Naomi Oreskes
The great Fred Singer takes the time to explain why Naomi Oreskes is a scientifically inept and a poor historian. Her famous claim of a scientific consensus based on 900 papers missed more than 11,000 that should have been included. Her grasp of science is so poor she isn’t familiar with the pH scale, thinks Beryllium is a heavy metal, mistakenly assumes that CO2 is trapped in the troposphere, and climate models can predict forest fires and floods. Embarrassingly, Oreskes doesn’t understand the difference between reactive oxygen and radioactive oxygen.
Armed with cherry picked distortions she sets about maliciously impugning upstanding senior scientists with distinguished records in science, and years of service. Unlike a professional historian she hasn’t even interviewed any of them to find out if the information she promoted was correct. Sadly Singer is the only one still with us to point out the flaws.
Years from now when their contributions are still recognized, Oreskes will be but a footnote in history classes of how poor research and largely baseless innuendo were used to serve a groupthink meme and feed a hate campaign against some of our best and brightest. No humility. No respect. No real effort to find the truth.
— JoNova.
———————————————————————
From American Thinker.
Professor Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California in San Diego, claims to be a science historian. One can readily demonstrate that she is neither a credible scientist nor a credible historian; the best evidence is right there in her recent book, “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming,” coauthored with Eric Conway. Her science is faulty; her historical procedures are thoroughly unprofessional. She is, however, an accomplished polemicist, who has found time for world lecture tours, promoting her book and her ideological views, while being paid by the citizens of California. Her book tries to smear four senior physicists — of whom I am the only surviving one. I view it as my obligation to defend the reputations of my late colleagues and good friends against her libelous charges.
Oreskes is well-known from her 2004 article in Science that claimed a complete scientific consensus about manmade global warming; it launched her career as a polemicist. Her claim was based on examining the abstracts of some 900 published papers. Unfortunately, she missed more than 11,000 papers through an incorrect Internet search. She published a discreet “Correction”; yet she has never retracted her ideologically based claim about consensus. Al Gore still quotes her result, which has been contradicted by several, more competent studies (by Peiser, Schulte, Bray and von Storch; Lemonick in SciAm, etc).
She published a discreet “Correction”; yet she has never retracted her ideologically based claim about consensus.
Turning first to the her science, her book discusses acidification, as measured by the pH coefficient. She states that a pH of 6.0 denotes neutrality (page 67, MoD). Let’s be charitable and chalk this off to sloppy proofreading.
Elsewhere in the book (page 29), she claims that beryllium is a “heavy metal” and tries to back this up with references. I wonder if she knows that the atomic weight of beryllium is only 9, compared to, say, uranium, which is mostly 238. A comparison of these two numbers should tell anyone which one is the heavy metal.
Her understanding of the Greenhouse Effect is plain comical; she posits that CO2 is “trapped” in the troposphere — and that’s why the stratosphere is cooling. Equally wrong is her understanding of what climate models are capable of; she actually believes that they can predict forest fires in Russia, floods in Pakistan and China — nothing but calamities everywhere — and tells climate scientists in a recent lecture: If the predictions of climate models have come true, then why don’t people believe them [see this]? Perhaps because people are not gullible.
But the most amazing science blunder in her book is her hypothesis about how cigarette-smoking causes cancer (page 28). She blames it on oxygen-15, a radioactive isotope of the common oxygen-16. I wonder if she knows that the half-life of O-15 is only 122 seconds. Of course, she does not spell out how O-15 gets into cigarette smoke, whether it is in the paper or in the tobacco itself. If the latter, does she believe that the O-15 is created by the burning of tobacco? If so, this would be a fantastic discovery, worthy of an alchemist. Perhaps someone should make her aware of the difference between radioactive and “reactive” oxygen; the two words do sound similar.
…she actually believes that climate models can predict forest fires in Russia, and floods in Pakistan and China
I am sure one would find more examples of scientific ignorance in a careful reading of the rest of the book. But why bother?
Having demonstrated her scientific “expertise,” let’s turn to her historical expertise. Any careful historian would use primary sources and would at least try to interview the scientists she proceeds to smear. There is no trace of that in Oreskes’ book. She has never taken the trouble to interview Dr. Robert Jastrow, founder of the NASA-Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and later Director of the Mt. Wilson Astronomical Observatory and founding president of the renowned George C Marshall Institute in Washington, DC. I can find no evidence that she ever interviewed Dr. William Nierenberg, director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who actually lived in San Diego and was readily accessible. And I doubt if she ever even met Dr. Frederick Seitz, the main target of her venom.
Seitz was the most distinguished of the group of physicists that are attacked in the book. He had served as President of the US National Academy of Sciences and of the American Physical Society, and later as President of Rockefeller University. He had been awarded numerous honorary degrees from universities here and abroad, as well as the prestigious National Medal of Science from the White House.
Instead of seeking firsthand information in the tradition of historical research, Oreskes relies on secondary or tertiary sources, quoting people who agree with her ideology. A good example of this is her discussion of acid rain and of the White House panel (under Reagan, in 1982) chaired by Bill Nierenberg, on which I also served. Here she relies on what she was told by Dr. Gene Likens, whose research funding depends on portraying acid rain as a very serious environmental problem. It most definitely is not — and indeed disappeared from view as soon as Congress passed legislation designed to reduce the effect.
An amazing discovery: I found that Oreskes gives me credit (or blames me) for inventing “cap-and-trade,” the trading of emission rights under a fixed cap of total emissions (see pp. 91-93). I had never claimed such a priority because I honestly don’t know if this idea had been published anywhere. It seemed like the natural thing to suggest in order to reduce total cost — once an emission cap had been set. My example involved smelters that emit SO2 copiously versus electric utilities that burn coal containing some sulfur. I even constructed what amounts to a “supply curve” in which the bulk of the emission control is borne initially by the lowest-cost units. Of course, Likens and some others on the panel, antagonistic to coal-burning electric utilities, objected to having my discussion included in the panel report. Nierenberg solved the problem neatly by putting my contribution into a signed Appendix, thereby satisfying some panel members who did not want be responsible for a proposal that might let some electric utilities off the hook.
We have established so far that Oreskes is neither a scientist of any sort nor a careful professional historian. She is, however, a “pop-psychologist.” It seems she has figured out what motivates the four senior physicists she libels in her book; it is “anti-communism.” Really! This is not only stated explicitly but she also identifies them throughout as “Cold Warriors.”
Well, now we know at least where Oreskes stands in the political spectrum.
—————————–
Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer pioneered upper-atmosphere ozone measurements with rockets and later devised the satellite instrument used to monitor ozone. He is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service (now NESDIS-NOAA). He is a Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. His book Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1500 Years (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007) presents the evidence for natural climate cycles of warming and cooling and became a NY Times best-seller. He is the organizer of NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change), editor of its 2008 report “Nature – Not Human Activity – Rules the Climate” http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf, and coauthor of “Climate Change Reconsidered,” published in 2009, with conclusions contrary to those of the IPCC http://www.nipccreport.org/. As a reviewer of IPCC reports, he presumably shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore and 2,000 others.
…
***
JoNova explains Oreskes:
- Oreskes, Readfearn: Got no evidence? Throw different names. “So skeptics are paranoid ideologues afraid of reds under the bed?”.
- “Now we are not even allowed to doubt?”
—
Don’t forget to book your Monckton tickets!
(Commentators down-under are starting to work themselves up to their usual scientific response: “By Crikey” Who is paying?! Who is organizing it?! Which school can we intimidate, which sponsor can we scare…”. They are just terrified that he might… talk.)
“Some individuals take a perverse delight in searching for, inventing or exposing the feet of clay of other people who’ve produced some fine pieces of work or achieved things in their lifetimes. They write the book or article and the hatchet job makes them a few bucks.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/words-ideas-primary-sources-history-and-a-bit-thrown-in-about-writers/
Oreskes ticks every wrong box. Quite an achievement actually.
Pointman
31
“The great Fred Singer”?
When that is your opening line, there really isn’t much reason to read further, is there?
76
Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology. His phd thesis committee included J. Robert Oppenheimer and Niels Bohr.
And John Brookes is known for…
103
See also “Big Tobacco and Global Warming”, an unofficial transcription of a part of “The Drum”, on ABC TV, with John Barron hosting a discussion with Waleed Aly, Chris Berg, Naomi Oreskes and Tom Switzer, in May.
Also, following Sen. Nick Minchin’s advocacy for a “Friends of Carbon Dioxide” foundation, see The Friends of Carbon Dioxide. (Membership is free, and involves doing nothing much more than exhaling carbon dioxide for as long as you can.)
10
Forget it, they’re losing and becoming completely unhinged as they do, as James Delingpole puts it so eloquently-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100092809/greenpeace-and-the-ipcc-time-surely-for-a-climate-masada/
All they have left now is to rant hysterically from crumbling past authority at an increasingly deaf audience. They’re to be pitied now.
10
And John Brookes is known for…
Being [snip ] as far as I can tell …..
40
From the telegraph
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gillard’s socialist party gift
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard made an appearance via video at the national convention of Canada’s socialist party, which supports gay rights and green policies.
Gillard’s way: A party for socialists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
gee we don’t have a thing to worry about , now do we ????
10
I didn’t know I was a socialist, thanks for letting me know Red .
ELECTION NOW ! Methinks .
10
One more this time from rolling stone…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FORMER US vice president and environmental activist Al Gore has accused Barack Obama of failing to lead on climate change, warning that the very survival of civilization was at stake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just keeps getting better and better !
10
@Raven.
Video footage of Julia’s appearance. Accident prone as usual …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SBsqFMGUtE
Pointman
10
He goes on to say….
>>>>>>
Gore lashed out at those who ask if human-made climate change is real, noting that nine of the hottest years in recorded history were in the last 13 years.
>>>>>>
I’m not to sure how he arrives at that , maybe someone can enlighten me please .
10
Thanks Pointman 🙂
10
The GRATE Naomi Oreskes!
10
Singer’s statements about O-15 in the book are total misrepresentations of what the book actually says:
Oreskes does not blame cancer on O-15 in tobacco smoke. Quite to the contrary, one of the “merchants of doubt” (Seitz) implies this is so in the air we breathe. Oreskes merely (in a side note) explains to the reader that oxygen has a radioactive isotope, in reference to Seitz’s disinformation concerning natural carcinogens.
Is the rest of Singer’s complaint this poorly founded?
How about quoting the passages in question, instead of simply expecting the unwary, un-skeptical reader to accept what he says at face value?
31
Sphaerica (Bob):
Yet I notice that, instead of quoting directly from the meretricious Oreskes’ book, you quote from Tim Lambert’s quotation of the book. Have you read the book?
20
Calling someone names by calling them an anti-communist . . . in the western world ha ha very funny.
The communist wall fell because oh so many thought communism was just peachy. Ha, even the communist party of China started to steer the country for the capitalist path so as not to loose power by making a billion people unruly pissed.
20
Deadman,
How is your question relevant? What is your point? Is the quote inaccurate? Is my statement inaccurate?
But to answer your question, yes, I have, and it’s an enlightening book, although the section quoted is the only part relevant to Singer’s false accusation.
Before that it says (in my copy):
But once again, what’s your point? What difference does it make if I’ve read it or not?
And at the same time, why do you seemingly uncritically accept this fabricated controversy, given that your only post was to criticize me in a backhanded way? Why you are not bothered at all by his blatant misrepresentation ?
Singer scanned the book, found two trivial scientific errors, and fabricated a third. Which says what about Singer himself?
50
@3@6
And John Brookes is known for….
being …. Witty , Alarmist , Narcissistic, Kinky , Eccentric , Religious . ..?
10
JoNova wrote: “Singer trained as an atmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology. His phd thesis committee included J. Robert Oppenheimer and Niels Bohr.”
Oh wow, that line made me think back to who was on my Ph.D. committee and one (Ronald Breslow) became president of the Am. Chem. Soc. and another (Martin Chalfie) won the Chemistry Nobel Prize! When you are working with such people every day it doesn’t dawn on you that it’s such a big deal. It does keep you humble though!
-=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. (Columbia/Harvard)
P.S. Here is the latest update of The Quick Glance Guide to Global Warming. I added a page called Ice, and tweaked this and that. When I posted it on the Huffington Post, the response I got from master of economics degree article author and New Age guru Duane Elgin was:
“While doing a study for the President’s Science Advisor in 1975, I went to my first briefing on the prospect of global climate change/disruption at the Department of Energy. After studying this professionally for the past 36 years, I have concluded that it is an exceedingly complex phenomena with many variables involved–and it is very real. Your cartoon postings do not persuade me otherwise.”
He uses the same phrase Oreskes used to cherry pick papers in her famous 100% consensus study: “global climate change”.
Denial: http://bit.ly/m6xySt
Oceans: http://oi53.tinypic.com/2i6os4y.jpg
Thermometers: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2agnous.jpg
Earth: http://oi56.tinypic.com/2reh021.jpg
Ice: http://oi53.tinypic.com/wmav6g.jpg
Authority: http://oi52.tinypic.com/wlt4i8.jpg
Prophecy: http://oi52.tinypic.com/30bfktk.jpg
Psychopathy: http://oi52.tinypic.com/1zqu71i.jpg
Icon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmPzLzj-3XY
Thinker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y
10
Sphaerica (Bob), I thank you for your response. You ask, “what’s your point? What difference does it make if I’ve read [The Merchants of Doubt] or not?” The point is that you quoted the same section as other critics of Singer with an ellipsis at the same point. It looked as though you could have been relying on others’ accounts of the book rather than on your own; however, rather than assuming that you had not actually read the book, I asked. Asking questions, I have found, is often an effective way of learning things.
According to Nicolas Nierenberg (particularly here) Prof. Oreskes is not good at asking questions, or of paying attention to answers, especially when considering scientists whose views she dislikes.
I am bothered by misrepresentations and, accordingly, read widely in an attempt to make fair assessments. From what I have read, seen and heard of Oreskes, unfortunately, she is a vile, incompetent historian who is deliberately duplicitous. (She asserts, for instance, that “the so-called glacier-gate was a typographic error.”
I have been unable to determine so far, that Prof. Singer has deliberately committed any fraud.
21
Her supporters have just about ruptured their aorta going after Singer already. I wonder what this will bring on. High blood pressure time in that camp once again.
Should be fun to watch.
11
Good work there Jo, doing exactly what the book discusses. Singer attacks an argument that the book never made. The discussion on oxygen isotopes actually comes from Frederick Seitz, not Oreskes. The book does not suggest that burning of tobacco creates oxygen-15 isotopes. Singer’s attempt to discredit Merchants of Doubt only further reinforces the rhetorical techniques illuminated in the book. Singer attacks Oreskes’ and Conways’ understanding of the science by completely misrepresenting their understanding of the science.
Also surprising, surprise you seem to have missed the elephant in the room re your Lord, Monckton and his disgraceful behaviour. Aside from calling Garnaut a fascist, at a recent conference in LA, Monckton displayed a Nazi swastika next to a quote from Professor Garnaut. Lord Monckton compared statements made by Adolf Hitler to Professor Garnaut’s suggestion that people should accept the mainstream science of climate change.“That again is a fascist point of view, that you merely accept authority without question. Heil Hitler, on we go,” he said.
Even Bolt is appalled at this behaviour. To quote “he’s gone too far in this deeply pesonal attack and an apology is in order. Without one, it will be unwise for other sceptics to associate themselves with him on his Australian tour.”
30
Roy Hogue #20
If you are an historian, and can be selective about the sources you choose to use, you can write almost anything you like about any body, as long as they are dead.
In the cases of Drs Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg, and Frederick Seitz, she is on safe ground.
And it is a phenomena of history that the most vocal critics of great people, tend to acquire some the status of the people they criticise. It is a natural form of democratisation that must really rankle with Professor Oreske. Although, since she is reportedly a strong believer in Meritocracy, as a form of government within a socialist framework, she may see the reflected glory as being beneficial to her own standing.
Perhaps she thought that Professor Singer wouldn’t notice, or perhaps she assumed that he wouldn’t take the trouble to respond in his own, and previous colleagues’ defence. If either of these are the case, then we can add a poor judgement about human nature to her list of “accomplishments”.
Her supporters continue to attack Professor Singer because to do so will, through the mists of history, only serve to add to her perceived authority.
“One does not need to rewrite history. History is quite capable of rewriting itself.” William Pitt (the younger).
20
Interesting to see anyone rushing to the defence of Oreskes, let alone Sphaerica. I had the misfortune of sitting through one of her presentations at UWA when she was pushing the Merchants of Doubt. It would be difficult to know where to begin on criticising the presentation, it was so rife with falsehoods, innuendo, pseudoscience and fantasy. Needless to say, the rapturous UWA elite lapped it up and applauded their little hearts out. One skeptic in the audience dared to ask a balanced question … did she (Oreskes) respect any skeptic scientist? She muttered something about a vague respect for Lindzen. It was quite clear that her view of the scientific world is so clouded as to be pure fantasy. She should take up writing fantasy over supposed “non-fiction”… she might find her talents better adapted to that field of writing.
21
“Needless to say, the rapturous UWA elite lapped it up and applauded their little hearts out.”
Which I’m sure will be the case when Monckton rocks up at AMEC… “elite” a bit of an insight to your skepticism there Bulldust?
10
Please take this the right way, for it is champagne-fueled:
I hate the linear format of this site. I’d like to expound on what Deadman said in due stead but as I write it I can’t even see what he wrote any more since now I’m at the bottom of the entire thread, staring at some uber dorky combination of “Balldust talking about Sphaerica,” as if that’s going to Change The World. This site is discriminative against those of us ADD creative types, due to being based upon the online equivalent of typewriters and fax machines, and it has childish elements too that do not pull me into a sense of serious discourse, due to the “like/dislike” toyish and boyish icons, and the purple pumpkin nature of the auto-assigned avatar icons.
That’s why Judish Curry has 350 comments and you have 35:
Branding.
Orsekes seems to be someone easy to figure out, but I don’t know her well enough (via video) to size her up.
You are getting too pulled into a day-to-day fight and that is not your strength.
Hell, it’s almost nobody’s strength, be they a thinker.
This site is not helping me in any way to know who Orsekes is.
Insider jokes doth not wrought new worlds.
All I see ’round this isle-onto-itself is bile.
That’s why you are mocked, Joanne. You don’t balance bile with a ballerina’s sense of fun. You humor never contains abandon. You are up in arms instead of grounded.
If I ever link to you, I am dead in the water as far as ever pulling a soul or two at a time from the green back into the blue, because no alarmists fear you, for you are down in the mud with them, depressed and oppressed.
Stop thinking of damage control. Make art!
“No, so holp me Petault, it is not a miseffectual whyancinthinous riot of blots and blurs and bars
and balls and hoops and wriggles and juxtaposed jottings linked by spurts of speed: it only looks
as like is as damn it; and, sure, we ought really to rest thankful that at this deleteful hour of
dungflies dawning we have even a written on with dried ink scrap of paper at all to show for
ourselves, tare it or leaf it, (and we are lufted to ourselves as the soulfisher when he led the cat
out of the bout) after all that we lost and plundered of it even to the hidmost coignings of the
earth and all it has gone through and by all means, after a good ground kiss to Terracussa and
for wars luck our lefftoff’s flung over our home homeplate, cling to it as with drowning hands,
hoping against all hope all the while that, by the light of philosophy, (and may she never folsage
us!) things will begain to clear up a bit one way or another within the next quarrel of an hour and
be hanged to them as ten to one they will too, please the pigs, as they ought to categorically,
as, strickly between ourselves, there is a limit to all things so this will never do.” – James Joyce
(Finnegans Wake 1939)
[Nik thanks for your thoughts on the comments. I would very much like to get inline replies and have tried. To do it I need to upgrade my theme, which would take hours since I have so many self-made CSS styles, but I hear you. Perhaps I just have to take time out from writing, or pay the web guru’s to get it done. It’s tempting. I’m also agnostic about the dislikes. The likes are useful, but the dislikes could probably go. Tho strangely you miss the mark on my writing. The long line of people who have attacked me, then gone silent after I cut their writing to pieces is why I got 2 million hits last year. Defeated so far, John Cook, Deltoid, LEo Elstof, DeSmog, Dr Glikson, … If you want insight into Oreskes, go read the posts I did on her last year which are linked at the bottom of the post. — JN]
10
From the James Delingpole link provided by observa @5:
With apologies to Basic Instinct, this would have to be The Paragraph of the Century!
10
A neutral pH is 6? There are year 9 science students laughing at her for this.
10
Oreskes is either as thick as two short planks or pushing an agenda of lies. Your choice, Naomi.
I guess the long suffering taxpayers of California are paying this oxygen thief’s wages?
20
Mike@27
The two possibilities you mention aren’t mutually exclusive.
10
MattB:
It may surprise you to know that I have already slammed Monckton (at WUWT) for the Nazi references in his latest presentations. As I said… “one goose step forwards, and three steps back (for skeptics).” That kind of commentary falls flat much like the threats from CAGW supporters. I am sure Monckton has made his share of mistakes in his presentation materials, but he makes some good points as well. At least he prefaces his talks by suggesting that the audience check the facts for themselves. He does not expect you to consume the dogma like some diligent lapdog… which is how most CAGW speakers operate.
Presonally I enjoy Monckton’s comical style, but I take his comments with a huge dose of salt. Having said that I bet he knows a heck of a lot more about the science than myself, yourself or Brooksey. Whether he presents it fairly or not is another question. Whether his critics quote him fairly is another question again… and so the debate goes on. Much ado about nothing.
The only things that matter to me are that:
1) Australia’s contributions to GHGs are minimal and therefore any action we take is a meaningless gesture.
2) I therefore reject the basis for an Australian carbon dioxide tax until major emitters implement similar systems (although I recognise that this is an economically inefficient result, but preferable to leading the major emitters on “carbon pricing”).
3) I abhor the manipulation of the science funding and resulting braindead mantras eminating from our supposed peak scientific bodies in their frenzy to maintain Government funding. I abhor the associated unscientific dishonesty and deception.
I think that sums up the main thrust of my position… as an economist I hate to see scarce resources wasted. There are so many wasteful policies in Australia based upon “green” policies that it is painful to contemplate. The NSW solar panel fiasco and lameduck backflip by the new Government are just another example. There are no political leaders in Australia anymore, only career politicans who follow polls and hide behind PR advisors… not a backbone between them, with the possible exception of the odd one like Katter. At least you know where he stands. Katter’s heart is in the right place (i.e. his electorate) but he has some loopy ideas as well.
But I digress…
20
Oreskes..Oh yet another [snip ] from the loon bin with nothing better to say and still tells lies. Toilet roll PhD too I imagine.
Also,
Joe Bastardi of Weatherbell.com tells it like it is, listen to the skeptical interviewers remark at the end. Thinks they are so brainwashed they dont know what to say!
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/997055021001/beware-of-a-mini-ice-age/
10
Im still trying to decide whether to condem Monkton or to praise him, I think the swastiker and the heil Hitler was going too far but the substance of his accusation is well founded.
By the way the absent baa humbug posted the following at WUWT, maybe he’s got it right.
Where are you baa, you’ve been missed
10
NikFromNYC: #24
Well Nik, I also am blessed with ADD – which, as you might know has a few unfortunate side affects when it comes to language, and is the reason why many of my comments have wrong pronouns, misspellings, et cetera.
But rather than complain about the format, I use the technology that I have to hand. I have multiple tabs open in the browser so I can flick between this comment, as I type, your input as I try to stay on topic, and “what Deadman said”, as I try to work out your intended intension.
And as I sit at my desk, I also have an entirely different browser window with eight tabs open (as I compare various information sources), and that is only on one screen. I have another screen open, on another machine, that I use for the usual office functions, plus a graphics analysis package that I use to keep track of what I am doing.
Like others, I dip in and out of this site as a brief diversion from what I am paid to do – for me it provides a diversion. What I say here may be rubbish, but it is relevant to me at the time I say it (even the weak attempts at humour).
And writing rubbish is always preferable to shouting in a closed box in the dark.
So, what is your real problem?
10
63 JB!!!!!!!!!!
You are finally getting the recognition you deserve.
Well done and best of luck to you.
Crakar
10
In 1963, a US congressman entered the aims of the Communist Party into the US congressional record ( hansard )
In watching this activity unfold, I was reminded of these communist aims :
Note – substitute “school” with “science”
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
Note – the UN seem to run with the climate change joke big time.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces
Note – Carbon Tax would give centralised control over pretty much everything.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
FWIW
20
I think that Monkton probably knows what he is doing. His comments made it onto the ABC news, and they didn’t even say he was known to be a part of a mad fringe minority (which the now wounded Garnaut says of anyone who doesn’t swallow his idealogy).
10
Nik from NYC is obviously drunk, but he does bring up an interesting observation.
I think we are all getting too involved with the hourly news cycle smear campaign that is being waged against the skeptical community. Last night I watched that groveling propagandist Tony Jones lead Australia’s Chief Scientist Ian Chubb down the official rhetorical carbon tax path to the pre-ordained groupthink conclusions. I got so pissed off that I couldn’t go to sleep. Here was our taxpayer-funded national broadcaster creating divisively sinister propaganda (in the guise of objective journalism!) with Labor’s Chief Scientist who was quite willing to tell the audience blatant lies and distortions against the best interest of the Australian people . Naturally, no skeptical guests were allowed on air to balance the report. Outrageous deceit!
But this morning I woke up and realized how unbelievably hilarious warmism and “carbon pollution” delusions really are! It’s the stuff of Monty Python.
We skeptics are getting too serious. Our anger at being lied to and smeared with hate speech for years is the only thing the Warmists have left. It’s their argument of last resort: Skeptics making rude comments online is obviously the best evidence that the planet is warming catastrophically! So support a carbon tax.
The ABC has lowered the level of debate so deep into the gutter that when we follow them down in order to continue the war of words, they turn around and say, AH, HA! GOT YOU, SCUMBAG DENIER! Threats! Divisiveness! Accusations of Fascism! Violent street protests! Fearmongering!!!! Politicization of Science!!!! Trying to silence the debate!!!!
Yah, riiiiiiight, as if….ROTFL. Hilarious stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
So, people. Don’t get mad. Don’t get morose. Don’t ever say, write or do anything that warmists can point to as evidence that their irrational, cultist behavior is matched by ours. Because that’s all they got.
The warmists, the Gillard Government, the silly clowns posing as journalists who run the ABC. They don’t really deserve our anger or fear, for they are so blinkered they know not what they do. Nor can pollies with zero popular support be taken seriously. The only cure for them and more importantly for us, is a really good howling laugh.
Now is the time for satire not diatribe. Why?
Because, the debate—which the warmists tried poison—really is over but for the grand finale implosion. The Australian people have already won. Our democracy is going to win too, come next election. Even the planet won because reason won over demagoguery. Only reason the battle seems to continue is because the Gillard government—and the climate bureaucracy depends on perpetual existential crisis based on fear, doubt and self-loathing. They’ll never admit they’re wrong. The warmists NEED a never-ending war to Save The Planet. They NEED an imaginary other they can project their hate upon (the “denialists.”) The Earth can never just be muddling along OK ever again or we wouldn’t need our self-righteous elites to save us from ourselves by emptying our wallets and striping us of our natural rights.
And now, more than ever, the warmists NEED what’s left of the debate to become divisive and petty to sour the Australian people’s victory over a tiny, intellectually inbreed, self-interested and cynical elite.
Don’t play their game. Instead have a good laugh, good cheer and a raise a toast to rational inquiry… and remember…
Even if the Greens and our good-as-gone PM force through a carbon tax it will be their last act of eco-emo self harm. The tax will be rescinded after the next election. The warmist insane clown posse are at the bottom of a very deep hole and they just keep digging. Don’t take their shovels away now!
Let ’em keep digging. It’s a hoot!
😉
10
Me: #36
You don’t need to substitute “school” with “science”. The schools are where the action has been for the last twenty years.
The method is simple, look for students with socialist leanings, and inculcate them with the message. Then, when they are about to graduate, arrange for them to go into teacher training, or help them into an academic career.
If you can get enough of the right people, the teachers you seed into the schools can capture a whole generation, who go on to be journalists, politicians, scientists, and teachers for the next generation.
The Jesuits are the earliest record I have seen of this approach, and it has been around ever since. And to be fair, the “elite” schools (at least those in the commonwealth) do exactly the same thing, but with a different message.
We have all probably been brainwashed at some stage in our lives. I may have been cured, or I may just believe I have been cured. How would I know the difference?
10
wes george: #38
I am in awe!
I am reminded of a scene in the movie, “Zulu”, when a couple of dozen military engineers are in a redoubt, facing thousands of Zulu warriors charging down the hill. And the Sergeant, staying very calm just says, “Steady Lads, Steady …”.
You are absolutely right. They now cannot win as long as we just stay steady.
10
Political “science” has corrupted every aspect of the education (read indoctrination) process. History teachers at university routinely teach that there are no facts in history, that it is a social and political construct, ie. adaptable to whatever political or social whim prevails of the day. Stupidly, I always thought the facts of history could only be overturned by appropriately supported contrary evidence, but alas that is anathema to the post-modern historian. Sounds similar to the concepts that prevail in other post-modern sciences like climate science, where observational facts are an inconvenient obstruction to the socially acceptable nintendo version of reality.
10
Rereke at #40
Where’s Stanley Baker and Michael Caine when you need them? A few good men is all it takes to ward off an overwhelming force, no matter how outnumbered you are.
10
“Oh really?” (22),
There IS nazi connection…..
Read this for your “edification” !
Nazi collaborator George Soros behind Carbon Cate’s (Cate Blanchett) ‘tax me’ ad :-
Foreign billionaire hedge fund speculator, drug pusher and Nazi collaborator George Soros is the éminence grise behind the Cate Blanchett carbon tax ad, which is sponsored by Soros’ Australian front, GetUp. “The media circus over Cate Blanchett is irrelevant,” Citizens Electoral Council leader Craig Isherwood declared today. “The real issue is George Soros’ underhanded intervention to manipulate Australian politics.”
By his own admission, George Soros was a witting participant in the Holocaust, as a Nazi collaborator with the extermination machine run by Adolf Eichmann in Soros’ native Hungary. In at least two television interviews, in 1994 and 1998, Soros freely admitted to his Nazi collaboration, and declared that he felt no guilt over his actions, or over the extermination of nearly a half million of his fellow Hungarian Jews. Even worse, he exulted in his autobiography that, “It was actually, probably the happiest year of my life—that year of German occupation. For me it was a very positive experience.”
Soros went on to become an agent for the City of London, using his Quantum hedge fund as a political battering ram to smash nations and national currencies, under the personal direction of British cabinet minister Lord Malloch-Brown, a board member of the Quantum Fund.
Aside from forcing British imperial economic policies such as free trade and deregulation onto targeted nations, Soros has used his ill-gotten loot to madly push the legalisation of hard drugs and euthanasia. And, on behalf of British geopolitical strategy, he has helped topple national governments by financing the creation of fake “grassroots” protest movements, such as the Ukrainian “Orange Revolution” and Georgian “Rose Revolution”, aimed at destabilising Russia. And GetUp is just one more fake “grassroots” movement. Look at the history.
GetUp is the Australian counterpart to Soros’ MoveOn.org in the United States. The two co-founders of GetUp, Harvard graduates Jeremy Heimans and David Madden, both worked for the Soros-funded MoveOn.org in the U.S. to also launch the global web “movement”, Avaaz.org. Madden was previously a consultant to the World Bank and Heimans previously consulted for the UN, OECD and ILO. And when GetUp suddenly popped up in 2005, this “people’s organisation” boasted among its founding board members: John Hewson, former federal opposition leader, former Macquarie Bank Executive Director, and Trilateral Commission member; Don Mercer, a mining chief, former ANZ CEO, and a past Director of the Australian Institute of Company Directors; and Evan Thornley, the super-rich Labor Party money-bags who was also National Secretary of the Australian Fabian Society, to which belong all of the ALP’s leading advocates of population reduction—Julia Gillard, Bob Carr and Kelvin Thomson.
The Blanchett ad is also sponsored by the Australian Conservation Foundation, World Wide Fund for Nature Australia, Greenpeace Australia Pacific and the Australian Council of Trade Unions.
Mr Isherwood said, “It’s not exactly surprising to see the Prince Philip-founded ACF in bed with a former Nazi collaborator, Soros. After all, Philip’s own family in Germany was full of ranking Nazis as documented in the new film Unlawful Killing, while his two partners in founding the WWF in 1961—the mother of the world’s entire environmentalist movement—were former Nazi SS member Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and British Eugenics Society President Julian Huxley, and here in Australia the guy he deployed to do all the legwork in setting up the ACF, Francis Noble Ratcliffe, was a professed admirer of Mussolini. And of course Hitler’s Nazi Party grew out of the post-World War I ‘green movement’ in Germany in the first place. Most of the top Nazis were Greens.
“So what is the ACTU doing in bed with Philip’s ACF and WWF and the old Nazi George Soros? Perhaps it should explain to its members why it is spending their money to support a Nazi agenda, and one which will tax them out of existence, literally!”
To find out more on the fraud of global warming, click here.
http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=global_warming&id=main.html
For a rundown of the apparatus behind the Nazi green movement, click here
http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?id=free_new_citizen_cv7n2.html
10
Ultimately Wes, you are half true when you say:
“But this morning I woke up and realized how unbelievably hilarious warmism and “carbon pollution” delusions really are! It’s the stuff of Monty Python.”
More accurately for most in the blogosphere:
“how unbelievably hilarious warmism, “carbon pollution”, skeptical and “CO2 is plant food” delusions really are! It’s the stuff of Monty Python.”
I mean look above… this Spencer guy clearly has some runs on the board, but has to make up stuff that Oreskes has said… and skeptics lap it up. Monckton, well he’s no spencer, but he thinks AGW is rubbish and STILL has to use swasticas and latin waffle. Flannery will all due respect is a bit of a clown and the gaia think is off the planet.
Just today I saw some comment on the ABC site saying Monckton should be listened to as he is a scientist and a mathematician. How anyone who comes to that conclusion could be trusted to seek truth on the climate debate I’ll never know.
It is what I find most interesting about this whole thing, both sides of the debate, is the sheer majority of people who like to comment who clearly think things are true/accurate when they are fabrications/insanity.
10
Damian you do know that Bolt’s blog is a million times more credible than the CEC don’t you? And that is not a compliment to Bolt.
10
Well, Nik, you are definitely from NYC. I can see from the furry object on your head – though not from your spelling and prose – that you are also a cultured type from NYC.
Thank you for the information that Finnegan’s Wake was written by James Joyce. Armed with that pearl of knowledge, I won’t look like a non-NYC hick next Bloomsday. Should I wear a beret to the readings?
As for Judish (sic) Curry, the Al Gore of Lukewarmism, I’ve observed with interest the lady’s sly transformation from warmie-dogmatist to deep-an-earnest moderate. She has never rung true to me, though she’s an improvement on Orsekes (sic).
I appreciate the efforts of my fellow Aussies on this site, especially Jo’s. I’m making a rare posting to let them know just how much they are appreciated. And I wouldn’t mind if you’d make like a typical opinion draped, champagne fuelled New Yorker and give us the flyover treatment in future.
10
“I hate the linear format of this site” intones Nik @26; what then Nik, a random walk? Nothing random in Mr Joyce, JUST a minutiae of infinite meaning like a squeezed, fractalised lemon; but a multitude of alternative meanings has no meaning until one is choosen; the hope is the worth of the choosen; in his choice Joyce is STILL rhyming epigone of Tristram Shandy; Tristram was a real pip not a florid non-linearity like Joyce who could only dream of Tyrone Slothrop’s sexual options.
If you are bored, look at clouds; they are the key because they have both non-linear forcing and linear feedback. If Focault is right clouds are more sentient then humans. I would open up a coversation with them; show them Joyce and Keats, on alternate days; see which draws the bigger crowd; Keats is linear, a true climate scientist; “Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” ; Keats made a choice. What is your choice Nik?
20
I have hunted around Jo’s site and not found this elsewhere. I hope this is an new post
http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/news/92/a-letter-to-the-chief-scientist
Which I have pasted below.
The questions asked in this letter, can also be asked of every scientist involved in the AGW scam. They can also be asked of our neighbourhood trolls.
The good sign is that a letter like this comes from an MP from one of the major parties. May I suggest this is a sign of changing attitudes.
I believe this is on topic.
10
Jo,
Science is currently in trouble with generating models with bad science of the past that NEVER updates itself to any new technology or discoveries.
Unless theories have some sort of physical basis, I fluff them off. Statistical analysis is not science nor is computer trending of a minor time frame to the 4.5 billion year life of this planet. Most we still are just guessing at.
Mathematical formulas totally collapse when bringing in a different timeframe of this planet when it was rotating faster and closer to the sun.
Even the prediction of the planet shifting from an earthquake is based off their climate models and NOT real physical evidence.
10
Jo,
It was a group of scientists that came up with a consensus of what the LAWS of science must be based on technology and social pressures of that day. These are based on generalized theories that really are incorrect to understanding this planet and solar system.
E=MC2 Their are a great many individual energies based on motion to friction to particles. Our planet looses mass in four ways but is that included in that formula?
10
Incoherent rambler:
A constituent would indeed be priveliged to have Dennis Jensen as their MHR.
This is his bio.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYN%22
And this is his maiden speech.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/firstspeech.asp?id=DYN
In my humble opinion, Dennis should have been Opposition Spokesman on scientific matters. He probably baulked when told he would have to deliver the schlock being spewed out by the hapless and hopeless Greg Hunt.
Hunt’s bio here.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F00AMV%22
Not much to do with science there, methinks.
10
Sorry to Nik and mods. Lost temper and made fun of Nik’s hat and misspellings. Not good, this temper of mine. I don’t even have the excuse that I was drinking.
I meant what I said about this site. It’s forthright in setting themes, but allows all views, something the other side is usually unwilling to do.
The reason Jo should keep this blog going is pretty simple. As the winter deepens here in Oz, there are numerous elderly and frail people too frightened to turn on their heaters. The people responsible for that situation really, really hate this blog. That’s the reason to keep this blog going.
20
mosomoso no one wants old people to be afraid to heat their homes in winter what rubbish.
10
“…no one wants old people to be afraid to heat their homes…”
No-one wants it, MattB. But judging from all the new coal, nuke and hydro plants that have NOT been built in this resource-rich country, I think it’s fair to say that someone is responsible.
The ridiculous aspect of this self-inflicted scarcity is all the coal that will be ripped out of prime agricultural land and expatriated to be burnt elsewhere…because we’re desperate for revenues to pay for medieval heaps of junk like wind-farms.
Burn global, but tax local!
30
rambler # 48
Thanks for that. It cheered me up no end. In fact, I actually got on to Jensen’s site and thanked him.
Have to agree with Mark # 51. Pity Jensen isn’t their spokesperson.
10
Orestes – “Merchant of Doom”…
Incoherent Rambler – agree. If there were more parlimentarians like Dr. Dennis Jensen, then maybe we wouldn’t have such dumb polcies like the Labor/Green government is trying to foist on us!
And maybe a lot of Labor back benchers wouldn’t be so worried…
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Matt@53 I agree that no one wants people to be afraid to heat their homes in winter but it will likely be a financial consequence of a carbon tax. No doubt Gillard will try to buy initial support with her generous handouts but the compensation will be inadequate and it will not be long before those on limited incomes will have to decide between luxuries like food or power.
The government gives and then takes away, just recently the UK government reduced pensioner power allowances by one hundred pounds per annum and at the same time announced an increase of 25% in power prices.
The UK provides an insight into Australia’s future. Carbon trading in the UK has proved absolutely useless in terms of reducing emissions and their record on implementing wind and solar is abysmal, to the extent that the UK is looking at importing 40% of its energy requirements by 2020.
It is no coincidence that many “greens” are inner city middle class with government guaranteed jobs and superannuation who can afford the financial impost of a carbon tax. The desire of you and your ilk to save the planet would be fine apart from the fact others less fortunate will suffer and all for a hypothesis that is at best unproven and in my opinion most likely false.
10
And yet he still can’t grasp how LW radiation, which only penetrates a small distance into water, could cause warming. The whole concept that it “reduces heat escape in lower layers” was beyond his comprehension. http://www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/posters/P-GC2.9_Singer.S.pdf
It seems the gullible are willing to listen and swallow old people’s theories just because they did something great when they were young. Hi gullible people!!!
11
Jo.
Why don’t you start a “Wall of Shame” with this wonderful people like Naomi Oreskes etc
When they come out with these statements as they do from time to time,ask them to come on your site for an interview or question and answer session, and when they ultimately decline put the on the “Wall of Shame” AS DENIERS OF DEBATE.
Be interesting to see how many decline to debate with you/us sceptics and you never know you may actually get one these buggers to come on face the music
all the est from the U.K.
10
@MattB: #53
“mosomoso no one wants old people to be afraid to heat their homes in winter what rubbish.”
‘What Rubbish’ !! MattB, I expected better from you.
Mosomoso was making the point that “there are numerous elderly and frail people too frightened to turn on their heaters”.
I concur with mosomoso, It is happening now, and the ‘Carbon Tax’ will only add to that fear.
A 15% increase in energy costs (from a ‘Carbon Tax’) means that you either:
1.) Pay an extra 15% for your energy requirements. (plus GST of course)
OR
2.) Reduce energy consumption by around 13%
Simple fact – Math 102.
.
If you are elderly, it can be a serious issue, energy is not just required for when you get home from work, it can be a 24/7 need.
A little research, and a little empathy for those less fortunate than yourself might be in order MattB.
10
Here I am, sitting in sub-tropical south-east Queensland with temperatures 8 – 10 degrees C below average, freezing my butt off all week.
My friends inland of tropical Cairns tell me they have had frosts every day this past week – previously unheard of.
My work associates in Darwin tell me that sheepskin Ug boots have become the NEW fashion statement, as that region suffers its lowest June minimums and maximums on record.
My wife’s relatives in Victoria tell me they are going to spend next weekend collecting more firewood because they have already burned what should have lasted them all winter.
My own relatives south of Perth are contemplating moving in with me in just-above-freezing SE Queensland, because it’s so much warmer than where they are now.
I read in the papers that it was snowing in Hawaii just last week. I also read that it snowed in Colorado below the 10,000 foot level on the summer solstice for the first time in recorded history.
Now, what was it we were discussing?
Oh, that’s right. – Global warming.
10
TrueNews @ 59
I’d comment on your comment on MattB’s comment, but the last time I did you (and others) went on a head-kicking spree such as I have never before witnessed on a blog.
And I was the head.
Suffice to say – I told you so. You REALLY think dead pensioners even figure in MattB’s “new and improved” vision of the future.
Let them eat cake – or burn solar panels – whatever.
10
@Memoryvault #69
Touche MV
I am not a headkicker my freind, and I agree your point.
BTW.
Your post at #60 had me in stitches.
10
blimey@58; you are wrong; LW, particularly from backradiation, the deus ex machina of AGW, cannot heat the oceans; only SW from the sun can:
http://www.john-daly.com/deepsea.htm
10
cohenite, thanks for more blog science crap!!
10
Mark at 51
I live in Dennis Jensen’s electorate, I voted for him in several elections and I am proud to be represented by him. He is honourable, intelligent, a good local member, and he talks good sense. He is a scientist and, unlike many other politicians, can distinguish between science and policy.
In his letter, Dr Jensen stands up for science and the integrity of scientific debate. Thank goodness somebody in Australian politics has the guts to do it. Dr Ian Chubb (new chief scientist of Australia, and the man to whom Dr Jensen’s letter was addressed) seems to support the AGW agenda. What a pity. I hope Dr Jensen’s letter will help him to see that science has become corrupted by politics, and this is bad for both science and poltics. Dr Chubb would serve Australia best if he helped science to move away from politics and back to its true purpose.
Well said Dr Jensen.
Incidentally, Dr Jensen’s letter expresses strong opinions in courteous language. It’s refreshing to see that
in this political debate where language often becomes overheated.
10
Here we are in the US..Hope yet
“The Supreme Court dealt Al Gore, the Environmental Protection Agency and other believers in alarmist climate science a surprising and severe blow this week. In its June 20 decision on American Electric Power v. Connecticut et al., the court ruled that the mere existence of EPA regulatory authority over greenhouse-gas regulations pre-empted lawsuits against coal-burning utilities on the grounds that the emissions constitute a public nuisance.”
http://junkscience.com/2011/06/21/supremes-retreat-from-climate-panic/
mmmm get Garnaut et al. declared a public nuisance ?
10
blimey, the only blog science crap is what you contribute. Enlighten us all as to how LW heats the ocean.
10
cohenite @ 67
Let me help poor blimey out here.
First of all you tuck the Second Law of Thermodynamics safely to bed in its cot.
Then, when you are sure it asleep, you explain how the atmosphere can heat the oceans.
It’s simple really, if you believe in fairy tales and bed time stories.
10
Raven Comment 9 Doesn’t Al Gore’s warning that ‘the future of civilisation is at stake,’ mean ‘civilisation as Gore intends it to be,’
🙁 and not ‘civilisation as it is now.’ 🙂
10
Deadman,
You really think he just innocently misread or misunderstood the sentence about oxygen?
You need to apply your standards to everyone, not just those “on the other side.”
[As an aside, do you notice how many people vote “dislike” on any comment whatsoever that has to do with support of current climate science, even when the statements contain a simple presentation of irrefutable facts? Exactly how skeptical are the people who comment, and vote on comments, on this site? I’d like to see skeptics start behaving the way they claim to, and that starts with owning up to mistakes instead of propagating them… or, as is the case with Monckton right now, quickly admitting to them before moving on to flame everyone else for “even worse” behavior.
If skeptics want to be taken seriously, they need to show some consistency, which includes avoiding utter scientific nonsense (any 2nd Law of Thermodynamics garbage, for instance) and conspiracy theories, and to start demonstrating something other than a knee-jerk response to all things climate.]
20
Unless is escaped your attention Sphaerica, sceptics are not the ones jumping up and down making proclamations about the planet meeting a fiery doom unless global taxes are implemented to the tune of trillions of dollars. We are quite happy with the business as usual, and presumably focusing scarce resources on REAL environmental issues.
As for comment votes… do you really care? You are a stickler for the science yes? Not what people think about you for talking about science. I don’t come here looking for positive votes any more than I would hang out at Crikey for negative ones.
As for the oxygen debate, given that is the only point you are attacking, is it safe to assume that you agree with the rest of the Singer criticisms of Oreskes? I am not sure why you should come in here defending the indefensible, when you could have had far more valuable input on other threads actually focusing on climate science. If Singer misinterpretted one aspect of the Oreskes rubbish, so what? It doesn’t change the fact that Oreskes is way off the reservation in most of her polemics.
PS> Oh BTW… had any luck demonstrating positive feedbacks exist, with that crazy stuff called empirical data?
10
Sphaerica (Bob), following my practice of asking questions, I have written to Dr. S. Fred Singer, seeking an explanation for his apparent error, and will provide an account of any response I receive herein.
10
One of my favourite quotes:
From “A Scandal in Bohemia”, by Arthur Conan Doyle, in Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.
10
Coming up with the odd entertaining comment on this blog….
10
Oh, and well said, Sphaerica!
10
Update on post 35,
My God JB 112, Jo can you tell me what the record is?
10
cohenite says “blimey, the only blog science crap is what you contribute. Enlighten us all as to how LW heats the ocean.”
Er, did you know LW radiation penetrates the water, that most of it is not reflected?
10
Not true blimey; try again.
10
cohenite, Sadly for you, it is true. Even dumb Fred knew it entered the “skin” as he put it. You say it is 100% reflective – how remarkable you wish to rewrite science. Good luck, but I’ll continue to call your “science” crap until you supply some evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_absorption_spectrum.png
Water absorbs infrared radiation quite well.
10
Well dumb Fred, how far into the ocean does the absorption go? And don’t verbal me, I never said it is 100% reflective. Typical devious alarmist.
10
I said “Er, did you know LW radiation penetrates the water, that most of it is not reflected?”
You said “Not true blimey; try again.”
So if it’s not reflected, where do you think it goes?
10
Where does it go? How would I know, do I look like Tim Flannery? Since 2003 it certainly hasn’t been going into the ocean:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/trend
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/dipuccio-2.jpg
10
cohenite says “Where does it go? How would I know, do I look like Tim Flannery?”.
You are the one telling me that I lie, therefore I thought you might have some good explanation of why you think the physical laws of thermal radiation are broken in this case.
cohenite says “http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/trend”
Surface temperature is not the same as ocean heat. And even if it were, you’ve still said nothing about why you think LW radiation can’t be absorbed by the ocean.
And you’ve probably nothing to say about why you cherry pick a short term period in which the data has always fluctuated, whilst the long term trend is upwards.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl
cohenite says “http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/dipuccio-2.jpg”
Again you seem eager to cherry pick a small timeframe.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
The ocean is gaining heat.
20
“Surface temperature is not the same as ocean heat”; right; and the LW goes into the ocean, doesn’t heat the surface and…doesn’t heat the rest; since 2003, when they started measuring these things properly.
I don’t think you lie, I just think your belief system is skew-whiff.
10
I have been more than a little surprised at the nastiness directed at Lord Monckton for using the valid classification of ‘fascist’ to describe a politician whose public policies and pronouncements fit the definition quite neatly. I took the trouble to find and watch the video of the Monckton presentation being discussed; the use of the swastika symbol was, in my opinion, valid, as Monckton began this very brief section of his presentation with a short dissertation on Adolph Hitler and fascisim in general, with text on the right of the screen and the swastika on the left, his comment about Garnaut fitting in at the end of this section. In my opinion, many comments from normally rational and level-headed sceptics over Monckton’s use of the term ‘Fascist’ is more than a little hysterical. Talking objectively about human behaviour will bog down into meaningless platitudes if some classifying terms are thought to be too vile to be uttered.
I suspect Monckton received exactly the response he wanted from the Pavlovian MSM and I suspect his apology was uttered with his tongue firmly rammed into his cheek.
And Nik from New York; I am very sorry and very sympathetic about your afliction, but most of us have some sort of cross to bear in this world – I have a couple, but I have succeeded at what I wanted to do in spite of them, so my advice to you is to get over youreself. We have to make the best of ‘what is’ or be practical about changing it. Shouting about unfairness is not a practical option.
10
Jo, Watt’s up with Naomi. Has she undergone conversion of some kind?
10
Plse Ignore my last comment . It was my browser putting a veil over her. I cannt seem to get the image posting to work in comments though.
10
cohenite says “and the LW goes into the ocean, doesn’t heat the surface …”
Huh? Oh I suspect you are thinking the heat should just accumulate permanently at the surface? Is that what you expect? That the heat never moves around? LOL!
cohenite says “… and…doesn’t heat the rest; since 2003, when they started measuring these things properly.”
So no comeback for cherry picking a short time frame? You just wish to ignore ALL measurements prior to 2003 because you somehow think they weren’t proper. Oh please do explain how Argo is now measuring properly below 2000 meters, or under polar ice. Or can you explain how 1 float per million cubic kilometers is sufficient, actually far worse than this because Argo floats were deployed over many years. At the start of 2003 only about 600-700 were in use compared to the 3,300 now in operation.
I’d like to hear how you explain it to be adequate when the Argo team themselves declare it is not.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
Why is it you cherry pick the years that show a decline and leave out the more recent Argo data?
It took until 2005 to have 50% of the floats deployed, 2006 before 75% were deployed and only towards the end of 2007 did they break the 3,000 float mark.
What do you see when you look at more recent data from any one of those start dates? Data that is more comprehensive with greater coverage and more accurate results?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/knox-douglass_fig1.png (and I’ve even used WUWT image for you 😉 ).
When the floats were close to fully deployed, the short term trend is UPWARDS! See the danger of cherry picking?
And still you don’t offer any physical scientific reason why you think the heat doesn’t get absorbed by the water. You simply point at small cherry picked timeframes and yell “See!”.
20
John,
If what you come up with is entertainment I’m glad the tickets are free.
I can think of someone who does entertainment. Maybe he’ll give you lessons. 😉
10
[…] Oreskes’ clumsy, venomous smear campaign: busted […]
10
Cohenite,
WRT EMR penetration of water;
The general extinction depth for the bluer part of visible light is typically around 100m. (less for visible red)
However, for LW (mid-infrared) it is about 6 orders of magnitude less, which means that ‘skin’ depth is a good description. This skin reradiates very rapidly like a black body, and the process is effectively rather like that of reflection. Furthermore, it is probable that the skin is cooler than the interface below because the higher energy molecules escape, thus causing evaporative cooling. Conduction downwards would appear to be unlikely because it should be warmer below the skin, and even if that were not the case, say at night or regionally, it is a relatively very slow process. About 40% of sunlight, in the near infrared penetrates relatively well.
10
Coming back to Naomi Oreskes, on 8/Jan/2011, ABC Radio National’s The science Show did a full 1 hour programme on one of her launch talks:
Naomi Oreskes – Merchants of Doubt
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2011/3101369.htm
If you can bear it, the link gives both the audio and a transcript. I’ve had Email intercourse with the ABC on this and related stuff, still in progress.
10
Bob_FJ @93,
Thanks for that link.
It never ceases to amaze me how the number of people who believe something can somehow make it a fact. It’s as if the world actually polls the human race every day to see what it should do.
Oreskes has been so far out on this limb for so long she thinks having nothing under her is normal. God help her when it finally breaks off.
I can only go a little way through her output before I start to feel like all the air is being sucked out of me, leaving only the vacuum where Naomi Oreskes lives. It is terrible.
10
Bob_FJ in 92,
This very subject is being discussed ATM in a warmist fortifide stronghold, the explanation was that OLR is absorbed by CO2 half goes up and half goes down to provide further warming of the surface and AGW is gunna gitus all.
A sane coherent poster informed them that whilst this may work on land it is a different story on water as the OLR can only penetrate one micron of the surface water thus the heat merely warms the very surface, which of course leads to evaporation and ergo a cooling of the oceans. The evaporation then forms part of the hydrologic cycle and is impervious to the AGW theory as the heat is now in the form of water vapor.
This news sent the warmbots into a flat spin which they could not recover from so they regrouped on their usual last line of defence…………sarcasm and name calling. How i would live to see a REAL debate on this issue.
10
Blimey in 89,
You are a fool, dont take that personally but you are a fool. You read some crap over at RC or the like and then come to a place like this and regurgitate the bull shit. Open your F*&^%ing mind man i know you have one dont end up like JB who in my opinion is a gibbering idiot of the highest order.
In regards to ARGO etc you are correct they have not been in service for very long and there numbers are too small to be considered accurate, the sad fact is Blimey this is the best we got. So i agree with you here we have no knowledge of what the ocean temps are now nor in the past but even if they were how many submarine volcanos are there? 10,000, 20,000, 30,000? Surely we need to to mapped the entire sea bed in order to understand how much heat is pouring out of these so we can then gauge how much heat comes from AGW.
You see your problem here Blimey is that you lambast Cohenite for stating scientific fact whilst you remain completely ignorant, Cohenite out of shear frustration points to ARGO. You then claim ARGO is crap (in the early years) but works fine now but you cannot state with accuracy the amount of natural heating of the oceans.
I imagine people like you already have your carbon pollution dollars set aside in anticipation f that great day when we begin healing the planet.
F*&^ Wit
10