The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Lets welcome warming! > Comments

Lets welcome warming! : Comments

By Rafe Champion, published 15/12/2011

Ridley surveyed the evidence on floods, hurricanes, droughts and the like to find no solid evidence to support the alarming claims of global warming by the majority of scientists

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
Matt Ridley - Chairman of the NORTHER ROCK Bank which collapsed and had to be nationalised under his leadership. The susbequent enquiry criticised him for his lack of leadership and HIS FAILURE TO RECOGNISE RISKS.
And you quote this person as an authority?
This book and its arguments are demolished here
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/the-rational-optimist-matt-ridley%E2%80%99s-regurgitation-of-denialist-propaganda/
Posted by shal, Thursday, 15 December 2011 8:43:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shal
Angry ad hominem and links to absent authority with more angry ad hominem.

So persuasive.
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 15 December 2011 9:03:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not quoting Matt Ridley as an authority, merely a source of information. How much credibility do you think the political pronouncements of the IPCC carry in the light of Donna Laframboise's investigation of their procedures? Some of her results can be found here

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/12/10/donna-laframboise-audits-the-ipcc/

and here

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/12/10/ipcc-audit-part-2-the-importance-of-peer-review/
Posted by Pericles2, Thursday, 15 December 2011 9:59:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Irregular verb:

I have integrity
YOU have an agenda

Of course Laframboise would not be pushing her own agenda. She's only in it for the love of the search for knowledge *irony off*.

critique of Laframboise.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R3CSVFIVPLNDF9/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3CSVFIVPLNDF9
Posted by shal, Thursday, 15 December 2011 10:35:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A little more on Matt Ridley's science.

http://skepticalscience.com/Ridleyriddle2.html

And as for lots more fresh water - this is what's occurred in the wake of India's Green Revolution - a limit to soil productivity?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html

More from the realms of productive agriculture and the Western ideology of "let's overdo everything for profit".

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102944731
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 15 December 2011 10:36:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You remind us once again, shal, that there is no science to justify the alarmist scam, so you are reduced to attacking anyone who tells the truth.

There is no basis for assertion that human emissions have any but a negligible effect on climate. The alarmist camp rely on the pathetic “very likely” to which the IPCC is reduced.

If you consider the science, it is extremely unlikely that the effect of human emissions has any significance in climate, and there is certainly no scientific proof.

This is a sample of the criticism of Ridley upon which shal relies. The author does not give a name, so presumably he is another High School Student, or perhaps shal himself:

“He (Ridley) repeats the crudest pieces of denialist propaganda, which anyone with a genuine interest or understanding of science knows are factually incorrect:
• Polar bear populations are rising
• That Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” is broken
• The hoary old “scientists in the 1970s used to believe an ice age was immanent” myth
• Average temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period were higher globally than today”

If you read the Climategate emails you will find that even the Climtegate miscreants were disappointed in Mann’s “crap” as they called it. They also sought to hide the MWP.

James Hansen, Al Gore’s adviser gave the information on which the article in the 70s was based, regarding the coming Ice Age, which remains as much of a possibility today, as global warming.

Gore’s assertion about polar bears collapsed when the facts were examined, and it was found that the populations were rising.

This is more proof that alarmists have to resort to lies and baseless sliming of people who tell the truth, because they have no facts or science to back their position.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 15 December 2011 10:48:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm, the spam-plot thickens (Richie Benaud, eat your heart out).

"Rafe Champion brings the grafting qualities of the opening batsman and the cunning of the offspin bowler to the task of routing dogmatists, protectionists and other riff-raff who stand in the way of peace, freedom and plenty."

He has a website and he blogs at Catallaxy and also at The History of Australian and New Zealand Thought. For more about Rafe visit here. All of his posts on Catallaxy for 2007 can be found at this link. Not all the links work and some need to be cut and pasted into the browser."

The author obviously seems to think Matt Ridley has single handedly debunked 150 years of science and exposed AGW as the biggest fraud and hoax ever played on mankind by not only the vast majority of the world's scientists, but also all of the globe's science academies and institutes.

Sure, there will be some benefits to a warmer and wetter world. However, if the projections turn out to be true (and we're already tracking at the high end), the costs will far outweigh any benefits.

Hey Poirot, do you think the author or any of his fellow travellers here would understand Naomi Klein's article? I think not, they repeat the same mantra and have got nothing new to add.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 15 December 2011 11:55:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Even if you accept AGW is real, which it isn't, then a cost/benefit analysis clearly shows the best approach is to do nothing and adapt; the reason for this is, if AGW is real, which it isn't, because there will be benefits such as increased crop yeilds and more land available for cropping, less deaths and medical costs because people do better in waremth than cold; these benefits are completely ignored by the alarmists and other acolytes of AGW.

Various people have compared the $ benefits and costs of the various approachs to AGW: Happ, Carlin, Nordhaus and Lomborg; in Lomborg's appraisal he values the benefits of doing nothing at $2 trillion world-wide and the costs at 1$ trillion. Lomborg costs the effort, as recommended by the Durban fiasco, of keeping temperatures to 2C increase at $84 trillion and the benefits at only $11 trillion.

Clearly therefore, if AGW is real, which it isn't, the best approach is to do nothing.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 15 December 2011 12:09:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure, bonmot...it's got lots of big words in it : )

But why don't we give it a try.

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 15 December 2011 12:10:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh dear, fail.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 15 December 2011 2:53:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, I don't welcome warming:

Climate-change itself should be no problem and we could manage it quite well, but not the headache we get from the the greens/reds as a reaction to it, which outweighs any possible benefits.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 15 December 2011 2:55:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep, too many big words ... or a low attention span :)
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 15 December 2011 7:43:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot, I think you will find that the majority of the scientists in the world do not support the alarming scenarios propagated by the IPCC and the Garnaut report. You need to realise the way that genuine scientists who do not support the politically correct line are put on the outer by the insiders of the IPCC.

