DEAR OTHER READERS — This post is to show how we should all call MHAZE AKA “CONTEXT BOY!”

POST 2: CONTEXT BOY

MHAZE / CONTEXT BOY has repeatedly gloated about a post a few years back where I wrote a sentence that he thought gave him abundant ammo to beat me over the head with, so I guess we’ll just have to stop all the adult conversations here and deal with this.

A few years ago I wrote:-

"I don't blindly follow the politicians in saying we have 565 to go. We don't.."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18793#335172

…and then has a big self-indulgent gloat warning me about how I embarrassed myself last time and left the forum over it. (Looking at the date I had a family emergency to deal with and after that settled down, went — on autopilot — back to saner forums with less “Context Boys” in them. But I digress.)

What did I actually write, IN CONTEXT?

"I don't blindly follow the politicians in saying we have 565 to go. We don't. Oh that we could click our fingers and convert every coal fired power station to a nuke overnight! But it's going to take time to build out the clean energy system, and you banging on about your political conspiracy theories just doesn't sit well in this emergency."

You can see what I was saying is I did not blindly follow the POLITICIANS in the IPCC behind the 2 degrees movement because the SCIENTISTS I was reading (as a layperson) were saying we should be FAR more conservative and not even hit 2 degrees!

Now what’s happened? The science of the IPCC has finally won over the politics and now the IPCC ITSELF IS SAYING WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY BACK THEN!

WE DON’T HAVE 565 GIGATONS TO BURN!
IT’S EVEN *MORE* SERIOUS THAN THAT!
We’ve got to limit it to 1.5 degrees, an even SHORTER carbon budget!
That's all I was trying to say.
Now I expect Context Boy to Strawman me again and demand I show my working!

So MHAZE aka Context Boy,
First, don’t try and pass yourself off as wonderfully illuminated because you read the ‘other side’. If you honestly read both sides of the debate, you would see the cherrypicking and red herrings and half-truths and strawmen as I have. Unless your problems with “Context” are worse than I imagined? You’ve had fun side-tracking us all with personal attacks on myself, and I am an easy target, that’s fine. But you still haven’t proved your assertions about the MWP or Roman period etc. You still haven’t dealt with the IPCC:-

“A number of studies that have attempted to produce very large spatial-scale reconstructions have come to the same conclusion: that medieval warmth was heterogeneous in terms of its precise timing and regional expression (Crowley and Lowery, 2000; Folland et al., 2001; Esper et al., 2002; Bradley et al., 2003a; Jones and Mann, 2004; D’Arrigo et al., 2006).

The uncertainty associated with present palaeoclimate estimates of NH mean temperatures is significant, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce (Mann et al., 1999; Briffa and Osborn, 2002; Cook et al., 2004a). However, Figure 6.10 shows that the warmest period prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf

Or this.

"There may have been regions of Greenland that were 'greener' than today but this was not a global phenomenon... The Greenland ice sheet is at least 400,000 to 800,000 years old.... So where did the Green in Greenland come from? According to Wikipedia, legend has it was good marketing on the part of Erik the Red who figured it would attract more settlers (if he was more vain, it may have been called Redland). Or perhaps its a derivation of Engronelant or Gruntland. The main point is while the ice sheet has always been there, Greenland probably was somewhat warmer during the Medieval Period and part of Greenland was green."
http://skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green-intermediate.htm

Max Green

He is the first climate witch I have ever heard called 'Context Boy'.

Belly,

I recall being in St George one evening and the subject amongst the locals we were visiting turned to UFOs. Well, within 5-10 minutes everyone of those locals had a story to tell about their close encounters with alien spaceships and personal abductions by Martians. Dear Belly, please don't tell me these people are behind the times. I just won't accept it! But I'm sure ttbn, individual, Hasbeen, mhaze (sorry, I meant Context Boy), etc., will have a proper bona fide explanation for it to shore up their anti-AGW platform.

MHAZE / Context Boy,
On Marcot: you just copied and pasted those paragraphs out of Steve McIntyre’s anti-climate blog. Yeah, way to go, it’s easy right? CTRL C, CTRL V. It’s all here.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/31/the-marcott-filibuster/

Way to take the word of an economics major over a climate scientist! http://www.desmogblog.com/steve-mcintyre

Oh, and before you correct me and say “But I copied it from WUWT or some other tinfoil hat site”— just think about what you’re saying! ;-) I’m not REALLY saying I know EXACTLY where you got it, just what KIND of place you got it, feel me? ;-)

Whatever your source, it’s just more tinfoil hat land cherry-picking. These paragraphs were not from the paper, but from the Q&A ABOUT the paper. Where they ALSO said:-

“Therefore, we conclude that global temperature has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene in the past century. Further, we compare the Holocene paleotemperature distribution with published temperature projections for 2100 CE, and find that these projections exceed the range of Holocene global average temperatures under all plausible emissions scenarios.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

Letting your heroes cherry-pick for you again? It helps to read the original in CONTEXT, no, Context Boy?

Lastly, I checked my reply to you on the RCPs and I do see what you were getting at. I was reading too fast and thought you were saying you preferred earlier IPCC models over the RCP 2014 work. Note that I just said "Except the RCP is more up to date" indicating where my mind was at. Note that I did NOT say "Except the RCP 8.5 is more up to date."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8989#295375

Attack what I ACTUALLY said not what you THINK I said Mr Strawman! You really have problems with reading, don't you?

Dear Max Green,

I think everyone is beginning to realise that the AGW denialists are rapidly becoming a total joke.

And they don't like it either. ttbn is starting to believe that little Greta Thunberg wants to tie him to a stake and burn him as a climate witch. Do they get any nuttier?

Dear Max Green,

What gets me is that all of these AWG denialists and anti-climate action protagonists actually believe that people should take them as serious exponents of scientific debate who have the skills and knowledge of members of the scientific community.

When asked about their credentials they retort by claiming that having a degree is not relevant or throwing red herrings into the debate to draw attention away from an issue.

In the long run these AGW denialists, which I like to now call climate witches, are a danger to society. Let's hope little Greta Thunberg represents a turning point in history and we can all start to undo the damage that these climate witches have caused.