Curmudgeon/Mark Lawson

Q&A may be the only poster to remark on topic, however, the “AGW hardliners” as you describe them, are capable of seeing the bleedin’ obvious. With apologies for sounding like a broken down record player, allow me to again quote:

“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.”

Unfortunately you et al appear not to get the connection for the article is merely flogging a dead horse on the few vagaries which remain on climate change, though I note that many “deniers” have reverted to the term “global warming” to enhance their argument that we’re in for an ice age!

Fortunately many of us are more acutely aware of the “here and now” which is physical, visual and scientific and far more urgent than addressing the issue of climate change in some distant geologic time warp to maintain the status quo - the bomb and destroy proposal!

We are acutely aware that the “web” is in a bad way. We are acutely aware that the planet’s eco-systems are failing to survive man’s unmitigated abuse and we have a working knowledge of environmental toxicology which has, without fail, eluded the attention of the sceptics.

The urgent remediation solutions to restore our eco-systems, to ensure man’s survival, is the same solution to mitigate climate change – cease carbon pollution! Unfortunately Mark Lawson, we cannot have it both ways as you are suggesting, by delaying remedial action.

The “Cretaceous, about 50 to 100 million years ago” referred to in the article, or any other past warming period, did not have 6.7 billion homosapiens helping themselves to the earth’s resources or digging up carbon sinks.

I have yet to read an article by a sceptic which displays the slightest hint of an altruistic motive.

Until they address the bleedin’ obvious, the whole "web," the dire situation of our eco-systems and the problem of overpopulation, readers are fully justified in presuming these authors are imposters.

Proving that all things are connected in the web of life, when dickie posts a comment there, my stomach convulses with laughter here!

Just so I can remember the joke, it is "deniers" who are now "reverting" to using the term "global warming", and "whether we’re heading for a warming or an ice age is no longer number one concern for this nation." Priceless.

Things may all be connected, but for most people, this begins with the neurons in their heads. For dickie, everything in this "connected" world can nonetheless be broken down into a series of isolated placard slogans, without any comprehension of their interrelation. dickie is like (still is?) the child who complains about the heat, then the wind in her hair when Daddy drives her to the shop to get her an ice cream, then the cold and the mess when she drops it on her leg, then at Daddy for not buying her another one, then at Daddy for driving the big, polluting car, etc etc. She has just extended this rant to the Big World, while others were getting an education. I suspect Daddy had his own motivations for shoving an ice cream in her mouth.

There may be a web, but some try to make sense of it and work with it, while some like dickie get lost in it, makes it worse with a tangle of thought and deceit, and when they aren't heard, just scream louder and adopt the hifalutin language of the spoilt and morally superior Princess ("We are acutely aware..." "Readers are justified..."

You may run and play now, dickie, but don't breathe too hard - all that carbon pollution, you know!

Fungochumley “Proving that all things are connected in the web of life, when dickie posts a comment there, my stomach convulses with laughter here!”

I know what you mean

Dickie is so involved in “the web of life”, she probably braids her pubic hair.

Hi Dickie, still running away from your fraudulent accusations which I have called you on, to identify the 'lies' you previously claimed I have posted… I am patient and prepared to stalk you for as long as it takes.

Btw fungochumley, intriguing name… what is its origin?

Fungochumley,

Let me see if I understand you. If you don’t agree ridicule the individual by misinterpreting and applying the political ‘question time’ style avoid addressing the substance approach. That is
• Acknowledge minor point… implies reasonability and credibility.
• Change the context
• Then use “reduction to the ridiculous tactic?”
• Finally confuse the issue with a little understood theory (e.g. Chaos Theory)
Great if you’re a parliamentary opposition backbencher or selling used (sorry preloved) car repayment plans but as a rational rebuttal?

Dickie was saying in context that deniers (presumably you) use fallacious arguments and reduction to the ridiculous tactic rather than acknowledge and therefore discuss provable facts and/or scientifically arrived at conclusions.
Deniers focus on the on what is not known and then declaring that what is known is a plot/mistake. To whit they fixate on scientific debates/disagreements on mechanisms rather than the substance…After all there are still debates on mechanisms that drive Evolution but as a overall process it is scientifically unassailable.
These deniers are a bit like the blind man who examined the tail of an elephant and concluded that elephants were thin and hairy therefore not a threat.
While ignoring what a sighted person could see because they couldn’t all its behaviours. I recommend you trawl the ‘Real Climate’ site see my earlier post.

He then debunked the argument that the current situation was analogous to 100 million years ago natural event i.e. there is now the added 6.5 billion people all polluting etc.

The SUBSTANCE of dickie’s argument is sound. Unless you’re either akin to the blind man or just picky.

Thank you Examinator. Can we now assume that the “contributions” of the sceptics, Funguschumley and Col Rouge are worthless?

At considerable detriment to their affiliates and the "cause," they lack the ability to distill the pertinent facts and details of any debate.

Their deductive argument here, (a stupefying round of swill) on climate change, has descended into matters of “pubic hair and icecreams” - which merely adds to their useless and malicious onslaughts, permeating their posts on this forum.

Of course, after a lifetime of “seeing” in darkness, one can never see anything at all, can one?

Cheers

Mark ... Noel’s forbears would be proud of the correction :-)

Yes, it would be useful if we had better short term and regional forecasting models of climate. This is basically what Keenlyside’s work has tried to do. However, it did put a cat amongst the pigeons.

The so called ‘denialosphere’ trumpeted his work as evidence for the end of global warming. Notwithstanding his findings were taken out of context, distorted or misinterpreted – deliberately or otherwise – by many who try and cast doubt on AGW, including shock-jocks and uninformed media types. I prefer not to include you in this coterie.

Keenlyside did demonstrate that the enhanced GHG effect is superimposed on natural climate change forcings (you should be aware of ongoing climate sensitivity and attribution studies).

It will take decades for humanity to adapt to a changing climate, and adapt we must. Sure, we can carry out tests as you suggest, but given the real problems we have now (alluded to by other posters) and the real problems we will face in the future, it would be prudent to take steps to wean ourselves off a carbon intensive energy sector and poor land management practices. There are solutions.

You ask: “Can we wait several years before doing anything?” and then answer “most definitely.”

Whilst I did have a minor (albeit important) spelling quibble with your article, your last paragraph is a doozie – like, I would have a real major quibble. Your article is good for robust debate (and it’s great to see authors engage with posters) but online climate quibbles often bring out the nasties and extremists ... it can be tiresome, unproductive and for what real purpose?

The ‘road’ to Copenhagen will be tough, particularly with the view to a post 2012 ‘road map’. So I contend we can’t wait – we must look for the solutions to our ‘climate change’ problems (and debate the outcomes) with urgency. It’s hard to do this in this type of forum when many of the antagonists are vitriolic in response or misinformed about ‘climate science’ itself.