As for the alarming scenarios, you really need to understand the way the climate models are manipulated to get the desired "results". This is explained by Garth Paltridge in "The Climate Caper", summarized here http://www.the-rathouse.com/2011/Paltridge-Climate-Caper.html
Posted by Pericles2, Thursday, 15 December 2011 8:39:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles2,

You mean this Garth Paltridge?

http://skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=104
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 15 December 2011 8:46:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone who references Cook's site is an idiot; Paltridge has many papers including this seminal one on atmospheric humidity being inconsistent with AGW;

http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 15 December 2011 9:18:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, that summary essay; The Climate Caper.

With the forward by the Lord Father Christmas, Christopher Monckton.

Published the 'deniers' publisher of choice (just ask Plimer).

Buy here, yeah - right.

The summary first appeared as a series of posts on the blog Catallaxy.

Yep, spam - that site again.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 15 December 2011 9:26:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh pleeze cohers, you can get suspended for abuse here. Unlike Jo or Jen, no?
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 15 December 2011 9:30:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot an interesting site. Dropping back the main list gives some interesting links. http://skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

Some info on how the list is compiled here http://www.skepticalscience.com/Powell-project.html

One of the dangers of the approach taken in that site is that part of the sceptic position is that the peer review process has been distorted by those pushing the AGW position. Eg if you question AGW then it's hard to get the review.

Not sure how true that is but one of the things that bug's me about this issue is how much sign there appears to be of sceptical voices suffering professionally for doing what scientists should do by questioning.

One of the peer reviewed papers by Sherwood B. Idso (http://skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=131) http://skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=131 appears by title to be relevant to this thread. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwood_B._Idso

One list of Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

I think that there are extremists on both sides of this with no interest in finding the truth. There are those determined to support one side of the argument or the other not because the science is right or because they are really in a position to judge the science (and I'm not) but because one side of the issue suits other priorities.

I can't judge the science, I can see that I'm being told lies and spun to by both sides of the debate. I can see that it's not as settled as some might claim.

I can see that there are some good reasons to reduce reliance on fossil fuels but that some who are so very vocal on that issue would still rather travel in private jets than teleconference. They'd rather build new coal fired power stations than nuclear regardless of nuclear's actual safety record. Some of them still live carbon intensive lives because they can afford to buy credits elsewhere or hide the carbon in the air above China or India.

Settled science is a bothersome concept, not so long ago the speed of light as an absolute was pretty much settled, now it's under serious review.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 15 December 2011 9:34:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A commentary on the rise of special interests funded "think tanks" by Clive Hamilton (which, no doubt, will engender howls of derision from the cheap seats : )

http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=4643
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 15 December 2011 9:58:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem we face,
is THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM not thermal overload.

What sustains life is thermal-gradients or more correctly ENTROPY-gradients.

All THE IPCC models indicate increased ENTROPY-gradients and that is, as people on this blog have generally surmised, good for life.

But there's more to it.

While thermal gradients are ramping up due to CO2 warming, more particularly DEFORESTATION and polluted surface-marine heat-capacity increase are creating a loss of Entropy gradients from polluted to clean, disordered to ordered OR HIGH to LOW ENTROPY.

This is what's most worrying. Its an indication of THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM (death) in the biosphere. There's also a further unorderdness-
a massive loss in important trace elements in agricultural land. These transition elements and lanthenides can only be replaced by volcanic eruptions, not occuring in standard agricultural areas.

Even with warmth, CO2 and Oil based fertilizers, farm production is going to fail without trace elements. Expectations of feeding 8 billion or more are pure IPCC fantasy.

The IPCC's always worried me: they want to control CO2 for ONE REASON: to PANDER to women in the sense that if WE cut CO2 women can have children in an infinite way on a finite planet-IE they'll be HAPPY. This is pure prepubescence.

I am astounded that erstwhile respected scientists claim to know so much about our biosphere but know NOTHING of their own carnal desires.

The problem for the IPCC: by 2030, their beloved women will have contributed to sufficient children, sufficient thermal equilibrium, that life as we know today will be impossible without a major 2/3 CULL of the entire human race.

What's worse, the TOO BIG TO FAIL mentality that always overrules the IPCC is so anti-democratic & bellicose in nature that plans are almost certainly afoot to make huge PROFITS from any such CULL.

Come 2030 I suspect they will be unimmunised & press conferencing a 100-year-3-degree-warming when the virus bombs drop.

Then the NEW RULERS will extirpate fatuous fossil-fuel-backed RENEWABLE ENERGY schemes(including CSG) and go GEOTHERMAL for the next 500 generations. All for THEIR liebensprung children and greater-grandchildren.

Plus ca change ....
Posted by KAEP, Thursday, 15 December 2011 11:10:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot continues to snipe from under his rock without contributing anything to the debate.

If all you are able to do is criticise people who present the facts and science which you do not like, you are no help on this issue.

You want to support the AGW fraud, so how about some science which shows that human emissions have any effect on climate which is scientifically measurable? The IPCC have none, and even if they did, they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy.

If the waterfront dwelling Minister for Lies about Sea Levels, Combet was observed urinating in the water near his waterfront home, we could say it is polluted, but it would not be possible to scientifically prove it, since it would not be measurable.

Seeing human emissions discharged into the atmosphere is not relevant unless it is measurable. This is apart from the fact that CO2 is not pollution, but a trace gas vital to all life on earth.

For that matter, come up with an explanation as to why, with rising CO2 content in the atmosphere, over the whole of the period, there has been no global warming for the last 14 years.

Warming releases CO2, but there is no basis to assert that CO2 causes warming. The greenhouse theory is badly in need of revision.

Apart from the fact that warming has been shown to be beneficial, what possible basis is there for seeking a reduction of human emissions? Human emissions are calculated to contribute 3% of the CO2 cycle, which has a natural variation of 10%. No wonder human emissions are negligible in their effect.

