sorry too late… if people point and giggle in the streets next week you know they read this thread;)
10
Steve #48. I’m with you on this. The IPCC does the same thing in their Summary for Policy makers. I discussed that at #66 on Jo’s Climate Gate Virus article
10
Darn, I can’t seem to find it again… During my browsing today I saw a beautiful exchange between Al Gore and Sarah Palin. Gore says something like “There’s no debate. Climate change is a fact. It’s like gravity – it exists.” Palin lets him know that she agrees, and therefore legislation and regulation can have about as much effect on climate change as it can have on gravity.” 🙂
10
Steve #51 yes I saw that, Hockey Mom Sticks it to Hockey Stick man lol
Here tis http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/09/al-gore-calls-sarah-palin-global-warming-denier
10
It’s okay. You don’t have to delete my post. I’ll have to live with my ramble. It’s early in the morning here and my brain is fried (an excuse, I know). I decided I should try to delete it when I realized you all are really science savvy and I come off sounding like some sort of bozo. Like I said, my most important point is – I know when I’m being lied to. And, with the way the political machine (in the US) and the media is working overtime to get their minions in groupthink lines, I feel like (no, I know) I’m being gas-lighted.
IE “You’re insane for questioning” when everything is so questionable.
Thanks for giving me a place to feel like the world is not completely upside down.
Michele
10
Hey Michelle, I am the same, though i love science I’m certainly not a scientist.
A bit like Steve S, I raised an eyebrow when watching Gores dvd. So i started looking into it (First thing I did was follow the money) It became apparent to me very quickly that this was a scam.
I’m also a born skeptic, I think it’s a healthy way to be, esp. when politicians are involved.
This is a very good blog, everybody gets a say.
Welcome
10
Michelle, you don’t need to be a scientist to spot a scam. Your comment is valuable. You summed up why anyone can see that things don’t add up.
Thanks, Jo
10
Hi Jo. Like your blog. Here’s something for you if you like. It sort of lines up with what you’re saying about justification by authority.
Cheers,
Speedy.
If the ABC were Relevant…
Kerry: Brian interviews our Chief Scientist and asks a few questions about a hot topic.
Brian: Thankyou, Dr. Clarke, for joining us today.
John: Not a problem at all, Brian, not a problem at all.
Brian: John, as Australia’s Chief Scientist, you’re advising the Rudd Government on the latest developments in Global Warming. How’s business?
John: Well, for starters, Brian, we of the cognisati no longer refer to this phenomenon as Global Warming. The official term is Climate Change.
Brian: Why’s that?
John: Well, climate surveys over the last 10 years by thousands of dedicated, well credentialed, consensus-loving, grant-seeking climate science professionals support this latter moniker on the basis that the said measurements are trending in a direction which is not commonly associated with the term “warming”.
Brian: So global warming has stopped?
John: You have to realise, Brian, that only a highly trained and peer reviewed climate professional can differentiate between medium term weather trends and long term climatic effects.
Brian: And that means?
John: No.
Brian: Does the scientific community understand why this not happening?
John: We’ve got some very sophisticated climate models, Brian. Very sophisticated. So smart that if I told you about them it would make your eyes to glaze and your layman-quality head to spin.
Brian: But do they work?
John: Not as such.
Brian: Then what is the cause of Global Warming?
John: Climate Change.
Brian: Sorry. Climate Change.
John: Very simple Brian. The overwhelming and unanimous consensus of all climate scientists world-wide, and decreed unequivocally by the UN’s IPCC, is that there is an at least 90% probability that the catastrophic changes to global climate that we’re not seeing at the moment but which all our computer models say we should are due to human-sourced emissions of carbon dioxide, or, as we call it, CO2.
Brian: So the atmospheric CO2 levels have gone up?
John: Like a bride’s nightie, Brian. Up to about 0.0385% last time we looked at the dial out the back.
Brian: And global temperatures are about the same now as they were about 10 years ago? Doesn’t that invalidate your hypothesis?
John: Would you like to see some pictures of a polar bear?
Brian: So the science is settled then?
John: Absolutely Brian. Can you think of any reasons why not?
Brian: How about the Medieval Warming, about 1000 years ago?
John: Didn’t happen, Brian. Denialist propaganda.
Brian: So how do you explain the Viking colonisations of Greenland and Newfoundland?
John: Some people might say that, Brian, but they’re mostly historians. They don’t know anything about climate science.
Brian: And the Vostok ice core data showing how atmospheric CO2 increases after a rise in temperature, not before? Doesn’t that mean CO2 rises are a product – not a cause – of global warming?
John: You’re playing parlour games there Brian. Basic chemistry. Solubility of CO2 in the earth’s oceans decreases as temperatures rise. Henry’s Law. Of course the oceans are going to release a bit of CO2 in the course of a warm millennium. Totally irrelevant.
Brian: But if atmospheric CO2 makes the earth hotter, and higher temperatures increase the atmospheric CO2 levels, why isn’t the world sort of medium rare to well done by now?
John: It’s a very complicated question Brian but your big mistake was talking to a chemist about this. A good climate scientist will sort this one out quick smart. It’s a climate issue, not a chemistry question. Trust me.
Brian: Then why do you think the temperatures on Mars, Uranus and Pluto seem to have tracked with those of earth in the latter part of the 20th century? Doesn’t that suggest the driver for global temperatures is more likely to be solar?
John: Crazy-man talk, Brian! Crazy-man talk. We all know that there’s no carbon dioxide on Pluto, so how can it have global warming? Besides, Pluto isn’t a planet any more, so that theory is totally debunked. Just stick with the climate science, Brian.
Brian: Does the IPCC have any evidence to show that man-made CO2 is driving the earth’s Global Warming?
John: Climate Change.
Brian: Sorry. Climate Change.
John: Yes, Brian, and I’m glad you asked. If you look up the IPCC report from 2001, you will find that the climate models clearly and unambiguously predict a sharp rise in the equatorial tropospheric temperatures arising from man-made CO2. So there.
Brian: And the measurements have demonstrated this?
John: “Demonstrated” isn’t the word we’d normally use in this regard Brian. It appears that the theory is a little ahead of the facts at this stage and that Mother Nature doesn’t seem to be taking the IPCC very seriously.
Brian: So there’s no evidence?
John: It’s more a meteorological issue Brian. We climate scientists have a longer term perspective on these issues.
Brian: Speaking of long term – does it concern you that we’ve had 5 ice ages where the atmospheric CO2 was much higher than it is today? Doesn’t that suggest CO2 is irrelevant, or at least a very secondary factor in determining climate?
John: I take your point Brian, but the Climate Science community has a very clear and unanimous consensus on this.
Brian: And what would that consensus be?
John: We don’t talk about it. Goodbye. (Leaves)
Brian: (To camera). Do you think we should tell Kevin?
10
🙂 Onya Speedy. That was funny.
10
Apologies – there’s a typo in there – he should say “yes” when he said no. First draft issues..
10
Speedy speedy speedy, I loved it. Was able to read it with John and Brians voices in my head, very very like them.
R U sure this wasn’t a script they had to chuck out coz the ABC went crook at em?
10
Why don’t you send it in to John n Brian.
Also, can you post it on Andrew Bolts Blog pls. Tips for Sunday section
10
Mr. Morrison,
Hansen again I see — what great credentials he has — ad nauseam.
I had to learn a long time ago and unfortunately the hard way that credentials alone mean nothing. So let him whose prophecies come true be the prophet and the rest be fakers. I think that’s fair enough.
So have Hansen’s “prophecies” come true? No. He’s way out on a limb and frantically sawing it off behind him. He’s set himself up for a monumental fall.
Then you go on to cite reasons why you really think his credibility is in some doubt. Frankly I would be embarrassed to post what you did.
10
Well said Roy. Due to the “embarrassement” you mentioned I didn’t even bother to reply to MM
By the way, incase bloggers aren’t familiar, the late great John L Daly was one of the very first people to question the IPCC data and their procedures eight years ago.
The wags at CRU had alot of trouble countering Johns arguements, they hoped he would just go away.
No wonder his passing was “cheering news” for P. Jones
R.I.P
Must be up in 4hrs for work, gnite
10
A recent paper offers a truly alarming forecast.
The global warming alarmists need not worry. The paper has yet to be peer reviewed by the 60 or so cherry picked reviewers who have reviewed the thousands of papers that pretend to prove AGW is real, urgent, and almost certainly catastrophic. For the rest of us, I offer the following:
Global Warming Alarm More Political Than Scientific
Posted 12 December 2009 on http://www.nzclimatescience.org.nz/
“The current global warming alarm is simply the latest example of a common social phenomenon: an alarm based on unscientific forecasts of a calamity. We conclude that the global warming alarm will fade, but not before much additional harm is done by governments and individuals making inferior decisions on the basis of unscientific forecasts. ” New study by Drs Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong: LINK to download pdf
From the paper’s conclusion:
We found that alarms based on unscientific forecasts are a surprisingly common social
phenomenon. Alarms are used to support political movements. Dissent is punished. Expensive
government interventions are frequently recommended and often implemented. Once in place
they continue even when the alarming forecasts prove to be groundless, perhaps because a large
sector of the economy depends on jobs created to “protect” against the predicted catastrophe.
The dangerous manmade global warming alarmist movement will ultimately fail, but we
can look forward to other such phenomena in the future. Many people will be ready to expound
on and believe in forecasts of new disasters.
“Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.” – Winston Churchill
10
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!
I spot only ONE person in the comment thread,who is badly missing the point of the presentation written by Jo.
It figures.
10
Why am I not surprised?
10
The alarmists often reply to our attempts to reason with them by asking us to prove AGW does not happen. The interesting thing is that one cannot prove non-existence. The reason being that proof entails the discovery and presentation of a consistent set of evidence and experiments in reference to the thing to be proven. A thing that does not exist has no attributes or behaviors that can be studied, measured, or tested (ie part and parcel of the process of proving). Hence a proof of non-existence is not possible. In fact, it is a contradiction that one demands it be done. This is why it is the responsibility of the one who asserts the existence of a thing to provide the proof. If the proof is not forthcoming, the assertion fails and continued belief in its existence is based upon faith (belief without evidence) only.
It is a fundamental property of logic that when you have found a contradiction in your thought process, you have made an error. The reality based reason is, as Aristotle pointed out in his works on Logic, that a thing cannot both have and not have the same attribute in the same way at the same time. ALL of science and objective knowledge is founded upon this one invariant rule of logic.
If one abandons this principal of non-contradiction, then anything goes. It is not possible to discover error. It is also not possible to know that you are correct. The rule of force takes over in which the largest, best armed, most ruthless gang gets to attempt to dictate the terms of truth. There is one serious flaw along the path to determine truth by force. Reality does not cooperate. What is, is. No matter how many believe otherwise nor how much force is used to coerce belief to conform to the whims of the holders of power. A truth dictated by force is true by accident. Since there are far more ways to be wrong than right, the likelihood is that a forced truth is false. Even if it is accidentally, the truth does little good because it coexists with a cloud of forced truths that are false without any means to know they are false.