Come on, bonmot, why don’t you and your little mate poirot come up with just one sensible assertion which can be backed by science or fact, and cease your badmouthing of competent people?

Your sliming of competent sensible people who show up the AGW fraud has reached the point where it is unacceptable.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 16 December 2011 11:26:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

Interesting to see that carbon dioxide concentration is way beyond highest historical levels (measured in hundreds of thousand years).

Wonder how that happened?
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 16 December 2011 12:05:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane, I’ve taken the liberty to fix a few typos.

Leo Lane continues to snipe from under his rock without contributing anything to the debate.

Leo Lane can only criticise people who present the facts and science which he does not like, he is no help.

Leo Lane, like a religious fanatic, only believes what he wants to believe – regardless of the truth or how many times it has been shown him.

Leo Lane asserts particular things are immeasurable; why let facts get in the way of his assertions?

Leo Lane does not understand the difference between natural and unnatural variability, or how it is delineated.

Leo Lane wants to overturn 150 years of science with what?

Leo Lane says something is not measurable then says it is.

Leo Lane asserts (by extension) that Leo Lane is competent and sensible.

Leo Lane says: “Come on, bonmot, why don’t you … come up with just one sensible assertion which can be backed by science or fact ...?”

Bonmot has three sensible assertions that can be backed by science and fact;

Leo Lane suffers from;

1. Dissonance of cognition
2. Confirmation bias
3. Motivational reasoning

To such an extent that it has become unacceptable.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 16 December 2011 1:27:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone who relies on NASAGISS for information about AGW is an idiot; for recent historical levels of CO2 see:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/userfiles/Ice-core_corrections_report_2.pdf

And:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/

The conclusions being:

CO2 levels from the Early Holocene through pre-industrial times were highly variable and not stable as the Antarctic ice cores suggest.


The carbon and climate cycles are coupled in a consistent manner from the Early Holocene to the present day.


The carbon cycle lags behind the climate cycle and thus does not drive the climate cycle.

The lag time is consistent with the hypothesis of a temperature-driven carbon cycle.


The anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and inconsequential.
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 16 December 2011 3:59:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, bonmot for confirming my statement that you have nothing to say pertinent to the issue.

Your repetition of my post with names replaced so that it is completely inapplicable, conveys a further clue to the state of your mind.

To what 150 years of science do you refer, bonmot?

Examine every year of it for any science which shows that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

Same question, and since you have no answer to it, you will come up with another evasion, or just disappear, as is your wont when challenged to back up your insupportable nonsense.

Let us hope that your next evasion is not quite as puerile as your current effort.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 16 December 2011 4:19:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Seeing human emissions discharged into the atmosphere is not relevant unless it is measurable” should read

“Seeing human emissions discharged into the atmosphere is not relevant unless its effect is measurable”

You said you fixed the typos, beanbag.

Another misrepresentation, or show of incompetence, by our self styled hero.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 16 December 2011 4:36:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles2

I am well aware of the SRES, thank you – some scenarios are alarming, some are not.

.

“idiot” cohenite, your favourite flame.

.

Leo Lane

Repeating the same rant in every post, on every blog, on every other day, does not exactly inspire one to have meaningful dialogue with you, Leo. This is despite the fact that numerous people, numerous times, have given you the answers to your fatuous questions and your own bombastic assertions.

Just because you don’t understand the answers (or most likely, don’t want to understand the answers) does not make them wrong. Therefore, your repeated rants just add weight and more credence to your affliction … cognitive dissonance.

Leo, you have got your thumbs ensconced in your ears and your fingers stuck in your eyes, as you metaphorically shout to the world –> I ... C.A.N’.T ... H.E.A.R … Y.O.U..!

One more thing my dearest impudent and impertinent prat, no one is really listening to you anymore, get it?

Quite frankly, that might also explain why no one is answering you either (except maybe your fellow travellers). Perhaps that may also explain why you appear to becoming so much more shrill. Seek help, seriously.

.

Calling people; idiot, liar, beanbag, big fake froggy denier, whatever, and then linking to spin-spam ... is also not very persuasive, imho.
Posted by bonmot, Friday, 16 December 2011 8:54:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There was just one question bonmot, that I asked you to answer.

Where is the science which shows that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate?

Just answer that one question or point me to where anyone, as you falsely allege, has answered me.

This diversion from the fact that you are able to give no answer is as puerile as your last effort.

I cannot recall a post of yours where you have not made a fool of yourself, in your failure to address the topic, and your pathetic evasions.

You have provided no basis for your support of the AGW myth.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 16 December 2011 9:20:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Leo,

Admire your persistence but daresay you're not going to get anywhere with bonmot

Have long suspected that --definitely in the case of Poirot --and likely also in the case of bonmot, commitment to AGW is symptomatic of a deeper pre-existing I-hate-capitalism malaise.

See R0bert's post above: some insightful comments but Poirot was to pre-occupied with her usual song and dance routine to take it in.
Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 17 December 2011 5:52:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saying it again SPQR, just like Leo?

Ok, me too:

Last paragraph: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12604#218282

Which part of "science is never settled and it is certainly not absolute" do you not understand?

Followed by:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11513&page=0

Embedded comments in particular.

You could take a leaf out of RObert's book - you won't, and you don't.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 17 December 2011 6:10:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR,

On the contrary, I read RObert's contribution with interest. One couldn't help but note his usual balanced delivery. I'm not sure I agree with the "extremists on both sides" line. I think there is a lot to lose by some if the present "system" of excess is altered in any way.
Our clever species has employed scientific method to improve its lot and address many challenges - and yet now it is rejecting the same science that has the impudence to tell it something it doesn't want to hear.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 17 December 2011 7:22:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would be appropriate, here, to remember the words of Hal Lewis, an accomplished scientist and long standing member of the American Physical Society, who when unable to have the APS withdraw a false statement supporting AGW, said in his letter of resignation, in respect of the corruption in science:

“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.”

Nigel Calder says:” So many eminent folk from science, politics, industry, finance, the media and the arts have been taken in by man-made climate catastrophe. (In London, for example, from the Royal Society to the National Theatre.) Sadly for them, in the past ten years they’ve crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash.”

Hopefully there will be more than a Hall of Shame for perpetrators like Al Gore and the IPCC. We need the equivalent of a Royal Commission in every country which has suffered from this fraud, and prosecutions of the corrupt perpetrators.

The Hall of Shame will obviously be packed, considering the widespread corruption necessary to support this fraud. Despite beanbag’s efforts, he might be squeezed out by force of numbers.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 17 December 2011 11:54:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Corruption, fraud, conspiracy, hoax, scam, plot, shysters, con-artists, culprits, criminals, charlatans, idiots, perpetrators, beanbags, big fake froggy deniers ... people, you get the drift?

Words of a paranoid shill perhaps? Then again, who cares?

Re: Harold - see what these "fraudsters" say in response;

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

or the so called "beanbags’ policy"

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

And another octogenarian in Nigel (bless the dear old soul) Calder, who in 1980 predicted that within 20 years:

"The much-advertised heating of the earth by the man-made carbon-dioxide ‘greenhouse’ [will fail] to occur;
Instead, there will be renewed concern about cooling and an impending ice age".

I agree with the sad old chap in at least one respect – there ain’t going to be a climate catastrophe anytime soon – not even the “impending ice age”, not for thousands of years anyway.

Royal Commissions in every country, eh? ROFLMHO
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 17 December 2011 2:28:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The APS’s excuse for their dishonest behaviour:

“On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

•Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
•Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
•The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.”

They mean, of course, apart from the 32,000 scientists who signed the petition to the US Senate to delay any action on global warming. The petition stated:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.”

The APS went on to say that “relatively few APS members conduct climate change research.”

Why then, did they feel impelled to make a statement on something that concerned few of their members, and why discount the observations of one of their senior and respected members who demonstrated extensive knowledge of the field?

They did not directly deny what Hal Lewis said about the science. They said that Lewis’ statement that the APS had anything to gain financially from the scam was untrue. Of course, Lewis made no such statement.

Nigel Calder is a respected and senior journalist, who has followed the global warming debate from its inception. His father is Lord Lawson, who also took a deep interest in, and is authoritive on science.

beanbag’s scurrilous sliming of honest competent people is unacceptable. If he has an explanation for the lack of science to support AGW, and for the dishonesty of the alarmists generally, and of the APS in particular, let him put it forward.

Incoherent rants, and reference back to already discredited statements simply underline his inability to give any honest scientific backing for the assertions he has made in support of the AGW fraud.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 17 December 2011 9:02:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Incoherent rants ... reference back to already discredited statements ... inability to give any honest scientific backing for assertions"

You are such a joke Leo - it is you who says Lord Lawson is Nigel Calder's father.

He is NOT. Nigel Calder is 80 years old this year.
Besides, Nigel Calder did not change his surname, even if you think he did.

Leo, in picking a fight with yourself (only seeing what you want to see) you miss;

>> there ain’t going to be a climate catastrophe anytime soon <<

I don't know which part of that statement you or your Oregon petitioner's don't understand Leo, but there are 100's of 1,000's of scientists all over the globe (members of various academies of sciences and scientific institutions) who also concur - catastrophic global warming ain't going to happen any time soon.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 17 December 2011 10:49:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So the Peer who was Nigel Calder’s father is not Lord Lawson.. He was Lord Peter Ritchie Calder

You might explain, beanbag, how my using the wrong name for Nigel Calder’s father warrants any attention when it is irrelevant to the topic.

The topic is why you back the global warming fraud, without any scientific or factual evidence, and evade answering any reasonable question about it.

The main question at the moment, is why you continue to quote lies from previously reputable bodies like the APS, the Royal Society, and the countless politicised government bobies as if they are relevant to science.

They are relevant to fraud.

You are being asked for some science, which you persistently fail to supply, to back your false assertions in support of the AGW fraud.

Hal Lewis did not say that the APS profited from the AGW fraud, the non statement that the APS statement denied.

What he said was in relation to the President’s personal situation:

“Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise”

There was no denial of that statement, by the APS fraud backers.

They continue to ignore the science. Nigel Calder does not believe that the fraud can be sustained in the face of clear scientific evidence, from CERN, that the AGW assertion is dead in the water.

If he is wrong, then corruption trumps science.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 18 December 2011 8:56:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's welcome warming?....arctic sea ice declines to second lowest level.

http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2011/arctic-sea-ice-continues-decline-reaches-second-lowest-level

Joining the dots on climate denial.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2775298.html
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 18 December 2011 8:56:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> You might explain, beanbag, how my using the wrong name for Nigel Calder’s father warrants any attention when it is irrelevant to the topic. <<

Because Leo, you asserted Lord Lawson was Nigel Calder's father.

Simple evidence of you;

* making an incoherent rant

* referencing back to already discredited statements

* being incapable of backing-up your own assertions

All of which you accuse others of, Leo - which is and of itself a symptom of a psychological disorder. I believe they call it transference.

Like I said Leo, seek help.
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 18 December 2011 10:10:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone who links to and refers to Readfearn is an idiot.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 18 December 2011 6:51:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

I note you have rather a limited repertoire...to be expected perhaps.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 18 December 2011 7:01:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You're an idiot Poirot.
Posted by cohenite, Sunday, 18 December 2011 8:19:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

I give up - I'm no match for your dastardly and incisive wit...too profound for me : )
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 18 December 2011 8:36:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot mon amie, the dots ... yes.

Cohenite and his troop helped support/fund Monckton's recent Autralia visit. Surprised?
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 18 December 2011 9:16:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's too hard to work out who started slagging who first, but a number of you are at it. I'll delete the next person who is abusive to someone else on this thread. You might try discussing the article instead of arguing about personalities.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 18 December 2011 11:24:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Graham,

Yep...been trying to discuss the issues. cohenite seems to regard every link I include as the last refuge of an "idiot"....and now apparently I'm an idiot whatever I do.