This is what I mean when I say that when your are at war with reality, you will lose.
10
“[I]f dangerous global warming can be caused by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, then why oh why have there been previous periods where temperatures increased while CO2 decreased, and previous periods where temperatures decreased while CO2 increased. I asked a lot of people this question, and nobody could explain to me why the current period is supposed to be different from other historical periods. Nor could they explain the corollary, i.e. if previous climate change was previously caused by factors other than CO2 in the air (because CO2 concentrations were not changing), why can’t those same factors be the main causes of the current change.”
10
Speedy #56, are you the same Brian that posted about worms over on Pete’s Place?
10
Michelle,
Ignore Mattb. It was a good post, from the heart and well reasoned. Lots of people liked it (including me) (Mattb should ever post something as good.)
10
Marrion, G’morning
You have repeated a couple of times that we should “step out” and leave it to the scientists. That was done. It had been left to the scientists from the beginning (circa 1988). But I believe A-) We were INVITED to join the debate. B-) We were COMPELLED to join the debate.
INVITATION:- “It’s science Jim but not as we know it”. The AGW science is not your quint essential cardigan wearing, Volvo driving science where Eureka is announced out of a lab. The IPCC was set up BY politicians and beurocrats. The conclusions and summaries for policy makers are written BY politicians and beurocrats. Once anything is politicised, people are automatically invited to partake. When the so called mitigation strategies are announced, we are automatically invited.
Once invited, and those of us who do some research and find out there actually are many “other” scientists who don’t agree with the “consensus”, we are COMPELLED to participate.
COMPELLED:- When an involved “scientist” wins awards, appears on MSM like a celebrity, preaches to us about the mitigation all the while omitting to tell us he himself stands to make millions from this mitigation and has already done so, we are COMPELLED. When politicians apend years argueing over 5% 10% 20% 50% reductions, each of which has profound implications on us, we are COMPELLED.
Now some might say fine, get involved in the politics, but not the science, that would be fine under normal “scientific” discovery, but as I said “It’s science Jim but not as we know it”. The clear line between science and politics has been blurred, not by us, but by the very scientists themselves. Heres how.
The very last paragraph of the AGR4 SPM says…
“The SRES scenarios do not include additional climate initiatives, which means that no scenarios are included that explicitly assume implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or the emissions targets of the Kyoto Protocol”.
I used an analogy to explain the above before. I go to a financial consultant who after lecturing me for an hour, says I will go bankrupt unless I cut my costs back to 2000 levels. I say fine, where will I be financially if I do that. He says “stuffed if I know, I didn’t work that out”.
Now if that doesn’t compell me to get involved, I don’t know what will.
regards
10
BobC I was having a joke. that’s all. relax.
10
By “peer-reviewed scientific board” I presume you are talking about the bus shelter out the front of the local university (I know of no other peer-reviewed scientific board). Yes I have sat in that bus shelter, and a good smooth sturdy board it is.
Admittedly, no. Actually, not many people do, for example Phil Jones (the guy with the world famous emails) has a Ph.D from the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Technically speaking, the expert that you want us to believe and the engineer you happily disrespect are one and the same person. Funny old world, huh?
We are all living and working in a climate lab, and some of us are trying very hard to teach climatology right now.
It’s probably been mentioned elsewhere, but checking whether the results are reproducible can be done without being smart enough to do the research in the first place. For starters, check whether all the raw data is even available… that’s more of a bookkeeping job than a work of specialised genius.
The other thing to check is whether past predictions have been realised. For example, not long ago we were told that the North Pole would be so clear of ice that commercial shipping lanes would be opening up in the Arctic Circle. There is an obvious incentive for ship operators to use those lanes if and when they are available, but they are not (so far) doing this because of all the icebergs making these routes highly dangerous and unprofitable. Maybe it will happen next year, when I see it happen, then I’ll consider that the prediction was correct. Up until that time I must consider the prediction incorrect.
Any layperson can check these things, just make a note in a book when the prediction is made and have a look now and then to see whether it happened.
And we wouldn’t trust a university that has been caught “hiding the decline”, or getting journal editors “ousted” or organising boycotts against journals on the basis of no liking the opinions published in those journals.
How do you know it was deniers who hacked the emails? Could just have easily been a believer who couldn’t stomach the duplicity.
Hansen and GISS are not too bad about posting their stuff on the web, but they don’t post the fully raw satellite data, they post their digested data (after whatever adjustments they decide in their expert way). The raw data comes from many satellites and the readings are stitched together and recalibrated. Remember that this is an attempt to detect 0.1 degree changes in average amongst a background variation of around 50 degrees so one part in a thousand error is significant. Try measuring your own body weight to an accuracy of one part in a thousand as a comparison.
The IPCC don’t publish any research papers, they only publish summaries and references to research papers. That provides a start but hardly anything that can be reproduced or double-checked. Various people have checked that the IPCC “Summary for Policy Makers” does at least match up with other IPCC documents and it failed that simple test. I’m sure that if you ask nicely, a bunch of people will pull out specific examples.
The CRU repeatedly fended away Freedom of Information requests and figuring out how to prevent any access to the raw data. They would not even provide a list of the sites that they used!
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/25/willis-eschenbachs-foi-request/
After reading that, hopefully we both agree that heads should indeed roll.
10
Marion #68 – No mate, I’m not Brian, no worms that I know of.
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Actually no, I was talking about scientists evaluating scientific work for publication. So, in other word, Tel, no you have not seen the peer review process first hand. May I assume that you have a very particular opinion on the subject when it relates to AGW? Particularly if it has been accomplished by a so called “alarmist”? Or am I wrong about this?
Now Tel, you are being disingenuous. He might have done his grad work at U Newcastle but Phil Jones is a climatologist who has made a career studying the climate. And I do not “happily disrespect” anyone (well, almost anyone…), certainly not engineers. But I would approach them about questions of engineering – and then engineering in their specialties. Such as climate instrumentation (“Instrumental climate change; palaeoclimatology; climate extremes; climate records; climate variations (recent and natural); global warming” to be exact), which is Jones’ specialty. Funny old world.
Well sure, but (trying not to be too rude, here) do you know what you are talking about?
It’s probably been mentioned elsewhere, but checking whether the results are reproducible can be done without being smart enough to do the research in the first place.
Umm…how do I say this?…I might be willing to believe that reproducible results can be done by smart and not so smart people, but I am going to have to go with the person doing the original research.
Okay, I will. It may take some time but I will. But how can anyone have “raw” data if they don’t do original research? Seems to me that this is a worn rational; Andy Schaffly of Conservapedia claim tries this tract too.
So, I just did a Google search and came up with this little nugget from the Christian Science monitor published Oct. 15, 2009:
Funny old world.
10
Marrion,
You claim to rely on The Experts in climate science.
Do you also claim to understand climate science?
If not, how can you be sure the experts you rely on are giving you valid information?
Further, how can you be sure their peer review process really does what you claim it does?
Is it that you simply accept their word on faith?
10
Dear Lionell, I think I posted this earlier but I find that denier boards tend to be deliberately obtuse on this point, so I will make it as clear as I can:
I do not believe or disbelieve in AGW. It would seem to me that science often goes through fads and / or science is constantly revising itself. Thus I believe the AGW debate is still in the lab.
But I do know that I do not know. So, all things being equal, I find I must trust the most qualified people just as I would trust my M.D. with issues of health or my construction engineer with issues of building. If, for instance, John Daily came up to me and said I had hypertension, I would not believe him – I would go to a M.D. If I want to know about AGW, I would not trust John Daily – as eccentric as he is, I would have to believe in Hansen. Now, if Pielke tells me the IPCC is overly simple in its approach and putting advocacy over diplomacy, I am willing to listen.
No, I do not understand climate science – I posted this earlier. But I am fairly convinced that neither do the people posting on this thread; however, the people on this thread seem fairly convinced that they do.
Yes, I believe in the peer-review process. It is not perfect, but little that is human is. Furthermore, I believe in science and the scientific method. Which peer-review is an important part of.
By “their” I believe you mean scientists who posit AGW. I think I answered this above, but I guess I could clarify that I, unlike the people here, am not so paranoid about the government, the UN, the IPCC, NOA, EPA, NASA or any other scientific body. In fact, I’m rather impressed with them. I would need a heck of a lot more than the East Anglia emails for me to dismiss the entire scientific community behind AGW science.
Do I know that the science behind AGW is correct? No. Said it before. But I’m willing to listen. All I am suggesting is that you do too. And without all the a priori sarcasm and paranoia.
10
Marrion,
I see. You have no basis for knowing your chosen experts and the associated peer reviewers are giving you valid information and that we aren’t. You simply take it on faith.
I don’t take anything on faith. If a topic is important and I don’t understand it, I study it until I do. Then I judge the “experts” based upon their work product and process. The AGW “experts” are NOT doing science and have never done science. They simply dress their fraudulent work in scientific sounding words. I suspected as much from the global cooling alarm in the 70’s. It was confirmed when it was immediately followed by a global warming alarm for which assertions were made that violated the basic laws of physics and logic. ClimateGate simply brought that confirmation up to date and identified the central actors in the fraud.
Since you admit you don’t really know anything about the topic, you are simply blowing smoke. We have no reason to listen to you. I suggest you listen more carefully to what we are saying. You might actually learn something.
10
You will forgive me, Lionel, if I am not so impressed or convinced.
And, as I posted, denier boards are often deliberately obtuse – my “basis(es)” for my “chosen experts” are their academic degrees, associations with scientific organizations and universities, their peer-reviewed articles, their access to data and equipment, their combined decades of scholarship, and their license from governments and world organizations.
Forgive me if I take their word over that of a rather self-congratulatory blogger.
And I do learn a great deal from these boards – usually it is not what you would like me to learn, but I do learn.
10
My understanding of the process is that the editor sends the manuscript out to maybe four or five “peers” who individually read it and return it with their comments. In theory these people are chosen at random, and anything that identifies the author is stripped out of the manuscripts. There is no “board”, they don’t have a meeting, all correspondence goes back through the editor.
I put it that you Marion don’t understand this process.
On the subject of the publication industry as it stands, I have the opinion that moving to web-based publication is better but the AGW fiasco is only one reason for this, amongst many.
I will ask you once again, who signed his certificate of climatology?
What was the magic dust that transformed him from an engineer into a climatologist?
Take your time by all means, I for one am certainly not pushing anyone to make a hasty decision on this. You can talk to the people in Copenhagen asking them for a bit more time to make your decision.
Well if the person doing the original measurement makes it available to other people then everyone has the data. For example:
http://www.localweather.com.au/
These are private weather stations that offer data for anyone who visits the site, admittedly their graphical flash based icons are a bit of a nuisance (designed more for entertainment than research) and at this stage such networks are small and piecemeal. But the point I’m getting at is their data comes direct from the measurement, it is as close to raw as you can get. Anyone can collect this data (e.g. visit the site once a day and check max/min temp or some such thing).