I'm not phased, however, that particular form of abuse is a tad vacuous and lacking in creative verve.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 18 December 2011 11:45:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've been verballed; everytime I call somebody an idiot I give salient, cogent reasons for doing so.

I guess my dander is up because I find it incomprehensible that anyone could argue in support of AGW science when, as the 2nd release of emails plainly shows, the AGW scientists privately admit their science is wrong, inadequate, hopeless and, as one said, crap. Yet publically they say the science is settled and allow witless/duplicitous governments to introduce profoundly destructive policy on the basis of this failed science.

The word for this is not idiot, which still applies to anyone who argues in favour of this 'science', but hypocrite.

For a slightly more detailed analysis of how the AGW science is wrong as conceded by the AGW scientists see:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3707172.html
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 19 December 2011 8:00:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony (I mean cohenite) - why not just link to the web-site?

Here, let me help:

http://climatesceptics.net/author/anthony-cox/

ssssshhhhh cohers, just between you and me ... science is never settled.

One problemo, some people take that statement out of context - as they do with certain emails.

Some people do it unintentionally, for they don't know any better.

Some people do it intentionally, for scurrilous and nefarious reasons.

Most people know who the idiots are Anthony, and Poirot is not one of them.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 19 December 2011 8:30:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Typical bonmot; anonymous disciples of the AGW scam patronising sceptics and legitimate commentators.

I notice you didn't provide any detail as to how there was any taking out of context, an argument which is the last refuge of AGW scammers; the AGW scientists are hypocrites and so are you.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 19 December 2011 9:40:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite
>> I notice you didn't provide any detail as to how there was any taking out of context. <<

Perhaps you should read the comments to your own link. Try here:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3707172.html

As one commenter notices about one of your claims, quoted:

“Clouds do not reflect heat!

Heat does not enter our atmosphere from the sun.

INSOLATION (INcoming SOLar radiATION) enters our atmosphere.
Of this insolation some (about 26%) is reflected back into space by the atmosphere and clouds, some (about 19%) is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds and some (about 55%) makes it to the surface where about 51% is absorbed and about 4% is reflected back into space.

Heat is only generated when radiation is absorbed by a body. As to it's transfer this is done by physical means (convection, conduction, etc.). All warm bodies also lose some energy as radiation, this why you can see a fire.

If you are going to put yourself forward as someone arguing scientific merit, I suggest you understand the basics principles of your topic first.” End quote.

Cohenite, you also claimed to have a degree in Climatology.

Even "idiots" and "hypocrites" like me know a Bachelor of Arts with geography ‘sub-major’ is not Climatology but simply delusional.
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 19 December 2011 10:39:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Drat this comment quota, it must play havoc with the turn-over.

Anyway bonmot has gone the old ad hom; which is pathetic, and typical; and redundant because Michael Brown, astronomer to the stars, has already been assiduous in making accusations about qualifications; the accusations are rebutted here:

https://theconversation.edu.au/how-david-beckham-caused-global-warming-the-man-u-climate-model-4548

Geography back in the 60’s and 70’s was still where hard physical science involving observations, measurements and theory was dealt with as the contemporary course descriptions readily indicate. Today it is the repository of sustainability, ecotists and gaia worshippers. I deeply regret that change for the worse.

But 2 years of climate studies back in the good old days justifies the initial claim, which in any event has been changed to reflect the 2 year status; if you don’t like it, too bad.

As for bonmot’s quote supposedly demolishing the basics of the article; there were 3 genuine criticisms of the article; one concerned the Fu et al paper, another the McShane and Wyner paper, both of which were answered before the comments closed. The 3rd was dealt with at the above link to the conversation.

Bonmot’s one about clouds doesn’t rate because in any discussion about AGW it is meaningless to separate the radiative properties of clouds from their heating and cooling properties. In any event the point about the failure of the models to understand clouds was from the emails not the article!
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 19 December 2011 7:37:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok, roger that.

Cohenite thinks it ok to label detractors as "idiots" yet then has the audacity to play the 'old ad hom' canard.

Who are the hypocrites again, Anthony?

Yep, who am I to call you delusional if you think a 40 year-ago geography sub major in an arts degree is the same as todays real climatologist, or atmospheric physicist, or meteorologist, or ... others might get the drift. I'm sure Roy Spencer or the IPCC Chair would be amused at the mendacity of your claims, but there you go.

Tell you what Anthony, when you publish your 'thesis' in the Journal of Climatology (say) not your blog, not OLO, or any other of your favourite haunts) we will take notice. Until then you will not get any more traction from this simple minded "idiot" ;)
Posted by bonmot, Monday, 19 December 2011 10:53:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

"I've been verballed; everytime I call somebody and idiot I give salient, cogent reasons for doing so"

Oh really...every time?

"You're an idiot Poirot."

....anyhoo, this idiot assumes that the other idiot, bonmot, is a tad more informed than your average OLO climate blusterer.

I think you should kindly ask him to explain the science to you - I'm sure if you asked nicely, he'd be happy to oblige.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 19 December 2011 11:45:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Verballed again:

"you think a 40 year-ago geography sub major in an arts degree is the same as todays real climatologist, or atmospheric physicist, or meteorologist, or ... others might get the drift. I'm sure Roy Spencer or the IPCC Chair would be amused at the mendacity of your claims,"

Never said that but I did study climatology; and what a stupid conjunction, Spencer and Pauchuri.

Anyway you 2 clowns, bonmot and Poirot, are not here to discuss science. If you were you would have congratulated me on explaining Fu et al, McShane and Wyner and pointing out the connection of water with the lapse rate and why a THS can't be explained by the failed theory of AGW.

And it is a failed theory which is propped up by proven liars, at a political, scientific and business level, and supported by a shrinking coven of self-regarding elites like you 2 clowns.

But go on guys, explain why my explanation of the relation of water with the lapse rate is wrong; prove me wrong; I go the full yards with my attempt to explain the science; all I get from you 2 is rubbish about inadequate qualifications; prove me wrong.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:32:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

My science qualifications are inadequate - although the same can't be said for bonmot.

I'm more interested in the socio-economic machinations that drive the denialist movement...the big oil sponsorship...the latent threat to the capitalist status quo, etc. - and the employment on non-scientists such as Lord Monckton to push the agenda.

I have faith in the "scientists" to elaborate on the 'science".

Interesting article posted in OLO's general section this morning:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/-1p2hl.html.... a psychological perspective to climate change skepticism.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:56:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I'm more interested in the socio-economic machinations that drive the denialist movement...the big oil sponsorship...the latent threat to the capitalist status quo, etc. - and the employment on non-scientists such as Lord Monckton to push the agenda."

This is what is pushing me away from blogging; there is no point; "the denialist movement"; there is no "denialist movement"; there is only an unproven thesis that extra CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, primarily, is producing, initially, global warming but subsequently "dangerous" and by implication, unnatural climate change.

Not only unproven but disproved.

What is left is a belief and there is no point arguing with people about their beliefs because that only intensifies those beliefs; especially when it is a belief which has huge amounts of funding; the disparity between what sceptics receive [in my case nothing] and the subsidisation of the pro-AGW groups is enormous and growing; the reason for this is simple; big business will always queue up when governments are giving away money which is what the Australian government is doing; so big business is investing in 'green' to get back those government funds.

So, AGW is a belief and a business; almost insurmountable.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:00:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How is this thread now about qualifications?

The answer sought from beanbag, is what scientific basis is there, for asserting that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

He has not answered the question, yet still backs the AGW fraud, with no scientific basis for his stance.

He will talk about anything but his own mendacity as he evades the question.

He considers that I need help. I thought I was managing simply by telling the truth and pointing to clear evidence of the dishonesty of the fraud backers, starting with the Climategate emails. People who believe that the Climategate miscreants can be cleared are badly in need of help.

As for boreot, who has brought out the tired old Arctic Ice nonsense, he is probably beyond help. The Arctic ice goes away every summer to the cries of the alarmists, and comes back every winter, when they try to distract us with some other nonsense.

Thanks for the opportunity to point out once again the moral bankruptcy of the AGW fraud backers.

I will devote the rest of this week to my small but productive business, then take a break until next year.

Merry Christmas, and best wishes for a carbon tax free future.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:29:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo lane,

"The Arctic ice goes away every summer.....and comes back every winter."

That's as simplistic a response as I've ever heard.

The measurement was of the "annual minimum extent". this reached the second lowest level in2011 - "a near record melt".

Further to that, the article states that "Atmospheric and oceanic conditions were not as conducive to ice loss this year, but the melt still neared 2007 levels...It looks like spring ice cover is so thin now that large areas melt out in summer, even without persistent weather patterns."

Leo lane, you understate the importance of Arctic ice cover in your simplistic explanation....the significance of the reflective properties of the Arctic ice sheet is a critical dimension in analysing climate change.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 20 December 2011 11:17:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, responding on a public computer in transit. There is nothing nice to be obliging about, you see this, others see this. Idiots, clowns and beanbags have no chance of being given any modicum of respect. Graham quite rightly chimed in but hey, it cuts both ways.

No matter - nothing is going to change the minds or attitudes of those so steadfast in their beliefs. There is nothing in this article that hasn't been addressed before. Not going to feed them no more (good title for a song:) Gotta go.
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 20 December 2011 4:18:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bonmot,

Have to agree with you there : )
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 20 December 2011 4:33:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“...expressed by the Chief Scientist (interestingly, not a climate scientist”
This is good news for our overburdened health industry; apparently it's a waste of time consulting a doctor unless one is oneself a doctor.
Fresh Water: we don't have to worry about dying of thirst, because so many people will have already died of thirst...
Sea level: “The most plausible prediction is for a rise of about 1 foot per century” Plausible, that is, to people who don't believe it will rise at all. Cognitive dissonance.
“Coastal flooding will increase slightly in some places...” Breathtakingly thoughtless. According to Don Hinrichsen, United Nations consultant and author:
“Recent studies have shown that the overwhelming bulk of humanity is
concentrated along or near coasts on just 10% of the earth’s land surface. As of 1998, over half the population of the planet — about 3.2 billion people — lives and works in a coastal strip just 200
kilometers wide (120 miles), while a full two-thirds, 4 billion, are found within 400 kilometers of a coast.”

Food: “Quite simply, mild warming plus more CO2 means more productive farming, more food from the same area. After all, CO2 is an essential plant food...”
Rubbish. Firstly, CO2 is just one ingredient. A small increase in CO2 cannot in any way compensate for dumping millions of tons of phosphate, sulphur, potassium and trace elements into the oceans. Secondly, green house growers who use CO2 as a growth accelerant have to use levels so high that workers have to be issued with breathing apparatus, or only increase the CO2 for periods when no mammals (like humans, for instance) are present.
Thirdly, what is the point of increasing CO2 when the very things that benefit most (trees) are being cut down at egregious rates?
Collateral benefits: zero.
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 8:52:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim, why don't you catch that bus that poirot and bonmot are on going to sooky land; what complete alarmist drivel, quoting a UN author no less; the UN is the world's biggest and most corrupt bureacracy; when has the UN ever been right about anything? Yet all of a sudden we are supposed to accept it is right about not only the weather for next week but what the climate is going to be in a century.

Sea levels are actually falling and your comments about CO2 concentrations in greenhouse is grotesque; about 1000 ppm is ideal for most plants and that level is less than in a closed room with 2 people in it.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 10:57:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

"Sea levels are actually falling...."

Is that so?

Perhaps you might like to provide a relevant link.