Once this raw data gets assembled into some broader picture, it is no longer raw data any more. The assembly process is complex and potentially prone to errors (also prone to somewhat arbitrary selection decisions). When it gets digested down to a simple “warming per decade” figure we are even further from the raw data by that stage.
Oh yes, to date I believe they have run one voyage consisting of two ships.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8251914.stm
Note the highlighted bit — nuclear powered icebreakers were needed to cut a path, changes things a bit huh? Planning to use the route on a regular basis, planning, but not using. Since Arctic ice has been increasing in recent years, they might be waiting a while (probably once the sunspot cycle cranks up they will have another go at it).
10
And you would put it wrong, my man. I do in fact know the PR process and participate in it (although not in climate science, thank god). I just wasn’t sure you did. But thanks for being pedantic!
Not sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that we forgo the PR process and go straight to web-based publishing of any and all scientific papers? Okay. I’m not sure what this would accomplish except that we wouldn’t have the filter of expert readers.
And good luck gathering your data. I will still rely on the scientists over the blogosphere, but go for it.
And I’m not sure that the nuclear ice-breakers do change things – it would seem the ice is retreating and opening a passageway that did not exist before. Ice-breakers or not.
But enough for now. 2 bed Ta-ta, deniers.
10
When climate scientolgists like Morrison concede that marxists/socialists are using the AGW ‘scare’ to increase their power and control they might have more credibility. They never do of course. They are just deranged members of a cult as it ( Morrison) demonstrates with each comment.
10
I only included this small snippet of your post not to obscure just to save space. Basically you believe that in order to comment on AGW one must have an advanced degree in climate science.
First, climate science as it is known to us presently is a fairly young ‘science’. I believe the earliest manifestation was in the 1970’s.
Second, whatever the criteria is to become one of these ‘climate scientists’ I think you would have to agree that at best it is an amalgam of other hard scientific fields, among these would be physics, mathematics, geology, and chemistry.
Third, you seem, to have some kind of God complex when it comes to PhDs. My degree is only undergraduate level no masters no doctorate. I did not pursue and advanced degree as I was not so inclined and I needed to started making a living with a real job. I have worked with many fine PhDs and I have also worked with some complete twits that had those letters after their name.
The point I am making here is that you don’t need a PhD to know how to interpret data or spot when you are being put on. Many of the critics of AGW have advanced degrees in hard sciences like physics, math, chemistry and geology if that is still one of your requirements. Using your own logic you should then defer to them when an issue concerning their particular area of study comes into question.
Lastly, any of us trained in the hard sciences have had the scientific method pounded into us from day one. It is as much a part of us as our spleen is a part of us. A PhD is no more imbued with the scientific method than any undergraduate. I of course can only make this statement as being accurate before 1975. It would seem that some change has occurred as I never witnessed the kind of vitriol in scientific discussions as I have in the AGW area. In as much it was the protagonists of AGW which began stating the ‘science is settled’ and pasting critics with monikers such as ‘deniers’, with all those negative connotations, I had no choice but to suspect their argument, why, because science just isn’t done that way.
So no, I don’t give a (fill in the blank) what letters are after someone’s name or if their title is ‘climate scientist’. All I care about is does the argument hold water, are the results repeatable, do they release their method and the RAW data, and do they treat other scientist with respect in a common search for the truth of the matter or do they act as if they have an agenda.
10
BLAST YOU DAVE! HOW DID YOU KNOW?! Here we have been secretly working with the Illuminati to enslave the world through devious mind-control techniques such as global warming propaganda and you go and blow our cover! Oh the Mighty Al will be displeased and heads will roll, I tell you, not to mention that the wrath of Tom Cruise and John Travolta will be unparalleled. BUT YOU WILL NOT HAVE THE LAST LAUGH, O DAVE! THE ILLUMINATI CLIMATE GODS SHALL RULE THE WORLD!!!
Now I must be off to destroy a piece of corporate art…
10
Well, no god complex, but I do believe the degree confers a measure of expertise and generally it is the first step toward getting access to lab space, equipment and funding. If a chipmunk does quality research, then great. But I would probably want the opinion from an expert (Ph.D, or no) before I believed the chipmunk.
Sorry. No disrespect intended to your own education but, as I’ve said before, I personally will go with Dr. Chipmunk any day. You may decide if X or Y “holds water” but I’m not sure the world will care.
By the way, no one said “The science is settled.” That comes from the denier camp as a motif for denigrating the scientists. Look it up.
10
What is this – tag team wrestling?
Rouble departs in a flourish and suddenly there’s a new avatar to take up the cudgel – Marion Morrison (aka the birth name of John Wayne)
10
A little basic research would show that the Russians have been navigating the arctic waters with small to medium size ships for decades. Why? Some of the remote areas can’t be supplied any other way.
As to whether super-large container ships will ever navigate these waters, that remains to be seen.
Having to shell out for a nuclear powered ice breaker escort would definitely take the shine off the profit and loss statement.
10
You live in a world divided into PhDs and chipmunks but you don’t have a God complex when it comes to PHDs. Ok if you say so.
No offence taken, it’s not like your opinion of my education is in any way important to me or this discussion. I’m certain the world will not care what I think, nor does that fact bother me in the slightest. It does seem important to you however, is that why you turn over responsibility for what you believe to the (drum roll) PHD’s?
I did just that, I found the Wiki entry asserting that no one has put those three words together regarding Global Warming. Is that your bases for saying it is a bogus quote? I will cease putting it in quotes until I find a reference for it. I notice you left out my mention of AGW adherents throwing the ‘denier’ moniker about. But it would have looked a bit silly given your response. That’s Ok.
10
Further to my previous post #86:
The next time someone throws up the drivel about maritime arctic passages, refer them to:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/09/turd-eaters.html
Apologies if some find it offensive but it is apt.
10
Marrion @ 84: …I do believe the degree [PhD] confers a measure of expertise and generally it is the first step toward getting access to lab space, equipment and funding.
Apparently the measure is %599.00 and 15 days.
Once again you really do have to be able to make a judgment about the so called expertise conferred by your *sacred* PhD. Sound judgment takes knowledge and understanding. Faith in a label doesn’t quite suffice.
Question: Since, by your own admission you don’t know what you are talking about, how can you know the experts you select are giving you valid information? How do you know you aren’t being conned?
Answer: You can’t!
If you are the only one taking the risk of making a mistake, no problem for me. However, the AWG-Climate-Change alarmist are demanding that the entire population of the earth submit to their dictates by making substantial reductions in the use of cheap, available, and abundant [fossil] energy and accepting moment by moment control and oversight of their lives. They also wish to extract a major portion of the productive capital from the developed world to “give” to the rotting sinkholes of the third world. For that, I DEMAND much more evidence than a mere certificate of a PhD.
10
Obtuse?
Not here Marrion.
Hows this:
The experts who have credibility don’t break laws of logic and reason. They don’t hide their data or their methods or falsify results.
But ultimately, it’s not about “experts”. It’s about evidence, and you can’t name a single paper…
10
I recall that Albert Einstein was a patent clerk,when he published a small paper in 1905.
10
Now Jo, don’t be fatuous. How about:
This took less that 20 seconds to find; if you only stay here, in the safety of your blog, it is pretty easy to assert that “there are no papers.” If you look elsewhere you will find that such things abound.
Lionell, don’t you be fatuous either. None of the reputable scientists have online degrees for a couple hundred dollars (and I suspect you know this). And I’ve already answered twice why I would follow the godly PhDs over, say, I blogger who used to work for a science circus many years ago.
And I’m sorry Ray (I was trying to keep things more or less civil) but this blog and the ones like deserve any number of monikers: “deniers,” “flat-earthers,” “anti-warmists,” take your pick.
And yes, sigh, Einstein was working as a patient clerk in a time much different from now when he couldn’t get a job teaching…and you know he would eventually go on to get on a godly PhD?
10
And it was just funny, Mark #88, that Tell mentioned ice lanes in the arctic. I had no idea about the subject but out of curiosity I Googled it. And Lo! it appeared that one of the prophecies was coming true!! He asked the question, after all, and suggested it was a way for we laypeople to keep up on what the big, bad, godly PhDs were saying – and it turns out he may be right. And it turns out the godly PhDs may be right. Which would be a very, very bad thing.
What I might respectfully suggest is that y’all read Bjorn Lomborg; he’s not a climate scientist but he admits this upfront. However, he believes that CO2 is ruining the planet but he makes a persuasive case that whatever the results of the green-house gas, our energy and money are better spent elsewhere – the effects of AGW, he argues, will not be that bad and might actually benefit us.
10
As Gary points out, Rumble departs in a fit of pique because we don’t find her credible and up pops Marion Morrison. Between them they’ve used up as much space in some of these threads as the worthwhile posts.
So Marion, what can I make of all this? I have a pretty good B# meter and right now it’s pegged against the end of the red zone. It’s in overload.
I have not seen a single thing you’ve posted that was worth my time to read. You appear to want to be seen as neither pro AGW nor skeptic. Yet you always put down the skeptics and boost the AGW pushers. Why?
Your nonsense about degrees, published papers, peer review and all the rest means absolutely nothing. In science, what you can prove is what counts and Hansen et al have no proof, not even convincing evidence, their great volume of published work notwithstanding. All the skeptics have ever asked for is credible evidence that CO2 is doing or even can do what they claim, evidence that can stand up under examination. None is ever forthcoming. And now we have climategate.
I can’t read your mind but you look very much like a provocateur — someone here just to stir up controversy for his own ends, whatever they may be.
I have never seen any skeptic say that the science is settled. That comes only from the pro AGW group.
When someone here can add to my knowledge or wisdom I take advantage of it. Not so for you.
I can only do one thing at this point and say I find you completely un worthwhile.
10
Marion @ 92: None of the reputable scientists have online degrees for a couple hundred dollars.
So what? That you rely on their “reputation” means only that you are relying on the reported opinions of a large cadre of unidentified others. A cadre who’s reliability you cannot verify for two reasons. The first because they are massively unknown. The second because you haven’t the foggiest notion about climate science BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION. Not only do you have faith in the validity of someone holding a certificate of a PhD, you have a second hand faith in those who give them their reputation. How many more layers deep does your faith go?
It is not I who is being fatuous here.
I also find it interesting that you completely ignore the demands of the AGW/Climate-Change Alarmists crowd that I outlined.
Apparently the depth of your faith reduces this to a mere piffle that can safely be ignored.
I have misjudged you. Your knowledge and understanding of climate science is even less than I thought. That lack is so deep that it makes you blind to the most obvious aspects of the entire scam.
Alternatively, you are in on the scam and are simply blowing a smokescreen to cover your tracks.
10
I do know this Rumble that you speak of, but he sounds like an exceedingly excellent fellow. And Roy and Lionel have finally stooped to the ad hominem assault. This is actually typical of these sorts of threads – if at first you don’t succeed at making sense, try calling names. Fine, be fatuous (it was the word I meant to use).
And yes I am a provocateur – but think of it more as a friendly outreach. You see, you have nothing. You have a number of melodramatic, hyperbolic, and mostly hypothetical situations and some unfounded generalized allegations which make sense only if you seriously filter what you read. And that’s about it. The scientists in question have answered Climategate, by the way, but I know you will never read what they say because you,in the words of Carl Sagan, have a powerful need to believe. Keep building the cabal folks – keep reinforcing your own delusions of grandeur. Keep beating your hairy chests as you battle it out at the keyboard.
By the way, you know you’re losing, right? The world leaders are in Copanhagen right now and Jo got ejected from the U.N.
(Or perhaps I am in on the scam and making millions off you poor little proles!!! Bawhahahahaha!)
10
Sorry, first line should be “I do not know this Rumble that you speak of…”
(Or perhaps I do and we are both working with the Illuminati! Bawahahahaha!)
10
Yes Marion, they do fear dissenting opinions. They want no one exposed to the slightest possibility of being persuaded away from their view. This is the coward’s way of doing things. Is it not?
10
You can’t get unethical without the “UN”
10
That showed’em!!
10
Thanks for reminding me of another reason why our science publication industry is useless. So many of these articles require special subscription to be able to read them. The authors have been convinced that they should sign complete ownership of the IP work over to the journals (for no remuneration) otherwise they can’t get published. I’m not interested in forking out money to support this. If you like Drew Shindell’s work then please select one of his more readily available articles.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/dshindell/
10
Friends:
AGW-alarmist blogs are echo chambers where people of like mind applaud each other and denigrate those who do not share their views.
This web site attempts to encourage constructive debate between people with a variety of views on AGW.
Some AGW-alarmists are convinced that the case for AGW is based on sound science and they enter into constructive dialogue on this web site with the objective of convincing others of their case. They are useful to debate because they make points that warrant consideration (if only to dispute them). Hence, on this web site they engender useful debate for both AGW-alarmists and for climate realists because the debate provides greater understanding of climate science and/or of each other by both groups. Contributions from such AGW-alarmists are welcomed here.
Other AGW-alarmists think any doubt of AGW is harmful and must be inhibited so they enter debates on this web site with the pure intention of being disruptive. They have no intention of constructive dialogue so they use many words that amount to appeal to authority, but they say nothing. Any response to them takes time and effort that otherwise could be spent on constructive discussion. Such response is all that they intend.
Perusal of Marion’s contributions (above) indicate that she is of the latter type. She has said nothing except to call for acceptance of prognostications from authorities, and when pressed to provide peer reviewed evidence for AGW she responds by citing writings that accept AGW as a ‘given’. So, I suggest that her contributions should be ignored.
Richard
10
Marion,
Now that I have a few minutes again let’s take up the ad hominem attack thing.
From your first appearance here you have subjected everyone to putdown after putdown, all the while claiming the high moral ground for yourself.
So after post after post I tell you my opinion of your position, the value of your posts to the discussion here and you then cry foul, ad hominem attack! But I would put it a little differently. If the shoe fits wear it. And you picked it up and put it on so it must fit.
Were you confident in your position you could have ignored me. That’s what I would have done.
10
]
Scanning the conversation I could not help but ask: Do you not see that you are large part of this “vitriol” – perhaps the reason behind it? Do you really not see that you are as rude, irrational and aggressive as anyone you accuse? Do you not see the beam in your own eye? Honestly?
10
And this blog is different how?
10
Ditto for you, my friend.
But you didn’t ignore me. What position are you in?
10
All right, my Assuie friends, we have now devolved and it’s getting boring. So I will leave you with an honest question:
Is it reeeealy that hard to believe that the atmosphere is being altered by human activity? I live in the American upper midwest – I can drive for 24 hours in any direction and find almost exactly the same thing: farmland where once was prarie and woodland. If you have ever flown over North America or the European continent (and I assume Australia is the same) one can find virtually no place untouched, and in fact radically altered, by human activity. I’m not saying this is a bad thing, just that it is. We have altered the physical geography and natural habitat of the planet often to our own detriment and very often to the detriment of the natural world – we have polluted any number of rivers so they no longer can support life and we have denuded the oceans of any number of species, etc. (I could go on but I think we all know these things). Why is it so hard to believe the atmosphere is that much different?
If I were to come down positively on a side of the debate (which I won’t because [gasp] I lack the godly Ph.D. or other expertise in the subject) I would have to come down on the side of the AGW alarmists if for no other reason than there is undeniable evidence of humanity’s power to alter the world.
It simply does not seem that much like science fiction.
I’m just curious what people will say so will probably not post again but I will check back.
G’day, Mate! Marion
10
Something I have noticed on a number of sites the last few weeks- one pro-agw-religion cool-aid drinker vanishes, and immediately another one shows up to take their place. Very often sounding almost exactly like the person who just left.
These two are, at least, polite. But very annoying.
10
I suggest that her contributions should be ignored
immediately another one shows up to take their place. Very often sounding almost exactly like the person who just left.
10
D’oh. Should be “shuns” above. Freudian slip on a anti-AGW thread?
The Dude still abides.
10
Yes, and if you arrogantly assume you know a lot, (after one minute of research) you can sound like a pompous fool. It only takes a minute for those of us who have ranged far outside this blog to know why the paper you posed is meaningless.
“We calculated atmospheric composition changes, ”
This is from a model. They didn’t measure atmospheric composition changes, they “calculated them”. As I keep asking, science needs EMPIRICAL evidence, by observation. Any half-wit mathematician can feed in a bunch of assumptions and guesses and calculate anything they want and make it look convincing enough to fool a gullible brain.
Other clues are “multicomponent”, “coupled composition-climate model”.
Apology accepted for your gross underestimation of our abilities to think and be ten steps ahead of you.
Looks like you’ll need to do more research. I’ve asked Professors of Climate Modelling. They couldn’t name ONE empirical paper. If you find one, you better email Andy Pitman.
10
Uh huh. That’s why you’ve got a blog instead of a laboratory, right Jo? Guess that’s kind of mean (also the truth) but, if we are honest, it would seem that they have been taking empirical measurements (yes, the dreaded “hockey stick,” satellite measurements, CO2 measurements, the melting of the ice caps in the thread above – is this the empirical evidence you’re looking for? Or are you simply going to dismiss that out of hand too?). Your cliched response seems kind of like a cop-out, an unwillingness or inability to deal with the science presented to you. Perhaps they shouldn’t have calculated the trajectory of the Apollo missions, or the effects of atomic fission, or perhaps they should stop doing weather reports? Science has an amazing track record of figuring things out on paper first…and this is part of what alarms me so much about AGW. I, unlike you, respect the real scientists. I’d suggest reading the paper first, if you can. But I suspect your training is not enough and you’ve found a rational not to try: “I won’t read that, it’s calculated!” No, I think I estimated your abilities correctly.
Mind you, many of the people here are highly intelligent and post intelligently (no so far all, of course) but I suspect there is a strong political component – why climate exactly sparks such a zealous response among a few I will never know…
(Now, I really must stop getting sucked into this…)
10
Marrion, (or whomever you are) you posted a paper we have to pay to see, it’s obvious from the abstract that it’s reporting results from models, so I don’t need to read the paper.
If there are studies that this paper refers too, you go read it (I bet you haven’t) and find the empirical studies that they base their models on.
Then give us the names of those papers. You assume they are there. You haven’t looked. Your religious faith does not belong here in a scientific discussion.
No you don’t. You spit at the real scientists. They’re the ones who collect observations, and write them up and then offer everything, measurements, methods and conclusions to the world.
You haven’t even read their work.
You think corrupt guys from committees, associations, and fake scientists that lie are real “scientists”.
10
Yup. Told’ya.
And I really only hear the plaint that AGW scientists hide data from the scientific wannabes in the blogosphere. It would seem the AGW scientists do offer their data up to the world (sometimes you have to pay for it, however) and if they don’t it may have something to do with the people asking the questions…
Just curious – do you dismiss all science that deals with vast natural forces and that rely on scientific prediction? Do you dismiss the volcanologists because they can’t predict exactly how or when a volcano will explode or the geologists because they can’t empirically reproduce an earthquake? Do oceanographers not count when they predict the effects of El Nino? Or perhaps you doubt that the Wolfe Creek Crater is a meteorite strike because the U.N. can’t call down a rock from space? Why do you post only the science from AGW-skeptical scientists (and I suspect most of these come from blogs like this one)?
By the way, I once spit on a passing car when I was a little kid, but I haven’t spit on anyone – scientist or otherwise – since. That’s nasty.
10
Marrion, your reasoning is so nonsensical, it’s a net drain on human intelligence.
You havent read that paper, you don’t have a reference to empirical evidence. You think though, that I should read your “one minutes” worth of googling even when it’s an obvious failure to provide what I asked for.
You won’t admit you don’t have references to empirical evidence.
Dishonest, or delusional?
Then you waste our time with spurious mud-thinking. We aren’t talking about vulcanologists because Vulcanologists aren’t demanding we pay them billions so they can prevent earthquakes.
Please lift your standards and stick to the topic and only use analogies that are not patently obvious as fakes.
Are you paid to waste our time?
10
I’d say so.
10
The concept is dead simple… if people are happy to leave me alone, then I’m happy to leave them alone. However, in this particular case we have a bunch of people sitting in Copenhagen consuming my tax dollars in an effort to figure out how to grab yet more tax out of my wallet. Needless to say, they had the chance to leave me alone and they ungraciously declined. These guys want to tell me how to live my life, how much water to use, when I can run an air conditioner, how warm I’m allowed to be in winter, and so on. Not only do they want to tell me how to live, but they are unwilling to live that way themselves. One rule for me, different rule for they Copenhagen delegates.
Is my upset sparked by climate science? No, not in the least.
Is it sparked by sneaky hypocritical liars trying to make my life miserable as they live it up at my expense? You betcha!
Hopefully that’s a clear statement of the situation. If there’s any little points need clarification, just ask.
10
Since my #85 post I see that Marion’s noise to signal ratio has increased. Pretty clear that her/his game is just to voluminously bloat thread content until it approximates her/his own noise to signal ratio.
10
See Tel I don’t want to tell you any of those things. From what I can tell Abbott wants to do that as of today, but all I’d like to do is put a price signal and set a cap, then you are free to do whatever the hell you choose. next time if an ETS comes in all the delegates will have to cover those costs too! perfect world outcome for you.
10
Mattb @ 119: …all I’d like to do is put a price signal and set a cap…
Same difference. Just not as direct. Rather like a banker charging you interest on the money he just printed. What Tel is saying, he like I, have no problem if ALL interactions among people are totally completely mutually and freely voluntary. THAT means with out the coercive force of government being applied as well as yours or anybody’s meddling.
In case that is too complicated for your dessicated brain: what you do is your business and what we do is ours. You have no right to any of ours and we don’t have any right to yours.
If YOU don’t want to emit CO2, do it. If YOU want to pay more for energy and use less of it, do it. You can be as green as a granny smith apple for all I care. Otherwise, stay out of our lives and keep your hands of our property even and especially by proxy of government thugs. Understand?
10
“next time if an ETS comes in all the delegates will have to cover those costs too! perfect world outcome for you”
Errr, nope. Delegates will have those costs covered by our tax dollars as well, so I guess for us it will be a tax on a tax, while the delegates still live it up at our expense …
10
lol the party machine chimes in to complain about junkets! the cheek. AK I mean in their day to day lives.
10
Marion writes:
“And yes, sigh, Einstein was working as a patient clerk in a time much different from now when he couldn’t get a job teaching…and you know he would eventually go on to get on a godly PhD?”
Yes and his paper made it because it had a good mix of mathematics and empirical data,plus it was fully published to allow others to validate it or shoot it down.
You fail to understand that his paper was judged on its merit,not whether it went through some sort of peer review and that he was just a clerk at the time.
It you guys who prate peer review and that they must be accredited scientist as well.
10
Oh sorry, I didn’t realize that money changed science. I guess money spent on reconstructing L.A. or Indonesia was wasted then too?
10
Do you resent cancer research also? Or money spent on developing new fuel sources? Why are you only mad at climate scientists?
Now this is the most intelligent and worthwhile thing said on this thread yet. Yes, this is the irony of people concerned about global warming
10
10
Cop-out. Can’t do it, can’ya?
10
And no one answered my question about why we only disbelieve climate scientists over “non-empirical” evidence? I’ve never seen a sun-spot. How do I know that it actually causes increased solar radiation? I think think those darn astrophysicists are wasting my money!
10
Marrion – you want us to spend billions and you can’t name one single paper with empirical evidence in support. It’s not just a cop-out, it’s fraud.
Non-empirical evidence is not evidence in science. Get it?
10
Marion,
It’s not climate scientists that I don’t believe. It’s a closed little group who want their hand in my purse; who want to ruin my life; who will not show me the models and data used to arrive at their conclusions, who will not debate openly with their opponents; who now are shown to be dishonest that I do not believe.
By the way — for someone who’s announced intention was to go away you sure do have a persistent echo.
10
Peer Review only works (is valid) when you load up on contrarian views, not supporters. Otherwise it’s like having your Grandma “review” your Elementary School theme paper.
Unless, of course, you’re into self-delusion and believing your own hype.
10
Keep clinging to that notion that “there’s no empirical evidence paper” rational, Jo, even as scientists keep publishing empirical evidence. Better yet, carefully select what “empirical evidence,” sources and people you cite and then accuse the scientific world of quashing contrarian viewpoints and censoring data. And then refuse to even read any of the multitudes of papers out there (the one above is completely selected at random, by the way, I had no idea it would spark such a pleasant little debate). I’d ask you to prove with empirical evidence your accusations above about a wide array of scientists (and if Climategate is the best evidence you’ve got, have you got anything?)
And this is the other intelligent posting on this thread. I like that. Perhaps I should change my nom de plume to “Persistent Echo.” Suppose I just missed y’all so damn much…
(You never answered either of my questions, by the way…and I suspect you are deliberately avoiding them so you can stick to your ‘they’re-trying-to-control-my-wallet’ dogma)
10
Marion:
What questions?
Richard
10
Persistent Echo,aka Marrion (anonymous chicken eh?)
Yada yada.
Go on, if there’s so many, post one. ONE with empirical evidence that shows carbon causes major global climate change. ONE.
Firing blanks?
10
Marion,
If I give you my answer to your question and you don’t accept it, the problem is yours, not mine.
I have never mocked you, yet you pick up any chance you can find to use a name that mocks someone who disagrees with you. Is this adult behavior? You tell me for a change.
You are like the Energizer Bunny. You keep on going — and going — and going… You beat your own drum just like the Bunny. But you contribute nothing I can see as worthwhile. Can we expect to see you next calling yourself Energizer Bunny?
Jo will argue the science — or lack of it — with you. But I’m a little bit more down to earth kind of guy. Your credibility is shot to pieces and no one takes you seriously that I know of. Switching aliases shoots you down even more.
10
As you can see, this paper uses both climate models and empirical evidence.
“Surface moisture, if available (as it always is over the oceans), effectively acts as the “air conditioner” of the surface, as heat used for evaporation moistens the air rather than warming it. Therefore, another consequence of global heating of the lower troposphere is accelerated land-surface drying and more atmospheric water vapor (the dominant greenhouse gas). Accelerated drying increases the incidence and severity of droughts, whereas additional atmospheric water vapor increases the risk of heavy precipitation events (14). Basic theory (15), climate model simulations (2), and empirical evidence (Fig. 2) all confirm that warmer climates, owing to increased water vapor, lead to more intense precipitation events even when the total precipitation remains constant, and with prospects for even stronger events when precipitation amounts increase (16–18).”
I was going to post the entire paper but I thought you could go and read it here if you like – the figures they use are likewise here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/302/5651/1719?sendit.y=6&sendit.x=58&gca=302%2F5651%2F1719&
10
Richard @ #133
And
10
Okay.
10
Energizer Bunny, aka Marion, aka who knows?,
Do you ever get tired not being anything in particular and having no purpose other than splattering the blog with the equivalent of verbal white noise (lots of words with no visible content)?
I will admit that you present what appears to be a uniquely new brand of intellectual pathology. I have been studying intellectual pathologies most of my life and I can’t quite make out where you fit. Keep up the good work and I just might be able to make a diagnosis.
I would suggest that you get a life but I am not sure there is an actual you inside that could do it.
10
Do you ever get tired not being anything in particular and having no purpose other than splattering the blog with the equivalent of verbal white noise (lots of words with no visible content)?
10
Energizer:
If you are going to sling technical terms about at least use them correctly. See: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ fir proper identification of rhetorical fallacies.
I do not reject what you say because you exhibit intellectual pathology, I identify that you exhibit intellectual pathology because of what you say.
Keep it up. I will soon have a verified diagnosis.
10
Um…I wrote “rhetorical strategy,” not “rhetorical fallacy.”
And (sorry, ad hominem assault warning) Lionel, I would give your psychoanalysis about as much credence as I would give your scientific analysis of AGW.
10
Energizer,
What makes you think I give a damn what you think about me OR your psychology?
My ONLY interest in watching your posts is to identify the particular specie of INTELLECTUAL pathology you exhibit. The interesting thing is that you continue to give me evidence to work with. You will do that no matter what you say or how you say it. The only way you can keep me from discovering your particular pathology is to shut up and go away.
10
Marion:
Whomever or whatever you may be, your two “questions boil down to”
And
I apologise that I failed to recognise you thought those were serious questions. I now answer each of them so you can utilise your pointless verbiage on something other than assertions that nobody will answer your questions.
Firstly, nobody dismisses “all science that deals with vast natural forces and that rely on scientific prediction”, but all sensible people dismiss all predictions which are based on an unproved predictive model.
No model’s predictions should be trusted unless the model has demonstrated forecasting skill. Please note that this is true of any model of anything.
Climate models have not existed for 20, 50 or 100 years, so they cannot have demonstrated forecasting skill.
Simply, the climate models’ predictions of the future have the same demonstrated reliability as the casting of chicken bones to predict the future.
Secondly, people probably do alter the atmosphere, but it is extremely implausible that we are altering the greenhouse gas composition of the atmosphere. Nature emits 34 molecules of carbon dioxide for each molecule of carbon dioxide emitted from human activities. Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas and nature emits millions of molecules of water vapour for each molecule of water vapour emitted from human activities.
You declare a completely unreasonable belief in the contents of peer reviewed scientific papers. So, I cite one of our peer reviewed papers that you can read if you want to gain an understanding of the various effects likely to be the cause of recent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. It is:
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16 no2 (2005)
Now, your so-called “questions” have been answered, so please go away and play with your toys because you are getting underfoot here.
Richard
10
Discover ho! my good Mr. Griffith!
One would almost think that you were trying to INTIMIDATE me away from this particular thread except THAT your choice of weapon is so incurably RIDICULOUS that I’m sure you somehow typed faster than your thought process was moving.
And yeah, I do think you give a damn…but that makes me feel rather bad for you, so perhaps I’ll quit picking on you, Lionell; you seem like the lonely sort.
10
Not to be completely contrary, but I believe you will find papers which posit exactly what you have described – I posted one upstairs. There are more out there; I will leave you to look for them if you dare. I do not know if the data is cooked (the typical denier rational), but I suggest that neither do you. So how do you know the model is not working correctly?
And, as I posted earlier, science in general has a track-record of doing things on paper first and then positively proving itself later. I fail to see how AGW science is markedly different.
10
I’m sorry (and this has been the gist of my argument so far) you say this, but the accepted science community says something different. I’m afraid I’m going to have to default to their expertise on this.
Neither have computers or MRI imaging, just to name two. Get rid of them too? In fact, little of our current technology has existed for 20, 50 or 100 years. If Climate Models are part of this technology, I may have to also default to their predictions if this is rational for their dismissal.
Funny how deniers trot out the same worn rationals in different guises over and over…
Are you whimping out?
10
Marion:
Go back to your room. It is clearly past your bed time.
Later, while you have your nightime bottle, think about the fact that the climate models have no demonstrated forecating skill.
It is an important fact that you seem unable to grasp. Of course, I understand that it may be a bit hard for you to understand now, but when you grow up a little then it will become clear.
Richard
10
Marion:
I AM “scientific expertise” on the carbon cycle so I suggest that you “defer” to me and read our paper that I cited.
Until you have read it stay in your room or sit on the naughty step.
Richard
10
It is obvious now that this troll is just pulling your chain,since a rational intelligent person would not continually post deflecting drivel that he gives us here.
He blows at post 126 when he tried to be smart with me over Einsteins 1905 paper,when he states it was a peer reviewed paper.It was not a “peer review” at all,it was merely published.
He post a lot of windbag replies that suggest that he is one of those people who are running on empty,a burned out environmentalist.
10
Look again my little person. That’s not what I said.
10
“You’ve just described peer-review. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – this stuff’s out there. Shoot it down. Go ahead. You’ll actually have to read and understand it first, but go ahead. Don’t want to pay? – go to a library (wonder how much John Daily’s book or “The Skeptics Handbook” costs?)”
In your own words from post # 126.
You make it clear that you are still claiming it is a “peer review” paper,when it was not.It was simply published without being reviewed by anyone.
In 1905 Einstein contributed three papers to Annalen der Physik (Annals of Physics), a German scientific periodical.
A periodical that was NOT listed as a peer review support publication in 1905.
You fail to distinguish the difference.
10
Very good, Richard. I had trouble located your text in Proquest but eventually did come up with an entry for “Energy and the Environment.” It does have the distinction of being a markedly anti-AGW publication, and it is listed by Scopus as a trade journal but as EBSCO host as peer-reivewed. And I see Pielke signed on and I actually admire him. But just to make sure you are legit (after your last tirade I wasn’t sure you really were a scientist) I Googled your name and came up with this:
And
Now, earlier I was accused of having a “God complex” about Ph.D.s – so perhaps it is immaterial that you do or do not have a terminal degree in the field. Expertise can be gained in many ways; I assume you distinguished yourself in the lab. But I also argued that the problem for most of us laypeople is ‘who do we trust’? Remarkably, most AGW scientists (and I readily concede that there are a number of scientists who publicly doubt AGW [ex. Pielke)have direct ties to big industry or noted conservative think tanks (ex. Heartland and Fred Singer).
And then here you are, my good man. Apparently a coal industry scientist publishing in a trade journal, albeit peer-reviewed but by like-minded scientists (wasn’t there accusations of this for AGW scientists somewhere?)…
What’s a guy to do? No, I’m still going to defer elsewhere…at least for now.
10
“Remarkably, most AGW scientists (and I readily concede that there are a number of scientists who publicly doubt AGW [ex. Pielke)have direct ties to big industry or noted conservative think tanks (ex. Heartland and Fred Singer).”
D’oh sorry, typos and didn’t finish the thought. Meant to write:
“Remarkably, most anti-AGW scientists…”
10
No, silly, I was responding to #123 – what you described is generally the rational behind peer-review…but if it makes you feel better you go right ahead and believe whatever you want. I’ll blame myself for a poorly worded riposte.
10
Marion aka Energizer @ 126,
You copied the following from Sunsettommy @ 123:
You responded:
Sunsettommy clearly said the paper was PUBLISHED to allow others to ….
Peer Review is a process that occurs PRIOR to publication to determine fitness for publication. The Editor usually selects the reviewers and evaluates the reviews with respect to HIS standards for publication.
Validation or “shooting it down” after publication is the normal post publication process to be done by anyone who cares to do it. Except for “Letters to the Editor”, the Editor’s task is finished a this stage.
The conclusion is obvious. While you did not use the exact words, you implied that the paper was peer reviewed when it was not. The verdict is guilty as charged!
Now go home and drink your AGW brand KoolAid.
10
Richard Courtney was one of the speakers at the conference in Leipzig in 1995 organized by the European Academy for Environmental Affairs and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) which resulted in the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change. In his speech he stated that he couldn’t find any negative sides of the announced global warming. [8] Courtney was amongst the first group [9] of people who signed the declaration that begins with: “As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we…”. After complaints that many people who were listed as those who signed it were no scientists at all, SEPP made a new list which no longer mentions Courtney. [10]
He was asked by SEPP in 2000 to join a briefing called “Climate Is not Warming – Has not Warmed in 60 Years” to represent the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF). [11] During the briefing co-sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition, he claimed to be an IPCC “expert reviewer” [12] and stated a lack of measured “global” warming. On the SEPP site is written about this briefing”
[Courtney] demonstrated that nearly all measured increases in temperatures have occurred in regions, for example Siberia, where data are sparse and not continuous, and are therefore doubtful. He speculated that the remote stations may be less well-maintained than the regularly checked stations in the U.S. and Western Europe. [13]
The four-member panel at the briefing consisted of Richard Courtney (United Kingdom), Harry N.A. Priem (Netherlands), S. Fred Singer (USA), and Gerd-Rainer Weber (Germany).
10
Sorry Richard…I felt I had to…
10
If this makes you feel better, Lionell, you go right ahead and think that.
Damn…wasn’t going to pick on you anymore…
10
And yup, there’s my bud Richard on the Heartland website – and he’s apparently an editor in the journal that published his paper.
10
Thank you for not being able to provide a valid counterpoint to either what myself or Lionel wrote about a famous 1905 paper.A paper that was published in a prominent physics periodical.
Your comments on Richard is plain desperation,since you are apparently going to duck replying his easily available published science paper,he has twice invited you to read.Ad homonyms is all you can do in reply to him.Sad really…………
I think you are allergic to rational discussion.
10
Energetic bunny,Marrion Morrison,Persistent Echo and all around troll chimes in with this irony:
“Sorry Richard…I felt I had to… ”
Aww,it is too bad that YOU have NOTHING to offer/sell for us,while Richard has the GALL to expose himself as someone who likes to publish his scientific presentations.I did not realize that he broke many censorship rules in publishing them.
How come you forgot to bring that up?
I am sure your science research portfolio is bulging with published papers,why have you not pointed us to one yet? I want to learn more about why some frogs have many warts on them,surely that took you 3 years to figure it out.
The real question remains,why are you overtly trying to prove that you have no skill and honesty in discussing anything?
10
Take a deep breath, Sunset Tommy, I worry that you’re hyperventilating.
10
But this is really funny:
10
Sunsettommy,
The energetic echo is confused by us. We don’t respond to his verbal miasma as expected. Being well trained in AGW and postmodern philosophy rhetorical techniques, he cannot question his expectations even when they fail and especially when they fail. We keep on being exactly what we are no matter what persona he presents. We know who we are and why we are here. We know what we know and why we know it. It goes against all of his training. We are not supposed to be possible. Yet, here we are and his words have as much effect on us as anthropomorphic CO2 emissions have on climate: less than one part per million.
Echo Bunny, keep up the good work. The diagnosis is almost complete. Just a few more aspects to verify.
10
Anonymous Marrion-Bunny-Squid,
We have higher standards. You may post freely again as soon as you show you have basic levels of honesty and the ability to reason.
1. Provide your real name.
2. Provide ONE paper with empirical evidence that man-made carbon dioxide causes or is likely to cause more than 1.5 degrees of warming. OR Admit you can’t do it and your frequent claims that there is a great deal of evidence are wrong.
Most posters here are real people with real names. They provide honest answers. You are posting meaningless ad hominem attacks, mindless argument from authority and NO evidence. Please lift your standards. Your comments will be held for moderation until you do.
10
Joanne,
Is there a paper with empirical evidence that shows Co2 is likely to cause less than 1.5 degrees of warming? I wasn’t aware there was actually any evidence of Co2 being the cause of any warming whatsoever…
10
Joanne:
I think you are missing something by subjecting the troll to modertion.
The troll is proving the case you put in your article above.
Consider each of your pints numbered 1 to 9.
1. Real deniers claim something needs to be peer reviewed in order to be discussed.
The troll does it above (first at #4 and repeatedly after that).
2. Real deniers claim it only “counts” if it comes from a certified climate scientist.
The troll does it above (first at #5 and repeatedly after that).
3. If it is peer reviewed, then real deniers claim it only counts if it comes from certain journals.
The troll does it above (at #153).
4. They claim something can’t be right because it would disagree with thousands of papers. They mock and laugh, but provide no evidence. Not a single paper. (Then they claim that it’s not a single paper but a “body of work”. Which disagrees with point 1.)
The troll does it above (first at #6 and repeatedly after that)..
5. Real deniers assert it must be wrong because there is a “consensus”. Notice how they won’t talk about evidence?
The troll does it above (first at #25 and repeatedly after that).
6. If all else fails, they call people names like … “Denier!”
The troll does it above (first at #29 and repeatedly after that).
7. When they can’t find a real flaw, they look at “funding” and imagine one. (Real scientists research nature. Fake scientists google for dirt.)
The troll does it above (first at #153).
8. Real Deniers deny that instruments are right. No! The simulations are more real than reality. Trust the models!
The troll does it above (at #146).
9. They threaten dissenters with jail (for fictitious crimes). Climate Criminals!
You put the troll to moderation before he/she/it was goaded into completing the set.
Only your point numbered 9 needed to be demonstrated for your case to have been completely proven by the troll.
Also, I would have liked a point number 10: i.e.
They try to remain anonymous because they are mostly too cowardly to allow themselves to be accountable for what they do, and the risk of being known is great as Phil Jones has discovered.
Richard
10
Richard,
I noted that he was missing the point as written by Jo way back in post # 64.You simply went into a lot more detail and made a good case that he himself justified what Jo wrote.
LOL
10
Part 2 on the relevance of authority. I’ll put this and part 1 together after they’ve had a polish. No interest from Andrew Bolt at this stage but thanks for your kind words on Part 1. Part 3 will discuss the Western Whitecoat.
Cheers, Speedy.
If the ABC were Relevant 2.
Kerry: Brian discusses the consensus behind the UN’s climate science with the President of the IPCC, John Clarke.
Brian: Professor Clarke, thanks for your time.
John: Thank you Brian.
Brian: There’s a lot of money riding on the UN’s interpretation of climate change and people are beginning to worry about the validity of some of the science. Have you any words of comfort for the people, Doctor Clarke?
John: (Laughing gently). Now don’t you worry about that, Brian. Don’t you worry about that at all. (Laughing gently.) We have the science well and truly under control.
Brian: So the science is sound then?
John: The best that money can buy.
Brian: Perhaps you’d like to elaborate on this John.
John: We have a consensus of science, Brian. A whole herd. Ten thousand head of Western Whitecoats – every one watered, fed and paid for. Wormed and ticked, irrigated pasture and a nice big IPCC brand on their arse. You can’t argue with a consensus. Ten thousand scientists. Ten thousand voices…
Brian: And only one mind?
John: Spot on Brian! Only one mind and only one will! Consensus is a beautiful thing.
Brian: So the scientific community is in full agreement?
John: All ten thousand of them Brian. Nodding their little round heads to the point of concussion.
Brian: But what about the others? Those who would question whether CO2 has a significant effect on the climate?
John: (Condescending.) Brian, Brian, Brian. If they are asking those sorts of questions, then they aren’t scientists.
Brian: Can you define “Peer Review” for the viewers at home please?
John: A pleasure. Peer Review is a critical part of the scientific process Brian. It exposes the data, logic and assumptions underlying a given scientific theory to the light of day in front of friend and foe alike so that its true validity may be exposed and tested for the betterment of all mankind. Or something like that.
Brian: And do you consider that climate science is bound by the same codes, Your Lordship?
John: I’d be bitterly disappointed if it were not so Brian.
Brian: And we can take it that the IPCC adheres to strict scientific and ethical principles?
John: On my honour.
Brian: So how do you subject your scientific papers to peer review, your Lordship?
John: We have a pool of nearly ten thousand critics, Brian. All fully qualified, wormed, ticked and branded.
Brian: Have any of your papers failed muster at the review stage, your omnipotence?
John: They’re all very excellent papers Brian.
Brian: Do you have to pull out the cattle prod at any stage?
John: I think you’ll find that the Western Whitecoat is very well domesticated.
Brian: And do alternative viewpoints ever get published?
John: Not in our journals Brian.
Brian: So what is the cutting edge in climate science as we speak John?
John: As you’d appreciate, Climate Science is a complex field and encompasses an extremely broad church. At the moment our energies are divided amongst four areas of intensive study.
Brian: And these are?
John:
1. It used to be cold.
2. It’s a lot hotter now.
3. It’s our fault.
4. We’re all going to die.
Brian: I don’t suppose you’ve investigated alternative climate scenarios, perchance?
John: Not much funding for that sort of thing, Brian. No.
Brian: So at what stage do you think we should consider turning paying off the milkman and cancelling the papers, then?
John: Without urgent and immediate action, Brian, I’m afraid the common opinion gives humanity about ten years maximum. Possibly as low as five.
Brian: And when did you discover this?
John: About 20 years ago Brian. There’s a very well supported and totally undeniable consensus around that.
Brian: And if it were to all end in tears, John? Can you give us some hypothetical examples of Sociological and Anthropological Armageddon likely to arise from a failure to avert previously mentioned disaster?
John: Perhaps you would like to contemplate, if you will, the good burghers of Tuvalu standing up to their collective hips in 500 gallons of Pacific Ocean #1 wet.
Brian: From rising sea levels.
John: From rising sea levels.
Brian: Due to arctic melting.
John: Due to arctic melting.
Brian: But surely the arctic is composed of sea ice? It’s all floating on the top, people park submarines underneath it all the time.
John: Perhaps. But what, pray tell, becomes of that portion above the plimsol line once it’s all melted, dare I ask?
Brian: Nothing. It’s the Archimedes Principle.
John: Archimedes?
Brian: Greek bloke. Had a bath. Discovered buoyancy. Yelled “Eureka” and did a lap of Athens in the raw.
John: Thanks for the thought. Bet he doesn’t stand up to peer review. (Sniggers)
Brian: THE Archimedes Principle! “A body immersed in a fluid will float in that fluid if its mass is less than that of the fluid it displaces.” So the floating arctic ice is displacing its own mass of water. Whether it exists as ice or water, it still has the same mass, it still displaces the same volume and there’s no change in the volume of the ocean if it melts. Comprendi?
John: No, thank you. But I do “comprendi” that Mr. Archimedes has never published anything in the peer reviewed literature in his life. And, between you and me, I don’t think he will in the future, either.
Brian: (Frustrated) OK. OK. Right. Look at the ice in your glass of water. (Points at desk.) That ice has been melting these last 10 minutes and the level in the glass is just the same as it was before. It doesn’t matter whether it melts or not – its still water! It still has the same mass, it still displaces the same volume and the waterline stays put. Don’t you understand? (The viewers might like to try one this at home – Ed.)
John: I understand that this ice is not in the arctic and it will have no impact on sea level or the good burghers of Tuvalu. And I think you’ll find that Archimedes has been thoroughly debunked. The overwhelming consensus of 10,000 leading climate scientists will more than adequately demonstrate this.
Brian: (Getting agitated.) You can’t vote on truth – Archimedes Principle is a well known fact!
John: You want facts Brian? OK. Next time Archimedes meets 10,000 climate scientists in a dark alley after a night on the turps, Brian, Mr. Archimedes will be in the market for another 32 teeth. That is a well known fact.
Brian: (Confused.) Er…
John: Thirty Two being the traditional per capita allocation in the dental department Brian. And Mr. Archimedes will have the opportunity to verify that fact personally unless he pulls his horns in pronto. Another well known fact for you. Archimedes is a confirmed right-wing climate change denier and a stooge on the payroll of the Multinationals and Big Oil.
Brian: (Very confused.) Who told you that?
John: RealClimate.com. Tomorrow morning. Gotta go. (Leaves)
Brian: (Stunned. To camera.) Kevin? Ya there Kevin? Earth to Kevin… Earth to Kevin….
10
Sunsettommy:
If you read what I wrote at #102 I concluded
But the troll continued to obtain disruptive responses. So, I considered that it was necessary to make practical use of the troll if his/her/their postings were not to destroy the usefulness of this thread. Therefore, at #133 I offered a baited hook and the troll grabbed it.
After that it was simply a matter of playing the troll to obtain the inevitable responses. When Joanne placed the troll in moderation only Joanne’s point 9 needed to be obtained to complete a demonstration of each of Joanne’s points.
Of course, if the troll had two brain cells to rub together then he/she/they would have wondered why I was ignoring my own advice that I posted at #102. But that was unlikely because AGW-believers are unable to analyse things for themselves: they would not believe in AGW if they could do that.
Richard
10
My diagnosis of the specie of Intellectual Pathology of our unlamented late energetic echo is that he is an Intellectual Predator.
A predator does not contribute but feeds off the unwary, unprepared, and inattentive. Any attack is only on the weak. The strong are avoided or, at most, sham placated by deception, misdirection, and empty flattery. There was not one positive contribution by the echo either for or against the AGW/Climate-Change hypotheses. His posts were nothing but shallow echos of distorted or false arguments. Nothing was added but taunts, insults, patronizing pretense, and lack of responsiveness to legitimate questions.
The motivation behind such behavior in the echo’s case is not clear. However, it is clear that the Intellectual Predator needs his victims more than the victims need him. He exists only to victimize. The important thing it to be able to recognize the pathology and then don’t be his victim.
One way to not be his victim is not respond. Since the predation is intellectual, there will be nothing to feed on. In time, they will move on to more fruitful pastures.
Another way, as I did, use the behavior as an opportunity to study the pathology. Especially use the tactic of pointing out to the predator what you are doing and why. That way, they know their cover is blown but they can’t keep themselves from continuing. They have an impossible contradiction that drives them. They exist only when they are on the attack and their victims know it. Yet, they must go for the “kill” by stealth and deception. The “kill” being a forced error by the victim. They must be seen doing what they do to score and, at the same time, not be seen so they can blame the victim. They are not only at war with reality, they are at war with themselves.
Your best defense against the Intellectual Predator’s “kill”, is to understand that your best opportunity to learn something will be when you make an error and discover that it is an error. Your most significant vulnerability is to think you should not make mistakes. THAT is a huge mistake.
I suggest you make your mistakes early and often. Then when you do make a mistake, make a big one. They are much easier to see. This way you will make very rapid progress up your learning curve. The Intellectual Predator cannot deal with it.
10
Lionell,
Unfortunately when the first person responds to a Marion or Rumble, the opportunity to ignore is over. Everyone has the right to respond if they want to. But I agree with you…
Is there a reference that describes various types of Intellectual Pathology? Since you brought it up I’ve been Googling for something but no luck yet.
Thanks
Roy
10
Roy,
Its private research on my part. I know of no one else doing it as a specific project. Its become part of my almost two decade search for Intelligent Life on Earth. In common terms they range from pathetic to stark raving nuts.
They all seem to have one attribute in common: they live second hand lives. Their thoughts, feelings, motivation, stimulation, whatever, is borrowed from others. There is no functioning self. In effect, they are emotional/intellectual mirrors reflecting other emotional/intellectual mirrors in a mad house of emotional intellectual mirrors of infinite recursive reflections. The one thing that bugs the hell out of them is to encounter a self defined individual. They don’t know how to deal with the real thing. Its as if you tossed a rock into their house of mirrors.
So far, I have identified the following:
Passively Ignorant: Going through life intellectually lazy.
Willfully Ignorant: Going through life intellectually self blinded.
Intellectual Thug: Never says what he means and never means what he says. Equivocation is his favorite rhetorical trick.
Intellectual Predator: You have seen a prime example of this specie in the multiple personae of energetic echo.
Other: Not yet classified.
The search helps me to keep me from the edge of tearing their throats out or bashing their thick skulls with a nailed two by four. The challenge is discovering how to use their pathology against them – sort of an intellectual judo. Unfortunately, that seems to work only on the Intellectual Thug. Perhaps that is because I have encountered so many of them and they were the first specie I had identified. The best I have done is expose and survive the others.
This list has had a few low level Intellectual Thugs: Robin and Damion for example. There was one clear example of an Intellectual Predator: our beloved multiple personae energetic echo. The remainder of the pathological are a mix of Passively and Willfully Ignorant. The Passively Ignorant have a good chance of recovery given time and a lot of effort. The rest have a grim prognosis in my experience. Though I do know a few who have recovered.
10
Lionell,
I’ve seen your first two only too often. They fall for proof by authority and stick by it no matter what. Our schools and Colleges are turning out these in many places. Critical thinking seems to be a four-letter word to education experts.
Thanks for the list.
Roy
10
Lionell:
I think your analyses are interesting, but in my opinion there is one thing that all AGW-advocates have in common: viz.
They value opinions and not evidence.
Indeed, this is why they all behave according to the 9 points that Joanne lists above, and it is why I said I would also include a tenth point.
AGW-advocates see “evidence” as being the most valuable opinion and they are incapable of understanding that “evidence” can be of any other kind. The only type of “evidence” they think exists is the kind of “evidence” assessed in a Court of Law. For example, two witnesses may each present an account of a robbery and the jury decides which of the witnesses is the most believable.
So, the idea that there is an absolute truth which is independent of any witness is beyond the comprehension of AGW-advocates. And they see “evidence”, “science” and “scientists” as merely being tools to bolster an opinion. For them, only opinions are important and “evidence” is only useful in so far as it can help to promote an important opinion.
Therefore, empirical evidence has no value to AGW-advocates because they value opinions as having most importance, and they cannot understand why anybody takes any notice of empirical evidence.
Hence, Joanne’s Handbook is an excellent source for use when communicating with those who genuinely seek information on AGW. But it has no value as an aid for discussion with AGW-advocates because they cannot understand it.
In summation, any attempt to get AGW-advocates to provide empirical evidence is pointless. No matter how they are requested to provide empirical evidence they cannot because they are incapable of understanding what they are being asked to provide.
This is why each of them behaves in the completely predictable ways that have the forms of Joanne’s 9 points. For clarity, I will itemise their behaviours as per Joanne’s points.
1. Real deniers claim something needs to be peer reviewed in order to be discussed.
Those whose opinions matter do the peer review so the peer review makes a paper an opinion worthy of consideration. The paper is information and, therefore, it only has value as a tool to bolster an opinion. Hence, it is worthless until it has had the blessing of those whose opinions matter.
2. Real deniers claim it only “counts” if it comes from a certified climate scientist.
Only a “certified climate scientist” has an opinion that is valuable.
3. If it is peer reviewed, then real deniers claim it only counts if it comes from certain journals.
Only the “certified climate scientists” have opinions that enable them to decide what should count as “evidence”. So, a journal cannot contain useful papers if the journal does not use the “certified climate scientists” to peer review its contents.
4. They claim something can’t be right because it would disagree with thousands of papers. They mock and laugh, but provide no evidence. Not a single paper.
They genuinely do think they are providing “evidence” because for them only opinions count as “evidence”.
5. Real deniers assert it must be wrong because there is a “consensus”. Notice how they won’t talk about evidence?
The opinions of the “certified climate scientists” are the only kind of “evidence” that they understand has any value. If the “certified climate scientists” all hold that opinion then, of course, that opinion must be right.
6. If all else fails, they call people names like … “Denier!”
Anybody who refuses to accept the valued opinions the “certified climate scientists” is contemptible.
7. When they can’t find a real flaw, they look at “funding” and imagine one. (Real scientists research nature. Fake scientists google for dirt.)
Obviously, people who do not accept the only valued opinions as being “truth” must have a nefarious reason for their failure to accept the only valued opinions. And, clearly, any decent person will want to destroy those who dispute the most valued opinions otherwise some people may not ignore their disputations. This is why a trickle of money from ‘Big Oil’ in the past is thought to have corrupted climate realists (they are by nature corrupt) but massive funding from governments to the “certified climate scientists” has not corrupted them (they are incorruptible). And it is why several web sites have been established to lie about climate realists.
8. Real Deniers deny that instruments are right. No! The simulations are more real than reality. Trust the models!
The “instruments” are tools to promote opinions. Computer model are the clearest form of this because they are mathematical formulations of the opinions of the “certified climate scientists”. Obviously, anything that does not agree with the most valued opinions must be wrong.
9. They threaten dissenters with jail (for fictitious crimes). Climate Criminals!
If those who do not accept the most valued opinions cannot be silenced and/or discredited then they must be punished as a sign to all that only the opinions of the “certified climate scientists” are worthy.
Also, as I said, I would have liked a point number 10: i.e.
They try to remain anonymous because they are mostly too cowardly to allow themselves to be accountable for what they do.
Opinions matter and evidence does not. An opinion is discredited if its presenter is discredited. The opinion is protected by preventing attack of its presenter.
Any way, that is how I have seen it for a long time.
Indeed, I used that perception to obtain specific responses from the troll. I talked down to him/her/them and the inevitable response was Point 7. I claimed expertise in my field and cited one of my papers and the inevitable response was Point 3. I explained that climate models cannot have any demonstrated forecasting skill and the inevitable response was Point 8. etc.
So, this thread has not given me a reason to change my perception of the cause of the behaviours of AGW-advocates.
Richard
10
Richard,
I have no problem with your observation. Its all too true within the AGW alarmist tribal discourse. However, I was looking for a more generic (abstract) analysis that might be applicable to most if not all stylized discourses.
ALL of the behaviors you list are the result of the mirroring within the AGW specific tribe. Had the particular mirroring individual been a member of a different tribe perhaps health care reform), the behavior would have been different in detail because of the reflexive content of a different hall of mirror tribe is different in detail. The pattern of responses will be different but equally predicable and stylized within its context.
The individual who partakes of this kind of intellectual pathology exists only as long as he is mirroring and being mirrored by his particular mirror tribe. Take away the mirroring and the individual panics and is fearing extinction. Hence their constant fixation on apocalyptic doom in spite of evidence to the contrary. The universe of reflected reflections is fragile and ephemeral to the extreme.
If this looks like I am describing madness, it’s because it IS madness. It is a disconnect from reality. That is why a reasoned empirical based argument is without impact. The argument does not relate to the alternate universe they are striving to maintain. They must strive to maintain that alternate universe at all costs so reason, reality, and logic are disposed of before anything else happens. They are at war with reality on a very fundamental level. Unfortunately, it seems to be the path of least resistance for far too many people.
10
Lionell Griffith:
Lionell,
With all of your skills, you have to be a busy person!! It’s good to know that there are people out there who can “see” thru all of the behavioural mess people present upon themselves and in turn giving it to others as satisfaction..I was wondering what have you come up with on “Our” agenda with taking Temperatures??? Have you worked on the parameters yet??? Can you give me an update??
Thanks!
Regards,
Denny
10
Denny,
On the temperature project. I have been a bit scattered and have not developed a formal protocol. I think the best starting point is the following.
1. The people who are interested need to identify themselves: Name, email address, location (GPS coordinates if possible), and altitude.
2. Identify the temperature measuring device: type, reading resolution, reading range
Alternatively, how much you can afford to spend on one.
3. Determine a one point calibration by creating a distilled water ice slush and determine the reading of your temperature measuring device when dipped in the slush for approximately five minutes. The distilled water ice slush will be 0 degrees C or 32 degrees F. The reading should be close.
If there are no objections, I can be the central repository for the information. Send the accumulated information to arh@dslextreme.com
I can then use the information to see what kind of experiments we can perform with the equipment we have on hands.
The goal is to do some meaningful work with simple inexpensive equipment. It will be a pilot project to get us in the habit of doing actual science. The primary cost will be time and attention to nit picking detail.
10
I have set up an email address for the temperature project.
Send all communication in reference to the project to goodscience@dslextreme.com
If we get enough participants, I will work on setting up a web site to publish our results.
10
My apologies. The alternate goodscience email address no longer works.
You will have to use the first one I offered: arh@dslextreme.com
Sorry, but the email server site that my current ISP forces me to use does not work as advertised. I may have to switch ISP’s.
10
Lionell Griffith: Post 179,
Lionell, I’m interested in this project! I too feel it would be of interest to see what we can conclude. Accuracies are of utmost importance as much as the basic guidelines.
1. What do you recommend in instruments to be used, digital or glass tube with Mercury??? I have a pocket digital I used in HVAC testing. Haven’t used it in a while. The Distilled use of Water as a calibration is very good. Usually digitals are within +-1 to 3 degrees of accuracy…My pocket is a 1 I believe.
2. Recommendations of conditions to occur for such testing will be needed for those to have a consistent reading. Parameters have to be established on locations and heights of such measurements to be taken.
3. A “basic” log in writing and/or on Computer to be sent to you!!! Will you make one up with weather comments or keep a basic time frame and day record? Also when a measurement should be taken?? Morning, noon, afternoon. If you work during the day, then what? Especially if you are 20 some miles away from your station….
4. 24 Hr access to you, Lionell in case of questions or problems in sending data!! This is probably NOT a problem but should be brought up out of due respect towards those who partake this research. Maybe even a number to call you in case the Internet is down..Thoughts???
Thanks Lionell, My situation is this…unless I find a job within in say 6 months or even less, I will lose my home to forclosure..Don’t know where I will be afterwards…Do you still want me to do this??? Of course, if I get hired then we will take it from there…if the Bank will refinance me…
I will appreciate and wait for your comments on this and anything else I might have missed…
Thanks,
Denny
10
From Marion above:
Marion seemed to be getting the text from here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney
Their link [13] is broken, so the actual original can be found here:
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2000/Dec16.htm
What makes this a bit more interesting than just one man’s opinion is that Courtney’s comment came out in 2000, but a decade later the Russian IEA have followed up and come to the same conclusion, with additional information available to them about the original Siberian weather station data.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2409190/posts
I believe this demonstrates that Richard was right on the nail, back in 2000, and there is more than enough reason to start a complete audit of the data from ground level up. When you put this together with the various adjustments added by the homogenisation process we would have to accept at least a few degrees of error in the final result.
10
With regards to any temperature data collection, I have spare server capacity, I’m happy to make space available for hosting or database storage.
There are lots of small weather station networks around the place, my feeling is what really needs to be done is come up with a system that makes it easy to pass the data around and aggregate it in a way that preserves traceability of the process. Hopefully something reasonably efficient and secure.
Most importantly, the data format and transfer mechanism should be a public standard — so that independent implementations can be compatible. What seems to be happening at the moment is that each little group make their own standard and then they can’t / won’t interface with other groups. It all gets bogged down.
Might be a good place to start by building a list of all the existing private weather station networks out there and making some notes on what formats they are using. Maybe ask them what their policy is on sharing that data.
10
I’m a huge fan of Ayn Rand’s work, and the objectivist philosophy. Free markets, and free will lead to growth and prosperity. More government and regulation leads to less growth and prosperity.
10
The post #189 is junk spam
10
Thanks Tel, so were the three before it. There are as many bot agents writing comments as real people… The spam filter literally removes nearly a thousand a week.
10
The real deniers are the ones who limit access to the truth, and then claim the truth is not as it appears once it is uncovered. The real deniers are the ones who claim that even when the truth is acknowledged as the truth, it no longer matters.
10
What a bunch of self-serving rationalizations and mental blindness! Check this out to see the EVIDENCE you claim is not being presented to you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSiyujaDkfY (watch the whole thing)
Precisely WHAT evidence are you Nimrods waiting for? A proclamation from Rush Limbaugh that he’s erred in judgment all these years? You sure don’t respect anything real scientists say. You know, people who’ve EARNED the right to explain what’s going on, vs. those who just spew the same feel-good stories over and over.
There’s a reason the word “denial” has been in the dictionary for centuries.
[REPLY: Oi Jim. The EVIDENCE the vid shows is mixing up cause and effect, or is cherry picking recent disasters, when a long history shows the events this year are no worse than what has gone before. The real deniers ignore solar magnetic evidence, and long term records …. but it does show that even cultist fools can produce neat propaganda. ]
10
Jim C: Just another rent-a-troll who hasn’t bothered to check out anything on this site before making a fool of himself.
Jim; Try reading the Skeptic’s Handbook first — then tell us what evidence we are “denying”.
p.s., Starting out with insults is a good way to have everything you say ignored — the folks who sent you here would be disappointed.
10
To all who call me a “troll.” (You are a troll.You have made it clear that you WILL behave like one.Your previous comment make that clear) CTS
Search for “Global Warming Timeline” (American Institute of Physics) to see a quick list of major AGW discoveries. It’s been known since at least 1859 (John Tyndall) that CO2 is a serious greenhouse gas, (It is not a “serious” GH gas.The absorption range in the IR window is very small) despite its relatively small quantities. It took well over a century for the issue to reach the forefront, and some people predictably responded with willful ignorance. (The warmists willful ignorance of it’s known weak GH effect) Your ilk never gave CO2 much thought except to study the foam in beer, (That is because it was known to be a minor GH gas.Not much to get excited over.Water Vapor dominates the GH effects in the climate system) then suddenly you became counter “experts.” (Not hard to counter.When you have so little evidence to work with) Interesting how that goes.(After all these years.We still see little of the claimed powerful warm forcing capability showing up.It has been 150 years.And still nothing out of the ordinary is happening) CTS
Unless you can prove that: A) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, (Most Skeptics do believe it is a greenhouse gas) and B) Man isn’t raising CO2 levels far beyond nature’s in modern times,(Most Skeptics believe that CO2 level in the atmosphere is rising sharply) your only case rests on conspiracy theories and cherry-picking what you determine is valid science. The same thing was tried with the ozone hole, (It has since then.Been shown to be much less of a concern.Than it originally was) acid rain, (A 10 year study was published in 1990.That shows Acid Rain to be a very minor effect) asbestos, (It depends on the type of Asbestos) cigarettes and a number of other issues. Said conspiracy theories fall into these general categories:
1) The scientists are incompetent in their data gathering. (usually is their lack statistical skills that is the problem) Richard Muller (Berkeley Earth project) recently tried to prove that, (He failed) but reached the opposite conclusion. Now, he’s considered sort of a traitor among deniers. (We have known for many years.That he is a warmist.He was NEVER a skeptic) CTS
2) The scientists are in it for grant money, (Generally true) which is clearly far more enriching than oil money. (So little oil money are given to Skeptics.They have also given money to warmists) Enough said. (Skeptics have heard about it too many times now.Warmists are still wrong) CTS
3) There has been a massive conspiracy (starting in 1859?) to make it seem like CO2 is a big deal. (No only a small group of discredited warmists.Who are making a big deal of it.The effect is very small) CTS
Yeah, sure. Liars. (Warmist!) CTS
(It appears that you are not much of a science reader.Too bad that you make these comments the way you do here) CTS
10