When I was six on a bus on the way to the beach, an old gentleman told me that someone had pulled out the plug and all the water at the beach had gone. (I was actually quite disappointed when we arrived and the water was still there).

Did you happen to meet an old gentleman on a bus....
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 11:27:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was that old gentleman on the bus poirot; I like scaring kids; grown-ups too.

Sea level dropping:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262

Note the usual disclaimer at the end confirming AGW; I love it; even when the evidence is so strong against AGW the officials have to concede it they still say, "just you wait, the bogeyman will come back".
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 11:50:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, betcha you can see what the geography undergraduate (I mean self proclaimed "climatologist") can't see in that NASA graph.

It's obvious he hasn't done time series statistical analysis.

Sheesh, following his thought processes, I bet he could argue it's going to be winter in 6 months time.

Here's a trick question that will confuse him - which hemisphere?

Must be getting cracked over at his, JoNova's or Jen's blog to spout such drivel over here.
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 1:15:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nasty little chap aren't you bonmot; I don't have to do the time series statistical analysis it was done here which also answers your stupid [you've graduated from idiot to stupid, congratulations] "trick" question about hemispheres:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/nasa-notes-sea-level-is-falling-in-press-release-but-calls-it-a-pothole-on-road-to-higher-seas/

And here's a nice little article about NASA 'doctoring' of sea level rise:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/05/11/nasa-funded-group-doctors-sea-level-data/

Bonmot, I'm happy to discuss the 'science' of AGW anywhere, anytime because I know I'm on a winner since the AGW science is a pack of lies.

I think this is my quota of comments in this shift so in anticipation of you or your chum poirot saying something stupid: stupid.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 2:31:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahh yes, should have known - where all aspiring "climatologists" gravitate to - WUWT.

Of course, "alarmists" do bang on about catastrophic sea level rise - they couldn't be further from the truth. Nevertheless, it will be bad enough, particularly for some.

Similarly, the extremists on the other side ('wannabes' and 'fake sceptics') bang on about AGW being a "pack of lies". Nothing new about that either.

>> Bonmot, I'm happy to discuss the 'science' of AGW anywhere, anytime because I know I'm on a winner ... <<

Ok spinner, show me your (Anthony Cox) 'thesis' published in a reputable journal, say the Journal of Climatology - I will discuss it there, like how real science is done. You knew that, no?

No, cohenite doesn't know that. He thinks science can be 'won' or 'lost' on public blog-sites.

.

Happy and healthy festive season everybody, see you next year.
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 4:37:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To me the great believers in the climate debate are those think a 50% increase in CO2 levels will have no effect on temperature or the climate.

Some of those I have had personal conversation with include university Geology and Maths lecturers.

I generally ask what mechanism allows them to ignore the physics inherent in that mass of CO2, its affect on both temperature and energy in the atmosphere. I say prove to me it just doesn't matter. They almost never try.

This is an important point, the burden of proof lies with the sceptics since they are the true believers. It is like there is an elephant in the room sitting in the corner asleep but they treat it like it isn't there, or deserving of the merest acknowledgement before they get back to their haranguing of the rest of us.

This article at least puts a lampshade on the elephant's head to give it some utility but the premise is the thing will stay asleep, never awaken, never fart, or stretch out,or go berserk, or look for food, or take a dump, all things that would play havoc in a small room.

The field guide says these things are possible, indeed some are probable, but since it hasn't really stirred since we got here why spoil the party. In fact lets turn the music up.

The modern flatearthers?
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 5:04:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Your links seem to lead back to the Heartland Institute...ho hum...

http://heartland.org/anthony-watts

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/

I'm curious about the penchant for climate change skeptics to resort to name-calling....is there a special course one does to hone one's skills in this area? If so, it's a dismal failure if the best you can come up with is "idiot" and "stupid".

Merry Christmas all!
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 5:26:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here you are bonmot; discuss this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1650

Poirot, I insult to the level of understanding of the target audience.

I see the hysteria continues with csteele asserting that sceptics have the burden of proof of DISPROVING AGW; legally that is wrong; people asserting things have to prove what they are asserting; more generally this person should google falsifiability, Popper and the impossibility of disproving something which has no contradictory position such as global warming which was described by greenpeace as "global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter." How do you disprove that; everything proves it!

AGW is a scam; people supporting it are impossible to talk to since they are irrational; in my last post I gave links to cogently argued evidence about sea levels being exggerated by AGW authority; not one meaningful response, just dismissed with the usual ad hom and deference to authority which says unless it supports AGW it must be wrong.

Hopeless.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 5:59:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear cohenite,

Once you have finished with the blustering the CO2 is still there my friend and you are the one asserting it will have zero effect. Deal with it and we have a conversation, don't and you are just like any other flat earther or creationist, just like them you want to suspend the laws of physics for an ideology.

Come on big fella, show us whatcha got!
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 6:14:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, so it's really a case of Anthony Cox closing his eyes, clasping his ears, and yelling:

'LOOK AT ME!, LOOK AT ME!, LOOK AT ME!'

http://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/0907.1650

and

http://arxiv.org/help/not-registered.html

Oops :(

Nope, doesn't cut it spinner, except in your mind perhaps ... unsurprising.

What was your thesis, again, Anthony?

Wait, don't bother.

Have a Merry Christmas, really.

Bye
Posted by bonmot, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 6:26:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

It's interesting that you label people who reference NASA sites as "idiots".

But then you link to Anthony Watts' site.

Anthony Watts is apparently a weatherman....

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 6:53:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, the echo chamber. If there was a article that typified it, this is it. Rafe Champion is your average noob, just like the rest of us. And here he is telling us he has been inspired by the thoughts of Matt Ridley, who has no particular expertise in the subject. I wonder how long it will be before we see someone relying on Rafe Champion's expert opinion in the area.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 22 December 2011 11:15:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This time out concept is frustrating.

Bonmot and poirot are upset I called them idiots and stupid and, especially in bonmot's case, then act idiotic and stupidly to prove me wrong; for instance, instead of discussing the paper by Stockwell I linked to, as he requested, bonmot tries to dig up dirt about authorship and yells stupidly; and ironically. Nice one bonmot; have you hit puberty yet?

The Stockwell and Cox 'break' paper raises an important issue of temperature change being concentrated at well documented and major climatic events, such as happened in 1976-1977. The "climate shift" in 1976-77 is well documented by dozens of papers but the Stockwell paper was the first to correlate it with temperature. Another recent paper has confirmed this:

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/2011-09.pdf

McKitrick et al confirm that the temperature increase post 1976-7 was almost entirely due to the climatic shift in that 2 year period. Normal linear regression analysis of temperature data 'spreads' that concentrated temperature shift over the full 20 year or so period, giving a false impression that temperature is increasing in step with CO2 increase. This is wrong.

The lack of involvement of CO2 in modern temperature movement is confirmed by the step-down in temperature with another climate shift post 1998, shown in the Stockwell paper and also confirmed by other papers, such as Swanson and Tsonis who isolate the shift to 2002, reflecting their use of a longer data stream.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 22 December 2011 11:53:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite

A search of the ‘International Journal of Forecasters’ from 2009 to end 2011 did not reveal any published paper by Stockwell, let alone you.

http://www.forecasters.org/ijf/journal-issue/455

Volumes 25 through 27

As contributing “author” to Stockwell's paper, you would have known this – why the spin, Cox?

I do note the paper by Stockwell has been “published” on various blogs, Cox. And it may well have been submitted to IJF, but it certainly hasn’t been published. For all I know, they haven’t even ‘accepted’ it, and the only review it has had is by your fellow bloggers.

Cohenite, I have better things to do leading up to Christmas and the New Year than to “discuss” a paper that hasn’t even been published in a journal. Perhaps you’re really asking for a “review”. My god man, even the author says of you, “He has an interest in oceanographic regime-shifts and climate change”. Well whoopee-doo-doo – cohenite has an “interest in climate change’.

Doesn’t exactly sound like the “climatologist” that you think you are, eh?

Anthony, what that Stockwell link demonstrates is that you do not have the necessary and sufficient expertise in time series statistical analysis, as initially suspected. In fact, your latest ‘bait and switch’ is just that. This might surprise you petal, it's not about you, no matter how much you might want it to be.

Btw, I also note Stockwell says there is an underlying anthropogenic global warming trend – disputing what you assert here on OLO.

Btw Btw, you really must try and get a handle on post limits – OLO does that for a reason, it just seems to have blown through your inflated head-space.
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 22 December 2011 5:13:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it incredible that someone could say; “The lack of involvement of CO2 in modern temperature movement is confirmed by the step-down in temperature with another climate shift post 1998”.

Sounds like 'It's not an elephant, it's a lamp! See I can switch it on and off.'

And the rest of us retort, 'Just look at the thing will you, it's a goddam elephant'.

The reply, 'Nope, just a lamp'.

How on earth does 700,000 plus million tonnes of extra CO2 in the atmosphere not have an involvement in temperature movement? What physical property of this gas do they want us to dismiss?

We would love a clear and precise explanation. A straight forward mechanism. For them to hit the proverbial nail on the head. Not to sling data sets around, just to talk to us about the physics.

Show us the money!

They never cough up.
Posted by csteele, Thursday, 22 December 2011 7:23:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What the Stockwell paper shows is that any AGW impact is either minor or through change of climatic patterns such as the Walker Circulation which Stockwell addresses in another paper not submitted for publication:

http://landshape.org/enm/files/2011/01/walkerarticle.pdf

That being the case it is likely that AGW is minor at best and has a low Climate Sensitivity; something confirmed by many recent papers, notably by Spencer and Braswell and Lindzen and Choi, and starting to be grudgingly conceded by that bastion of truth and justice, the UN's sockpuppet, the IPCC.

As for being about me; nope; you're the one, bonmot, who has made it about me; I've only ever wanted to talk about the science; your gratutitous insults make it plain you have no science; idiot.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 22 December 2011 7:52:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Generally on this forum it is frowned upon to refer to fellow contributors as idiots and such like. No one seems to have bothered to click on the red cross, probably because watching you continually resort to such puerile insult has been entertaining in itself.

My advice is that if you wish to be taken seriously and "talk about the science" then you should examine your posting style.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 22 December 2011 8:01:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I didn't follow-through my threat earlier on in this thread, but I now have time and I'm taking action now. Poirot, Bon Mot and Cohenite have all been suspended. It doesn't look to me that there is much difference between the exchanges of any of them. Graham Moderator
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 22 December 2011 8:44:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A red cross for calling someone an idiot? You must be joking? I've supplied link after link to papers and indicated a willingness to discuss the science; bonmot is acting like an angry groupie going around trying to dig up 'dirt'; give your avuncular advice to him.

In respect of the Stockwell paper about the 'break' in temperature a similar analysis was done by Breusch and Vahid, whose update to their 2008 paper was featured in Garnaut's 2nd update which is discussed here:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/garnaut%e2%80%99s-second-update-sceptics-are-the-white-swans/

However, while B&V also statisticially isolate a 1976 break, the deterministic method is stronger than their unit root analysis which leads them to dismiss the 1998 break. The point about that which Garnaut didn't seem to appreciate is that the unit root analysis by B&V is by necessity not associated with periodic macro-climate features or supportive of a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature.

Anyway I find it amazing that anyone would stoop to the old peer reviewed criteria for dismissing any aspect of the AGW discussion; peer review in AGW is shot to pieces and has been revealed as a self-serving process by the scientists working in the field. The real analysis has always been in the blogs by the likes of McIntyre, lucia, Jeff Id and increasingly Curry.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 22 December 2011 8:44:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Cactus..2, Tuesday, 27 December 2011 12:12:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy