Benefits of brown energy are yet to come

So says IHS’s report on the economic impact shale which has tallied up the benefits coming from shale oil & gas exploration & extraction.

In their latest report on the economic benefits of the shale revolution, the global research firm IHS makes a number of encouraging findings. IHS estimates that the unconventional oil and gas value chain already supports over two million jobs, is responsible for $1,200 in average additional net income per household and is contributing nearly $300 billion to GDP. The most promising finding for manufacturers is that the best is yet to come. Looking at just one manufacturing sector, the chemical manufacturing sector, capital investments in new plants and expansion at existing plants is expected to more than triple in just four years.

These estimates are not theoretical; they are largely based on real projects that are already under development, some of which are identified in the report. Similar growth is expected in several manufacturing sectors, which collectively will drive more production, create more jobs and further fuel the economy.

Of course, the Gaia worshippers want nothing to do with this real economic boon, and keep pretending that the heavily subsidized and failure prone green energy sector is where all the good stuff is. Dreams are just that: dreams. As I told some leftard that kept telling me he wished the green energy sector would show how great it was already earlier today: shit in one hand and keep making that idiotic wish in the other, and see which one fills up first.

Comments are closed.

  1. stogy

    $1,200 in average additional net income per household and is contributing nearly $300 billion to GDP.

    Minus, of course, the cost in reduced life expectancy due to pollution-related illness, and the contribution to climate change (which is going to have to be paid for eventually one way or another).

    I was interested to see how they accounted for any of this in the report… and found… well nothing.

    keep pretending that the heavily subsidized and failure prone green energy sector is where all the good stuff is.

    But at the same time, you don’t actually advocate support for removing subsidies from a mature industry, and won’t actually allow real competition to exist in the market place. Every energy producer should pay the actual cost of their power generation activities, and then let the market sort it out.

    Hot! Thumb up 7

  2. stogy

    Also interesting to note that IHS are predicting a double-digit increase in PV over the next few years.

    Here are their predictions:

    Below are the top 10 predictions for 2013 from the IHS solar research team.

    1. The global PV market will achieve double-digit installation growth in 2013, but market revenue will fall to $75 billion. Industry revenues – measured as system prices multiplied by total gigawatts installed – peaked at $94 billion in 2011, but fell sharply to $77 billion in 2012, as presented in the figure below. Revenue is projected to decline once again in 2013 to $75 billion, on the back of lower volume growth and continued system price declines, given that PV component prices continue to fall.

    2. The solar module industry will consolidate further in 2013. As 2012 comes to a close, fewer than 150 companies will remain in the photovoltaic upstream value chain, down from more than 750 companies in 2010. Most of the consolidation will involve companies going out of business entirely. Many integrated players, particularly those based in China, will fold up shop in 2013. The large expense of building and then operating integrated facilities that are underutilised will be more than many can handle financially.

    3. PV module prices will stabilise in 2H 2013 as oversupply eases. Despite a drastic decline in prices along the silicon supply chain since March 2011, solar prices will stabilise by mid-2013. Changes in market dynamics will help restore the global supply-demand balance.

    4. Solar trade wars will rage on in 2013, yielding few winners. As of November 2012, there were six different solar trade cases proceeding involving China, Europe, the United States and India. This cycle of sanction and retaliation will not help solve the fundamental challenge of overcapacity plaguing the global PV industry.

    5. South Africa and Romania will emerge as PV markets to watch in 2013. The two countries next year will expand from virtually no solar installations to capacity of several hundred megawatts. The PV uptake in both markets is driven by distinct factors. In South Africa, PV additions will mainly stem from the tenders awarded in 2012; in Romania, the growth driver will be a green certificate (GC) scheme that will stay in place until 2014.

    6. Double-digit returns remain possible for European PV projects in 2013. With the subsidy schemes that are currently in place, all EU countries continue to offer attractive conditions for both private and institutional investors. Meanwhile, an evaluation of no-incentive scenarios shows that the most mature market segments are on the cusp of grid parity, allowing healthy returns on investment.

    7. Solar will surpass wind in the United States. The year 2013 marks an important milestone, representing the first time that new U.S. solar PV capacity additions will be greater than those made by wind. This is partly a result of the near-term uncertainty over the federal production tax credit for wind. However, it is also a reflection of solar PV’s increasing competitiveness as a form of renewable power generation in some key U.S. markets.

    8. China will become the world’s largest PV market. Total PV installations in China next year are predicted to surpass 6 gigawatts, allowing the country to surpass Germany as the No. 1 solar market on the planet.

    9. Energy storage will transform the solar industry. Batteries increasingly are being seen as an attractive way of retaining PV electricity, letting people use the power later in the day to avoid paying high prices for electricity from the grid. Next year IHS forecasts a big jump in the number of residential PV systems installed with batteries attached.

    10. New technology will revive equipment vendors’ prospects. Improved technologies will help PV manufacturers cut costs, increase margins and ultimately distinguish themselves from the competition. Such a focus creates an opportunity for both manufacturers and equipment suppliers to obtain larger revenue streams.

    Doesn’t really seem like the shit is piling up fast enough, eh Alex. Except when it comes to your rather delusion arguments.

    We’re at the beginning of an energy revolution. A mix of different smart grid energy sources, coupled with better buildings and zero emission vehicles are my short-term predictions (i.e. 2050), but I think it’s going to be really exciting, and I can’t wait to see what comes out of it. But I am pretty sure that long term, fossil fuels won’t be much a part of the future.

    Hot! Thumb up 7

  3. Seattle Outcast

    Minus, of course, the cost in reduced life expectancy due to pollution-related illness,

    Which is more than offset by having access to an energy dense technology. Or by pointing out that emission controls have been in place for decades, or that even “green” technology emits a lot of pollution – such as in the mining of rare earth metals – so at the least it’s a wash

    and the contribution to climate change (which is going to have to be paid for eventually one way or another).

    Already shown to be a fantasy

    But at the same time, you don’t actually advocate support for removing subsidies from a mature industry, and won’t actually allow real competition to exist in the market place. Every energy producer should pay the actual cost of their power generation activities, and then let the market sort it out.

    100% agreement. And it should be worldwide.

    Thumb up 8

  4. Seattle Outcast

    We’re at the beginning of an energy revolution.

    The primary sources of energy will continue to be coal, natural gas, and petroleum until people start building nuclear facilities again. Solar lacks the energy density to support a society that requires as much power as ours does. Why do you think the green movement keeps trying to get people to go back to living in caves?

    Let’s sit back ten years and see how much “revolution” has occurred, because I’ve been hearing this exact same line of BS for 40 years now, and almost none of it has actually come to pass.

    Thumb up 7

  5. grady

    Minus, of course, the cost in reduced life expectancy due to pollution-related illness, and the contribution to climate change (which is going to have to be paid for eventually one way or another).

    I was interested to see how they accounted for any of this in the report… and found… well nothing.

    These are things that you cannot estimate without guessing. Why would they go through the guessing game when they put out some solid figures?

    Especially reminding Alex of his massive hypocrisy yet again.

    What hypocrisy? Alex’s post directly talks about the economic benefits that the oil & chemical industries bring to this country and states that green energy cannot bring the same. Not the same energy production, nor the same economic benefits to individual families. Stogy quotes some real hopeful numbers of solar energy increases in the next decades, but until we see it happen, petroleum and nuclear are our future if we want to stay at our current energy production levels.

    But at the same time, you don’t actually advocate support for removing subsidies from a mature industry, and won’t actually allow real competition to exist in the market place. Every energy producer should pay the actual cost of their power generation activities, and then let the market sort it out.

    I agree with Stogy and SO on this point. I can’t see why you need to subsidize an industry that can stand on it’s own. The counterpoint here is that solar would be drastically reduced if it’s subsidies were removed.

    Thumb up 11

  6. Xetrov

    I can’t agree with Stogy because elsewhere he alluded to the “actual cost” that he wants includes fleecing “big oil” for the “social cost” of using it – namely, taxing them to stupid levels for unproven impact on the environment (carbon tax). I’m all for reducing subsidies for just about everything Washington throws money at. But implementing pointless taxes so that greenies, liberals, whoever can “feel better” is not the Fing purview of the Government, and never should be.

    Thumb up 8

  7. stogy

    These are things that you cannot estimate without guessing. Why would they go through the guessing game when they put out some solid figures?

    So guess on the small side. We can do a pretty good estimate of premature deaths and morbidity as a result of burning fossil fuels. Start with that. The key point is to make it revenue neutral, and even a small carbon tax (say just to cover the health costs of extraction, distribution and burning) would be enough to create significant incentive in the marketplace. The only actual cost is a small drag on the economy – less than half of one percent of GDP at 25 dollars a ton (based on what other countries who have adopted this model have experienced). But then the investment in alternatives should ultimately offset that.

    The point is, you are actually letting polluters off with a significant benefit by not taxing them. It’s unfair that they don’t have to pay the actual costs of doing business. Because someone else then has to pick up the tab.

    Padders was a huge advocate of this – I wonder what happened to him. I liked his comments.

    But implementing pointless taxes so that greenies, liberals, whoever can “feel better” is not the Fing purview of the Government, and never should be.

    It’s not a marxist solution. It’s not a green solution. It’s not a liberal solution. A carbon tax is a conservative solution to a known problem. It’s one that has been largely developed by pro-business center-right parties as a way of dealing with the problem. Ironically, in Australia (where I lived for a bit, and I still have family), it was proposed ten years ago by the incoming conservative government, adopted by the now outgoing government, and then its original proponents switched their policy to oppose it because they had to look like they were an actual opposition. Their current conservative party alternative is a big, wasteful spending program – almost socialist you might say. And almost everyone agrees it isn’t going to work.

    You might also like to note that tea parties/libertarians in a whole bunch of US states are now trying to force state governments to accept solar/wind/alternatives as a way of breaking up power monopolies and giving consumers actual choices. Last month it was Georgia; this month, Wisconsin. Look it up.

    Already shown to be a fantasy

    It must be a fantasy then also to the US military, the insurance industry, most conservative political parties around the world, and 97% of the world’s climate scientists. Look at the actual evidence. Just in case you missed it, here’s what’s happening in the Marshall Islands this week:

    The tiny Pacific Marshall Islands are being inundated by record tides that have engulfed the capital Majuro leading the government to welcome a US emergency response team with the words “welcome to climate change”…. As oceans warm they are expanding, raising sea levels along the way. The increased heat also means more violent storm surges… Many low lying islands are suffering heightened coastal erosion and are losing freshwater resources to encroaching seawater. These imminent threats have made them a small but vocal force in the climate change debate.

    And then you said:

    Let’s sit back ten years and see how much “revolution” has occurred, because I’ve been hearing this exact same line of BS for 40 years now, and almost none of it has actually come to pass.

    Long-life, fast charging batteries that use carbon micro-electrode supercapacitors. Biodiesal made by bacteria and algae combinations. Hydrogen fuels. 3D photovoltaics. Printable solar cells. Wave powered desalination. Compressed air engines. New leaps forward in superconductivity. Smart grids. Buildings that don’t need aircon or heat – ever, and lights only at night. Damn right I’m excited. There’s so much happening really fast. No idea what will emerge as the big new thing yet.

    The main thing is to get out of the way and let it happen – and the fossil fuel industry is fighting tooth and nail to stop that happening (while investing in some of these new technologies quietly on the side).

    Hot! Thumb up 3

  8. AlexInCT *

    Let me say it again:

    Wish for green energy to finally take off in one hand, then shit in the other and tell me which hand fills up first.

    BTW, I am all for cutting subsidies to brown energy. That is, as long as they also cut all subsides to green energy, make both play by the same rules, and tax both sectors equally. I hate favoritism of any kind. Let the market decide what’s better.

    Thumb up 8

  9. stogy

    BTW, I am all for cutting subsidies to brown energy. That is, as long as they also cut all subsides to green energy, make both play by the same rules, and tax both sectors equally.

    Fair enough, I’ll look forward to your post on that.

    But as I said. Unless you account for all of the costs (like the impact on health of fossil fuels, then you are expecting someone else to pay for the consequences – and very often this is the taxpayer).

    Thumb up 2

  10. hist_ed

    Stogy if you are going to talk health, then you somehow have to factor in the health benefits of cheap power. People die from heat, people die from cold-cheaper energy prices mean fewer of each. People die from spoiled food, bad water, etc. Providing cooking heat from a coal burning power plant troubles the lungs less than providing cooking heat from burning dried buffalo shit.

    All we do in the US for or against green power will matter little. China and India are modernizing and neither government gives a shit about global warming (would you with hundreds of millions of people living in grinding poverty?). If we strain mightily, spend hundreds of billions of dollars and curtail our economic growth, we will cut a tiny fraction of the pollution that China and India will add over the same time period.

    Thumb up 9

  11. stogy

    China and India are modernizing and neither government gives a shit about global warming (would you with hundreds of millions of people living in grinding poverty?).

    China and India are both investing massively in clean technologies and both are taking global warming very seriously. As it turns out, the new middle classes don’t like living in an environmental wasteland. And they both stand to lose large tracts of productive agricultural land if things heat up more.

    But the point about the carbon tax is not that it reduces carbon, but that it retools the economy for a post-carbon world. Whoever owns the technology gets the prize. At the moment, China is actually winning.

    Stogy if you are going to talk health, then you somehow have to factor in the health benefits of cheap power. People die from heat, people die from cold-cheaper energy prices mean fewer of each.

    Fair enough. I really doubt this occurs in the same numbers as deaths. We actually have quantifiable data on adult and child mortality rates, disease and other factors. There is also data on economic losses from illness (as people can’t contribute to economic output).

    The costs in the US for health were put at 120 billion a year:

    WASHINGTON — Burning fossil fuels costs the United States about $120 billion a year in health costs, mostly because of thousands of premature deaths from air pollution, the National Academy of Sciences reported in a study issued Monday.

    The damages are caused almost equally by coal and oil, according to the study, which was ordered by Congress. The study set out to measure the costs not incorporated into the price of a kilowatt-hour or a gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel.

    The estimates by the academy do not include damages from global warming, which has been linked to the gases produced by burning fossil fuels. The authors said the extent of such damage, and the timing, were too uncertain to estimate.

    Scientific American presented the data a different way:

    U.S. Health Burden Caused by Particulate Pollution from Fossil-Fueled Power Plants
    Illness Mean Number of Cases
    Asthma (hospital admissions) 3,020
    Pneumonia (hospital admissions) 4,040
    Asthma (emergency room visits) 7,160
    Cardiovascular ills (hospital admissions) 9,720
    Chronic bronchitis 18,600
    Premature deaths 30,100
    Acute bronchitis 59,000
    Asthma attacks 603,000
    Lower respiratory ills 630,000
    Upper respiratory ills 679,000
    Lost workdays 5.13 million
    Minor restricted-activity days 26.3 million

    Do you think the deaths from cold and heat will come close to that? (note that the above only refers to pollution from power plants).

    As far as other developing countries go, you’re pretty much correct. But as these people are often not connected to the grid anyway, or only in a very limited way, the point is rather moot.

    But yeah, I take your point. It could be accounted for better.

    Thumb up 2

  12. Ed Kline

    We can do a pretty good estimate of premature deaths and morbidity as a result of burning fossil fuels.

    Ummm, no we can’t actually. We can’t even come close.

    Thumb up 7

  13. stogy

    Ummm, no we can’t actually. We can’t even come close.

    So you are challenging the figures in articles I linked to? I look forward to your analysis.

    Thumb up 2

  14. stogy

    Providing cooking heat from a coal burning power plant troubles the lungs less than providing cooking heat from burning dried buffalo shit.

    Just one more thing on that. At COP3 (The Kyoto Protocol conference) it was argued fairly effectively by developing nations that you guys in the US and Europe, you’ve already had the benefit of using cheap fossil fuels to develop. Considering this, cutting us off from them when we’re at a critical stage of our development would be unfair. So what we propose is a small cap on your emissions that will promote innovation in the energy sector. Once you guys done the necessary technological innovations, we can be at a stage where everyone will benefit from them.

    I mean, I’ve simplified it, but this was the general thrust. The myth about COP3 was that is was supposed to reduce emissions. In fact, it was supposed to encourage innovation.

    And by and large, it has worked. We’re at the point where alternatives are just coming into their own.

    Thumb up 2

  15. AlexInCT *

    But as I said. Unless you account for all of the costs (like the impact on health of fossil fuels, then you are expecting someone else to pay for the consequences – and very often this is the taxpayer).

    Sure, as long as we factor in the costs for disposal of batteries, the deaths and environmental impacts caused by wind, or the chemical byproducts of green energy in general, as well. KWh for kWh, green energy produces more toxic waste and harmful results than brown energy, where usually the real nasty shit is the government mandated additives – such as MTBE. And when you have to destroy foodstuff to produce energy, you are not doing anything renewable, and that cost is massive.

    Thumb up 7

  16. Mook

    Minus, of course, the cost in reduced life expectancy due to pollution-related illness, and the contribution to climate change (which is going to have to be paid for eventually one way or another).

    I was interested to see how they accounted for any of this in the report… and found… well nothing.

    And yet you utterly fail to account for the “added costs” to health and the environment associated with alternative energy sources you favor. It’s fantasy to suggest that harmful side effects are limited to the production and use of carbon fuel sources. Wind turbine and battery powered cars require rare earth minerals which release all sorts of nasty emissions including radioactive byproducts which add environmental “costs” and health threats that dishonest leftists pretend don’t exist. Oh, and wind turbines kill approx. 500,000 birds each year, and that number of dead birds is growing. And unlike other people and industries, the wind industry has been exempted from prosecution under the Eagle Protection and Migratory Bird Treaty Acts..

    The production and disposal of solar panels requires large amounts of energy from power plants. Silicon material in solar panels requires 3000 degree F furnaces with emissions. Solar panel production and waste involve a number of different nasty chemicals (including arsenic) which require energy to dispose of, posing environmental and health threats.

    If you want to discuss additional costs, fine.. but don’t be dishonest about it by ignoring environmental and health costs and threats from “green” energy sources.

    Thumb up 7

  17. stogy

    Sure, as long as we factor in the costs for disposal of batteries, the deaths and environmental impacts caused by wind, or the chemical byproducts of green energy in general, as well. KWh for kWh, green energy produces more toxic waste and harmful results than brown energy, where usually the real nasty shit is the government mandated additives – such as MTBE. And when you have to destroy foodstuff to produce energy, you are not doing anything renewable, and that cost is massive.

    Fine with all of that. I agree with you that biofuels that use food are a shocking waste of resources (and subsidizing them is a shocking waste of money). But non-food parts of plants, agricultural waste etc – not such a bad idea.

    And yet you utterly fail to account for the “added costs” to health and the environment associated with alternative energy sources you favor. It’s fantasy to suggest that harmful side effects are limited to the production and use of carbon fuel sources.

    Not at all. I agree that alternative energy suppliers should also pay a true ‘cost of production’. I wasn’t going to argue for an environmental cost, but seeing you’ve brought it up, I think it’s a good idea.

    Oh, and wind turbines kill approx. 500,000 birds each year, and that number of dead birds is growing. And unlike other people and industries, the wind industry has been exempted from prosecution under the Eagle Protection and Migratory Bird Treaty Acts..

    Quite possibly true on the numbers of birds killed. And then there’s also habitat loss and deaths to small furry animals from coal trucks, and birds, fish, animals from oil spills and pipeline leaks.

    If you want to discuss additional costs, fine.. but don’t be dishonest about it by ignoring environmental and health costs and threats from “green” energy sources.

    I have argued that it should all be included here before. I said a couple of weeks ago that the carbon emissions on solar units is on average offset by 18 months of use. But as production methods improve, this is coming down. But yeah. I agree in principle. Polluters should pay for the cost incurred to society and the environment by polluting. It’s the best way to create an incentive not to pollute and to limit habitat destruction.

    Thumb up 3

  18. Mook

    Quite possibly true on the numbers of birds killed. And then there’s also habitat loss and deaths to small furry animals from coal trucks, and birds, fish, animals from oil spills and pipeline leaks.

    You wrote a fair post. I’ll only point out that evil oil companies who have accidental oil spills pay big $$$ in fines for killing birds and other wildlife. Wind turbine industry OTOH pays nothing. At least here in the US. If we’re agreement on a level playing field, then the wind power industry is on special preference welfare in that regards. That fact needs to be more widely acknowledged.

    Exxon Valdez spill killed about the same number of birds as wind turbines kill every year.. and growing. Big media attn. and hullabulloo over Exxon. You hear almost nothing about the birds killed by wind turbines… and their exemption from prosecution.

    Thumb up 5

  19. hist_ed

    It must be a fantasy then also to the US military, the insurance industry, most conservative political parties around the world, and 97% of the world’s climate scientists. Look at the actual evidence. Just in case you missed it, here’s what’s happening in the Marshall Islands this week:

    And here is what is happening across the entire Arctic this summer:

    “A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.”

    Ohh and they also say

    “US climate expert Professor Judith Curry has questioned how this can be true as that rather than increasing in confidence, “uncertainty is getting bigger” within the academic community. Long-term cycles in ocean temperature, she said, suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend.
    At the time some scientists forecast an imminent ice age. “

    Thumb up 6

  20. stogy

    Here’s something I found on bird deaths that does put it a little more into perspective. It seems that the numbers of bird deaths are somewhat inflated, out of perspective (compared to bird-window deaths) and the newer windmills are a lot less likely to kill birds.

    It’s a good article and worth reading it all.

    I still agree that there could and should be environmental accountability – so your fundamental point is correct. But it seems that this has already happened in the case of bird deaths:

    Possibly the greatest indicator that wind turbines are not, in fact, bird-o-matics, is the growing number of endorsements by bird conservation groups. The American Bird Conservancy supports wind power with the caveat that bird-friendly placement and design be primary factors in construction [source: ABC]. The Wisconsin Bird Initiative states that wind turbines have a “low impact” on avian mortality compared to window glass and communication towers [source: WBCI]. And in 2006, the Audubon Society gave its figurative seal of approval to the American Wind Energy Association. The president of the national organization is quoted by Renewable Energy World as stating, “When you look at a wind turbine, you can find the bird carcasses and count them. With a coal-fired power plant, you can’t count the carcasses, but it’s going to kill a lot more birds”

    Thumb up 2

  21. hist_ed

    As far as other developing countries go, you’re pretty much correct. But as these people are often not connected to the grid anyway, or only in a very limited way, the point is rather moot.

    The point is only moot if we consign them to energy free, poverty stricken lives. You think maybe some of those benighted wogs might want to get themselves an electric light and a water pump on their well? Well screw that, let them browns and yellows shiver in the dark. It’s much better for rich Westerners to feel good about doing something (totally ineffective) for the planet.

    Thumb up 8

  22. AlexInCT *

    Hist_ed, I think she finally is seeing the issue: none of their predictions are working out, and quite often, the exact opposite is happening, and they are finally, at least the honest ones. realizing maybe they have this shit wrong.

    The problem is that these climate scientist can’t admit they don’t understand the system at all after all their grandstanding and “chicken little” bullshit. If they did, then we would be remiss in pointing out that if they don’t understand the system their accusations about the cause being man made, when nature has been doing this shit forever. becomes terribly suspect. as it should. and then the funding dries up, because governments and the UN will only finance this shit as long as the results allow them to push their big government agenda. If they lose that, the gig is up, and the money dries up.

    Thumb up 5

  23. stogy

    And here is what is happening across the entire Arctic this summer:

    So we’ve had a cold arctic summer…. (your link didn’t work btw – you linked back to right-thinking).

    One. summer. It’s not a recovery. Anthony Watts has been arguing for years that there will be a recovery next year…. then the year after…. then the year after that….

    The ice is still way below the 20th century average. There are always natural variations in climate and resulting upticks in the data. But one year a little higher than the trend does not indicate the trend any more than last year’s collapse set the trend. it would be like saying a .5% rise in the stock market indicated a bull market. Actually, it’s worse than that, because there are no major forcings that will lower the melt speed.

    PIOMAS indicates that we are still actually below the trend line for summer melting. http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b019aff3bba46970d-pi

    (Ice volume is considered a more accurate measure than sea ice area, as area refers to sea with more than 15% sea ice. It is subject to compression and wind factors that can distort the results).

    There is a great blog on arctic sea ice by Neven, who does a bimonthly update during the melt season.

    Given yet another month of weather that causes the ice pack to lose less ice through melting, compaction and transport, it’s no surprise that the volume numbers are high compared to the years following the big spring crash in 2010. We will now await the exact number for the minimum, and will then start to get ready for what the freezing season has in store for us.

    He’s worth following if you have the time.

    “US climate expert Professor Judith Curry has questioned how this can be true as that rather than increasing in confidence, “uncertainty is getting bigger” within the academic community. Long-term cycles in ocean temperature, she said, suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend. At the time some scientists forecast an imminent ice age. “

    Judith Curry is more nutty than she ever was before. There is almost no evidence that the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975. She went from making some good points about uncertainty and natural variation to nutball antics and weird arguments.

    The 70s ice age was mostly a media beat up. At the time most scientists were predicting global warming. Look at the literature from the time if you don’t believe me. The “coming ice age” is one of the most misused anti-science memes currently doing the rounds

    Thumb up 3

  24. stogy

    Judith Curry is more nutty than she ever was before. There is almost no evidence that the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975.

    Actually, a couple of weeks ago, someone on Watts up with that did a chart matching exercise and showed that the current situation matches one about 400 years ago (I can’t be assed finding the link). Problem was, the charts didn’t actually match. And it didn’t actually show what they said it showed. So why should I believe another chart matching exercise – again without evidence, when the last one… three… twenty of these things were demonstrably shown to be false?

    Watts (2009): from next year, we’ll see a recovery in Arctic sea ice.
    Watts (2010): from next year, we’ll see a recovery in Arctic sea ice.
    Watts (2011): from next year, we’ll see a recovery in Arctic sea ice.
    Watts (2012): from next year, we’ll see a recovery in Arctic sea ice.
    Watts (2013): from next year, we’ll see a recovery in Arctic sea ice….

    These people are a joke! They work without evidence, take real scientific papers and distort the findings to match their own conclusions, they cherry pick dates and data, match charts that don’t match, make and then forget predictions that never come true, and engage in slander of actual published working scientists… of all political persuasions.

    Thumb up 2

  25. stogy

    The point is only moot if we consign them to energy free, poverty stricken lives. You think maybe some of those benighted wogs might want to get themselves an electric light and a water pump on their well? Well screw that, let them browns and yellows shiver in the dark. It’s much better for rich Westerners to feel good about doing something (totally ineffective) for the planet.

    But I’m not actually sure what your point is… are you saying that the poor will only develop with a fossil fuel economy? Why haven’t they developed already? Do you actually think that policy on alternative fuels in the US has an influence on poverty rates in the developing world? It’s a poor argument because it doesn’t work – there has been 100 years of fossil fuel development and many people are just as poor as they were 100 years ago. And the people who are making the argument don’t actually give two shits about poverty in the developing world.

    I live and work in South Asia. I don’t want people to live in poverty. I have visited areas where salt is invading the wells that people draw water from, where coastal erosion is wiping out farms, and where people are being forced to move because of bigger storms. On the other hand, other areas are drying out because the rains haven’t come like they did a decade or two ago. Have you seen what is happening in Bangladesh? Start with this one. Or this one Or this one. But somehow gas and oil are supposed to solve this? How do they pay for it when their livelihoods are becoming more and more tenuous?

    On the other hand, as someone else at right-thinking pointed out a week ago, solar offers energy solutions to whole communities. PV panels are being set up in villages that are off grid and don’t have power – particularly in India and Africa. And it’s being done very cheaply. And often one or two panels can meet the needs of an entire village. PV costs are dirt cheap in India. But of course, there is still the problem that climate change will make many of their other activities unsustainable.

    So you were saying?

    Thumb up 2

  26. hist_ed

    Dang, here’s the link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html (I think)

    My point was you linked to an anecdotal piece about the Marshall Islands this week. I countered with a bit about the Arctic. Everything you said about my piece applies in spades to your bit about a storm surge in the Marshall Islands. Except that there are no reputable scientists who are still parroting Al Gore’s crap about global warming leading to bigger and stronger ocean storms because it simply hasn’t happened.

    As has been pointed out repeatedly on many threads, we are in a 15 year (so far) pause in global warming. A pause that simply was not predicted by all the models that we were supposed to place our faith in. A shitload a skepticism isn’t exactly irrational.

    But I’m not actually sure what your point is… are you saying that the poor will only develop with a fossil fuel economy? Why haven’t they developed already? Do you actually think that policy on alternative fuels in the US has an influence on poverty rates in the developing world? It’s a poor argument because it doesn’t work – there has been 100 years of fossil fuel development and many people are just as poor as they were 100 years ago. And the people who are making the argument don’t actually give two shits about poverty in the developing world.

    Are you really that dense? The poor in the third world will have their lives improved more by cheap energy. If a coal fired plant can delivery electricity at a quarter of the price and with more dependability than a windmill or solar panel then they will be better off using the coal plant. If solar panels really work well in some places, great (on some other thread I mentioned my brother’s cabin in Eastern Washington-solar was cheaper because he was so far from a power line). But trying to force poor people into green energy solutions without giving them the option of traditional energy sources is bad for them. Way out in the bush solar panels are probably the best bet, but solar is going to fall short powering a third world mega city. And impugning the motives of people because you disagree with them is the sign of a losing argument. I am happy for you in your supposed omniscience about the motives of millions of people, perhaps when the nurse comes by to give you your next shot you might talk to her about altering the dose a little.

    Funny you mention Bangladesh. It’s always the poster child for something. A few years ago I came across a couple of articles about its coastline. Seems the rivers of Bangladesh are keeping up with whatever sea level rise they are dealing with. In fact, the country has been adding land mass for at least the last 30 years. This doesn’t mean that they don’t have problems, but “Flooding in Bangladesh” as a headline is a lot like “Tornadoes in Oklahoma” or “Stuck up assholes in L.A.” Bangladesh has had flooding problems for its entire history.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g-8geW6xzl7Ik-UWrFBtq66ybN4A?hl=en

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7532949.stm

    Thumb up 6

  27. hist_ed

    Hist_ed, I think she finally is seeing the issue: none of their predictions are working out, and quite often, the exact opposite is happening, and they are finally, at least the honest ones. realizing maybe they have this shit wrong.

    Alex, every year the AGW as religion theory works better and better. And really, it’s most like the Medieval Catholic Church. Useless rituals to make yourself feel better, symbolic public protestations of faith to show the heathen and your fellow faithful your devotion, the high priests preach one thing to the masses yet lead sinful lives, and all revolving around siphoning money from the masses and having the power to dictate how society is ordered. The reformation is underway and the Bishops are flailing to keep Martin Luther and Galileo under wraps.

    Thumb up 8

  28. CM

    What hypocrisy

    ?

    Of complaining so bitterly about subsidies for green energy when non-renewable energy is subsidised substantially more, and has been for decades.

    Thumb up 3

  29. CM

    And impugning the motives of people because you disagree with them is the sign of a losing argument.

    I’m glad you said it, because that applies to about almost all of those who believe AGW is a fraud. Almost without exception they utterly rely on that tactic.

    The problem is clearly mankind as a whole, and all of her ideas. If we truly cared about the environment, we would all kill ourselves.

    Only after doing the ‘living in caves’ thing for a couple of decades or so.

    Also, ‘The Marshall Islands’ is not real. They all died in the plane crash.

    Thumb up 2

  30. stogy

    Everything you said about my piece applies in spades to your bit about a storm surge in the Marshall Islands.

    Actually, Judith Curry has said that they overplayed the cooling in the article:

    In summary, I think the ‘cooling’ aspect has been overplayed in the arcticle; I think we are mostly talking about the absence of the predicted surface warming which has manifested itself in the pause since 1998 and even a slight cooling trend since 2002. But I imagine that it is difficult for a journalist to argue against the overhyping of the pause and the cooling, given the anticipated dismissal of the pause by the IPCC.

    The Marshall Islands was an example of what is happening in the whole region and has lead to a statement being issued by regional leaders of climate emergency. It matches the regional trend. It matches the global trend – NOAA says 3mm a year. If ALL of the world’s major observatories and governments are saying that sea levels are rising, where exactly do you think all that extra water is going to go?

    And then you post data on one year from the arctic? As though that indicates something?

    As has been pointed out repeatedly on many threads, we are in a 15 year (so far) pause in global warming. A pause that simply was not predicted by all the models that we were supposed to place our faith in. A shitload a skepticism isn’t exactly irrational.

    True. But as I have also pointed out, the ‘cooling’ is still within the bounds of natural variability, and is a lot less once you factor in the el nino southern oscillation. We’ve just come out of the warmest la nina period ever (That’s the cool part of the cycle), and before that a fairly weak el nino. What happens when we get to the top of the next strong el nino? (Again, that will be a peak, and won’t show the actual increase either – what matters is the overall trend).

    Are you really that dense? The poor in the third world will have their lives improved more by cheap energy. If a coal fired plant can delivery electricity at a quarter of the price and with more dependability than a windmill or solar panel then they will be better off using the coal plant.

    So that would mean that countries that have access to the cheapest energy would have a big advantage in reducing poverty. Well that just isn’t the case. Look at Trinidad and Tobago – 21% poverty rate, major oil exporter. Or Nigeria? Or Venezuela (even before Chavez). Of course, I know this isn’t the only factor in reducing poverty, but typically the poor have not been able to access energy from fossil fuels because the poorest people can’t pay for power no matter what the price. And when global oil prices go up, there hasn’t been a lot of moaning in richer nations about how it will affect the poor. Until suddenly an alternative emerges.

    For the rural poor in India at least, solar PV provides a real chance of moving out of poverty. The cost is now below the cost of fossil fuels (i.e unsubsidized grid parity has been reached). It’s less likely to break down. Storms won’t take out power lines for 10 or 20 days. You don’t need to fill it with fuel every day or two. You don’t have delays when you can’t get parts – which happens pretty often. It doesn’t make noise. It doesn’t produce smelly crappy lead-filled emissions (it’s pretty bad outside today). This is how poverty is going to be solved in poor communities.

    Alex, every year the AGW as religion theory works better and better. And really, it’s most like the Medieval Catholic Church.

    I would actually argue the reverse – evidence free, misquoting scientists, misusing data, ignoring real world observations unless they fit the narrative of the faithful. The Church of Climate Change Contrarianism – now open for business. Collection plate coming around.

    Until the Church can come up with some kind of substantial non-self contradictory evidence that can overturn the very solid science (involving multiple independent lines of evidence), I will remain skeptical.

    The frustrating thing for me is that I really want to talk policy, but given the general lack of reading of the actual science here, this is impossible.

    Hot! Thumb up 4

  31. CM

    From the awful Daily Telegraph link (in their continuing series of misinformation):

    There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, they equivalent of almost a million square miles.

    In a rebound from 2012’s record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin

    .

    If I lost all the money I have at the casino, except for 10c, and then found $1 on the walk to the homeless shelter, the Daily Telegraph would report it as a 1000% increase in my net worth.
    It’s like comparing subsequent average global temps to 1998, as if that high was a good thing because every year that doesn’t reach that same level proves something. And yet I get accused of being obtuse.

    Thumb up 3

  32. CM

    I would actually argue the reverse – evidence free, misquoting scientists, misusing data, ignoring real world observations unless they fit the narrative of the faithful. The Church of Climate Change Contrarianism – now open for business. Collection plate coming around.

    It’s always puzzling to hear that accusation when the opposite, as you point out, is so very obviously the better fit. It relies utterly on faith (in conspiracy/fraud) and actively requires the absence of any standards or consistency. No different to 9/11 Truthers.
    The Holy Trinty: insinuation, accusation, allegation.
    Always fascinating though.

    Thumb up 2

  33. Xetrov

    1895 – Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
    1902 – “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
    1912 – Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
    1923 – “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
    1923 – “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
    1924 – MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
    1929 – “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
    1932 – “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
    1933 – America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
    1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
    1938 – Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
    1938 – “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
    1939 – “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
    1952 – “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
    1954 – “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
    1954 – Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
    1959 – “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
    1969 – “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
    1969 – “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″ — Paul Ehrlich (while he now predicts doom from global warming, this quote only gets honorable mention, as he was talking about his crazy fear of overpopulation)
    1970 – “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
    1974 – Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
    1974 – “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post
    1974 – “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
    1974 – “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
    Cassandras are becomingincreasingly apprehensive,for the weatheraberrations they arestudying may be theharbinger of anotherice age
    1975 – Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
    1975 – “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
    1976 – “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
    1981 – Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
    1988 – I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context
    1989 -”On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989
    1990 – “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
    1993 – “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
    1998 – No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
    2001 – “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
    2003 – Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
    2006 – “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
    Now: The global mean temperature has fallen for four years in a row, which is why you stopped hearing details about the actual global temperature, even while they carry on about taxing you to deal with it…how long before they start predicting an ice age?

    (forgive no link to the source, if included, the post is marked as spam and removed)

    Thumb up 7

  34. AlexInCT *

    Alex, every year the AGW as religion theory works better and better. And really, it’s most like the Medieval Catholic Church. Useless rituals to make yourself feel better, symbolic public protestations of faith to show the heathen and your fellow faithful your devotion, the high priests preach one thing to the masses yet lead sinful lives, and all revolving around siphoning money from the masses and having the power to dictate how society is ordered. The reformation is underway and the Bishops are flailing to keep Martin Luther and Galileo under wraps.

    It’s worse than that IMO, hist_ed. They are the perfect example of a death cult. I see the priesthood demanding the flock throw themselves on the sword or spiked coolaid to keep the priesthood in power and living the debauched life. And the idiots are eager to do it for some explainable reason. Colelctivism couldn’t murder over 100 million people and consign billions to prison states unless so many people’s lives were that devoid of meaning that the state became the new religion. The AGW movement is an extension of the state replacing old relgion as the new one, only they do it inderectly.

    Thumb up 6

  35. stogy

    Xetrov – so you found a bunch of quotes from newspapers touting the long dead global cooling/coming ice age story. Again, most scientists since the late 1800s have accepted that carbon retains heat energy (it’s the whole principle on which we are able to live on the planet). If we add carbon, then it will be warmer – you can prove this in a lab, you can show it happening in the real world. As we are very demonstrably adding carbon to the atmosphere, the chance of a new ice age is becoming less and less likely. The major scientific issues have not been whether there was going to be a new ice age, but the degree of sensitivity – forcings, feedbacks, albedo as a result of increasing the carbon content of the atmosphere.

    On some of the other quotes you posted, no-one really knows what Christine Stewart actually said, as there is no original source. The dates it was supposed to have been said vary widely – from 1994 to 1998. It has been argued that based on what appears on Junk Science that it might well be an elipsis of two quotes, but the wording is all over the place – it’s almost never exactly the same. Without an original source and without any actual date, I would be very skeptical of its accuracy.

    For the 1989 Schneider quote – about half of what he actually said is missing. His original meaning was rather different. But it’s an excellent example of how this all works. Misquote the scientist to produce a message that fits the narrative of the contrarian belief system.

    From the awful Daily Telegraph link (in their continuing series of misinformation):

    Thanks CM. This is also how the Telegraph operate. They’ve actually been forced to apologize and withdraw articles that have completely misquoted scientists that were interviewed for articles. Christopher Booker was forced to apologize for defaming the chairman of the IPCC, and the tele gave a reportedly six figure payout. Booker also uses this quote on the front page of his book:

    “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen,” – John Houghton

    But the quote is false. It turns up on hundreds of thousands of webpages, given in speeches, and has become part of the global conspiracy to take over the world by the Marxist scientific establishment.

    But here again we have the Telegraph actually misquoting Judith Curry (who I would describe as a luke warmer), of all people. It’s not the first time it has happened, either.

    And then there’s David Rose over at the Daily Mail. He ran a couple of stories recently on global cooling. Trouble was, he completely misrepresented the scientists he quoted. He has also mischaracterized met office information and made claims which were completely contradicted by the evidence.

    If the case against climate science was so strong, people like Anthony Watts, Lord Monckton, Christopher Booker, David Rose and a lot of other people wouldn’t need to make this stuff up. They would be able to say “here it is. Here’s the evidence that it isn’t happening. We can show that the so-called consensus should be overturned” But the contrarian science is unbelievably weak and the same discredited arguments just go round and round the blogosphere.

    The AGW movement is an extension of the state replacing old relgion as the new one, only they do it inderectly.

    You sound like the conspiracy theorists over at Daily Kos – just in reverse. Oh how we used to laugh at them when Bush II was in office!! I’m yet to see a Marxist solution for climate change – just about everyone is calling for market-based solutions. But don’t let that interfere with your narrative.

    Thumb up 1

  36. AlexInCT *

    Xetrov – so you found a bunch of quotes from newspapers touting the long dead global cooling/coming ice age story

    Well, this one is from yesterday, Sunday September 8th, 2013. And this guy is not the only one pointing this out.

    Thumb up 5

  37. CM

    But it’s an excellent example of how this all works. Misquote the scientist to produce a message that fits the narrative of the contrarian belief system.

    It doesn’t matter, the end goal is to reveal the fraud/conspiracy that is AGW. Making shit up is a justifiable means to an end. It doesn’t even matter that you make that VERY same accusation of those that ‘believe’ in climate change. (I don’t ‘believe’ in climate change. I trust in the integrity of the scientific method to tell us the truth about our world)

    Well, this one is from yesterday, Sunday September 8th, 2013. And this guy is not the only one pointing this out.

    Um, that’s what we’ve been talking about….stogy discusses it in the very post before yours. Sheesh.

    Thumb up 2

  38. stogy

    And again I’ll say it – if the case against AGW is so strong, why do these people have to stoop to making shit up. They even keep saying it after they have been caught out. … over and over again.

    Thumb up 1

  39. CM

    And again I’ll say it – if the case against AGW is so strong, why do these people have to stoop to making shit up. They even keep saying it after they have been caught out. … over and over again.

    Because they have absolutely no standards – while at the same time continually making accusations about the standards of others. Which is why it’s so transparently lame and not about science. It’s purely political.

    Thumb up 1

  40. AlexInCT *

    And again I’ll say it – if the case against AGW is so strong, why do these people have to stoop to making shit up.

    If you had any brains Stogy, you would reverse the question and ask yourself why if the case for AGW was so strong Mann and so many others, including ManBearPig, and the IPCC people feel the need to manipulate data and models, then “lose” (read destroy) the data and methodology paperwork, or hide the models and their work from their critics, pile on so much bullshit that the only people unable to smell the stench are the delusional, and in general predict doom & gloom that not only has not come to pass, but now necessitates another mountain of lies to cover for their failed predictions. More importantly, you would at least have some serious skepticism as to any of the AGW claims to understand the climate model at all when they got it so long.

    But I doubt you will ever do that. You see, they could all come out tomorrow and admit they were lying and you would still support the agenda, because with people like you it has always been about the agenda. AGW is just a convenient cover to spread the oppressive socialist shit you believe in to people that otherwise would never had gone along without the coercion. But go ahead, keep pretending that you are in it for the science or because you care or something. If it helps you sleep at night, fine, but I do not have to be a sheep or someone dumb enough to think collectivism is anything but the worst plague on mankind, and I certainly do not have to lie down and let your side inflict even more pain on us.

    Thumb up 6

  41. stogy

    the IPCC people feel the need to manipulate data and models, then “lose” (read destroy) the data and methodology paperwork, or hide the models and their work from their critics, pile on so much bullshit that the only people unable to smell the stench are the delusional, and in general predict doom & gloom that not only has not come to pass, but now necessitates another mountain of lies to cover for their failed predictions.

    Let me guess – you picked this all up from another contrarian website without actually bothering to check any of the actual facts for yourself. No links. No reasoned argument. No answer to the argument I just made. Just more whacko nutjob conspiracy theories to add to the already very significant collection. Plus a large steaming pile of ad hominem. And like I said, not sceptical.

    Not skeptical at all.

    Thumb up 1

  42. CM

    Alex you just keep repeating religious mantra, you can NEVER back up your accusations with evidence. You’ve been called on it a number of times and you ALWAYS just keep repeating the same things, because you’ve accepted it on faith and apparently so should everyone else. This again underlines how you’re the cult-follower here. If you weren’t you’d be able to explain yourself. But you simply can’t. You don’t even try, because you know you can’t.

    AGW is just a convenient cover to spread the oppressive socialist shit

    And there it is. Yet another admission that your objection isn’t even remotely related to ‘science’.

    Let me guess – you picked this all up from another contrarian website without actually bothering to check any of the actual facts for yourself. No links. No reasoned argument. No answer to the argument I just made. Just more whacko nutjob conspiracy theories to add to the already very significant collection.

    There NEVER is. And yet he apparently has no shame about it. Apparently it doesn’t matter (again, standards are irrelevant because it’s a means to and end, and that end is to STOP SOCIALISM).

    Thumb up 1

  43. stogy

    But you simply can’t. You don’t even try, because you know you can’t.

    This is largely because he has been caught out so often getting the basic science wrong, CM. The AGW as a cult/vast socialist UN conspiracy to take over the world is all that he has left.

    Thumb up 1

  44. AlexInCT *

    Alex you just keep repeating religious mantra, you can NEVER back up your accusations with evidence.

    I think the problem isn’t my inability to provide evidence, but the fact that you are a borderline fanatic and your religious fervor will not be shaken by anything CM. There is a difference there that might not be obvious to people like you, but thank the powers that be, enough people on this world have seen through the charade and are turning their back on your cult.

    I have no desire to rehash the facts with you, because as I pointed out, you as a progressive are immune to logic and facts when it comes to this cult. The fact is that your cult has made ridiculous predictions that have not come true and have necessitate a myriad of excuses and misdirection to provide cover. The basic premise of the scientific principle is that you postulate a prediction around a theory, you then do the experiment and set up the model, prove it works, have others test the viability of your model and prediction, and when nobody can challenge it, it moves from theory to something else. The AGW cult has not only crusaded against anyone that dared disprove their shit, they did it by using falsehoods and impugning character or motives, while they themselves worked for the devil and his cause. And people are wising up despite the bullshit. The point remains that your cult is discredited and will go the way of the Dodo bird. And that’s a blessing for humanity.

    Keep pretending you have ground to stand on as you keep sinking in the quicksand. I am sure you watermelons will find the next apocalypse that can only be prevented by having bigger, more intrusive collectivists government that controls access to energy and movement, denying people more and more freedoms, elsewhere. Maybe you can go with the cooling thing or blame rich people and oil/gas/coal companies of eating babies or something else like that.

    Thumb up 6

  45. stogy

    The basic premise of the scientific principle is that you postulate a prediction around a theory, you then do the experiment and set up the model, prove it works, have others test the viability of your model and prediction, and when nobody can challenge it, it moves from theory to something else.

    You’ve confused most of your terms, misunderstood the use of models, I can’t see whether you understand the principle of a null hypothesis or not, and messed up on the role of peer review here. But otherwise it’s correct.

    If you are going to overturn a fairly solid consensus in science, you need to put up a stronger argument. That’s how it has always worked. You need to show why the current explanation is inadequate to explain the real world data. But instead, you impugn scientists (including many conservatives) as being members of a death cult.

    One of the few pieces of data you actually linked to (and hist ed as well) touted a 60% increase in arctic ice as evidence that AGW was wrong. But when we look at the actual data, it is easy to see how such a conclusion has been manipulated to fit an agenda.

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

    See the 60% increase? It’s as clear as day! heh…

    Again, if the argument against AGW is so strong, why do opponents need to engage in bullshit such as this?

    Thumb up 2

  46. AlexInCT *

    You’ve confused most of your terms,

    Really? How. Do I need to copy the definition of the scientific principle and how it works from some dictionary or a Wiki for you to accept it?

    misunderstood the use of models,

    Actually, no, I understand models very well. I worked with a shit load of them and programmed several of those when I was still working as an engineer. Models are put together to reflect a system. The better you understand the system – meaning the more scientific knowledge and facts you have to support what you model – the more accurate your model can be put together.

    The cultists put rigged models together that always produced the same stupid result. It didn’t matter if I took data form 50 years ago and plugged it in, or I took data 15 years ago when the models were created and plugged it in: the result was the same, and now we know the results are not just off, but totally wrong.

    That all happened because of 3 simple things. The most important one is that they modeled something they didn’t fully understand while pretending they understood it. Then they introduced a bias, because they started off from the premise that the culprit was CO2, and then manmade CO2. Finally when that didn’t work out the way they wanted, they rigged the models to make them produce the outcome they wanted.

    In most science, a revelation that this went on is considered blasphemy and grounds for tar & feathering. Only AGW cultists have somehow managed to delude themselves that after people found out they rigged their models, not to mention the base data their magic postulation relies on, that they still should be taken seriously.

    Again: once you postulate a theory, define the experiment, model it, and find out you got it wrong, the real scientific thing to do is to go back to the drawing board: not to pretend that a scientific consensus – a term that reeks of religious fanaticism, and no science – exists or that because the other side is somehow related to some special interest you despise they are wrong. Especially when your entire cult is funded, pushed, and protected by the biggest special interest of all: big, nanny state, Orwellian, freedom robbing collectivist government. Something I see all you AGW cultists avoid discussing like the plague.

    I can’t see whether you understand the principle of a null hypothesis or not,

    LOL! You don’t seem to understand the scientific principle, modeling, or how real science should be conducted and now you want to cherry pick some nonsense to give you cover? Seriously Stogy, save this shit for other progressive idiots that lap up the bullshit.

    and messed up on the role of peer review here.

    Really? How? By pointing out that an elite club basically played gatekeeper and disenfranchised anyone that didn’t produce pro-AGW drivel, not by disproving their science, but by simply impugning their characters and motives? The whole premise of a peer review system is that you give priority to the things that would disprove a theory, not the repetitive biased shit that helps you pretend your work is valid when it isn’t. I did a lot of physics, mechanical & electrical, and even some chemical paper reading back in the day, following how the breaking hypothesis, especially around new materials and their uses would apply to the technological demands at the time, and when someone makes a big claim, the stuff that gets peer reviewed first isn’t the repeats of their experiments, but the other stuff that might show holes in their hypothesis & experiments.

    Again: there was no peer review for AGW. There was an elite cult that would give any high school clique a run for their money, jealously guarding their agenda, and doing so in the most despicable manner possible. If we had not caught them in the massive campaign of lies and obfuscation with the East Anglia revelations, we would have been fucked over royally by you collectivists and this scheme to force your collectivist nightmare on people you frightened into going along with something they would otherwise never have accepted.

    But otherwise it’s correct.

    Yeah, thanks there bud.

    If you are going to overturn a fairly solid consensus in science, you need to put up a stronger argument.

    You still don’t fucking get it do you? There is no consensus in science. There is what you can prove, without the shadow of a doubt, or you are wrong. Consensus is the stuff of religion and faith based cults, like AGW. And the reason that your kind is left stressing your “consensus” is because you have no real desire to actually have any scienctific work done to stand on. It’s about the end goal, and doing the science right now means you have to give up the goal, which is not going to happen.

    That’s how it has always worked.

    Actually, no, that’s never how it has worked, ever, until this AGW nonsense. Anyone that would have produced the idea of a scientific consensus as a means to validate a hypothesis back before AGW did it, would have been the laughing stock of the scientific community. I do not recall Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg, Newton, or even Hawkins, just to name a few ever, saying their hypotheses were proven because of a consensus. Instead they had every comer try to prove them wrong and had all eyes focused on the science to do that. Things might have gotten personal and even ugly at times, but nobody would pretend that science and the scientific principle should take a back seat to something as ridiculous as sources of funding, and definitely not to something as crazy as a vote by people without a clue, which is what your AGW scientific consensus is in a nutshell.

    You need to show why the current explanation is inadequate to explain the real world data.

    The scientific principle requires the collected data to back the hypothesis. You are doing it back assward. The data we have now clearly shows that what your consensus cultist have been saying is wrong. I do not need to do anything other than to tell you that you got it wrong, and that it is time to go back to the drawing board. If you are right, you should be able to come back with things that we can then be observed and used to validate your point. Until then however, fuck off and die.

    But instead, you impugn scientists (including many conservatives) as being members of a death cult.

    I impugn farces, often politicians and leftist scumbag without any clue but a definite and clear agenda, that shit over science and the scientific principle in their attempt to gin up a crisis they plan to use to rob us of our freedoms and prosperity while enriching themselves and their friends, and have caused incalculable damage to that world & system I hold so dear.

    Here is some advice to you amateur scientist wannabe: stick to the shallow end of the pool please, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself, or worse, actually hurt yourself. Your cult is dying the death it deserves. Deal with it.

    Thumb up 5

  47. stogy

    Really? How. Do I need to copy the definition of the scientific principle and how it works from some dictionary or a Wiki for you to accept it?

    Yeah. That would be good. Then you might read it. Start with the definition of ‘theory’.

    Models are put together to reflect a system.

    Absolutely correct. It’s this that’s inadequate:

    you then do the experiment and set up the model

    There are lots of different kinds of models. Most are a way of explaining collected data. A great many do not require an experimental process. If you are going to attack scientists for the inadequacy of their models, the very least you can do is show that you understand what a model is.

    and now we know the results are not just off,

    Who’s we? Where’s the evidence? If you knew anything about models, you’d know that all models are inherently problematic – but that doesn’t mean they aren’t useful (my apologies to the late great George Edward Pelham Box). I’d love to see how these models you refer to failed. But you won’t tell us will you, because otherwise the scientific bankruptcy of the blogscience sites would be obvious for everyone. Most climate scientists will tell you, show you, that the models they use have some usefullness in describing what is happening now, and what is likely to happen in the future given a range of different factors. If you believe that the models are wrong, then let’s have an evidence-based discussion about that.

    Again: once you postulate a theory, define the experiment,

    You shouldn’t ever ‘postulate a theory’ (that’s not to say nobody ever does). But generally, doing so would only demonstrate that you would be an idiot who doesn’t understand the difference between a theory and hypothesis.

    LOL! You don’t seem to understand the scientific principle, modeling, or how real science should be conducted and now you want to cherry pick some nonsense to give you cover?

    No. I was right. I gave you the benefit of the doubt first time, but you really don’t understand the null hypothesis.

    and messed up on the role of peer review here.

    Really? How? By pointing out that an elite club basically played gatekeeper and disenfranchised anyone that didn’t produce pro-AGW drivel, not by disproving their science, but by simply impugning their characters and motives?

    OK. Here’s what you actually said:

    have others test the viability of your model and prediction, and when nobody can challenge it

    Yah… so viability means…? It does have uses in science, but I don’t think they match the one you want it to. And the ‘when nobody can challenge it’ I assume refers to repeatability… but repeatability doesn’t really mean ‘nobody can challenge it’. It simply means that it is more likely that the methods used lead to the conclusions reached.

    But otherwise it’s correct.

    Yeah, thanks there bud.

    Welcome :-)

    You still don’t fucking get it do you? There is no consensus in science. There is what you can prove, without the shadow of a doubt, or you are wrong.

    Actually, science is full of consensuses (is there a plural?) on just about everything we know about the world. Otherwise we would have to reinvent the wheel pretty much every time we did anything at all, you know, scientific. There is a scientific consensus that planets in our solar system orbit the sun. It doesn’t mean that nobody has questions about the nature of gravity, the orbital paths of planets, or the amount of matter in the solar system.

    On the other hand, science is not about what you can prove without a shadow of doubt. And that’s why the real sciency stuff you never read is full of ‘probablys’, ‘might bes’ and ‘in all likelihoods’.

    There are lots of problems with scientific consensuses, mostly that they hamper creative thinking and different ways of looking at problems. However they also establish accepted baselines for scientists to go beyond the consensus and develop new understandings of additional problems.

    That’s how it has always worked.

    Actually, no, that’s never how it has worked, ever, until this AGW nonsense. Anyone that would have produced the idea of a scientific consensus as a means to validate a hypothesis back before AGW did it, would have been the laughing stock of the scientific community.

    This is a bit confusing… using consensus as a way… to … validate… a hypothesis…. you lost me here! No-one validates a hypothesis with a consensus. So it is clear that you don’t really understand what a consensus is either.

    I do not recall Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg, Newton, or even Hawkins, just to name a few ever, saying their hypotheses were proven because of a consensus.

    Neither do I. That’s because they didn’t. Again, if this is your understanding of a consensus, then we are talking very different languages. The one you’re talking is not science. But I’m impressed at your knowledge of some of the big names of science.

    Let’s look at an example: Two months ago, scientists announced that a fossil find in South Africa they claim has overturned the consensus on the age of life on earth. It’s pretty exciting. You can read about it here. Of course, there is still some time to go before the majority of scientists will actually accept that the consensus has been overturned. What they will require is that the fossil is examined by someone else, the dating methods checked, other fossilly kind of verification takes place… and even then, they’ll really really want to see another fossil dating from the same period or earlier before they consider the consensus overturned. But a consensus there is… er.. was… er… still is.

    The scientific principle requires the collected data to back the hypothesis. You are doing it back assward.

    I understand your point here. But once you are talking about a consensus, you are well beyond the hypothesis stage. You are at the theory stage. Scientists shouldn’t have to prove absolutely everything they do in a scientific experiment, or data collection method , or from a and if they had to, science would take a really really long time. Instead they base their work on that of other scientists’ findings (established knowledge, and often consensuses). A consensus allows for the development of new hypotheses and new experiments to collect data, based on commonly shared and data backed theories developed by a large body of scientists in a particular field.

    I impugn farces, often politicians and leftist scumbag without any clue but a definite and clear agenda,

    Your agenda is pretty clear. Your understanding of science and the scientific process is not (again). I’d quit while you are behind. The only thing you are showing here is that you don’t have the scientific wit to evaluate the work of real scientists.

    Thumb up 0

  48. stogy

    My hockey stick is bigger than yours.

    You have data to prove that?

    Actually Xetrov, I do take your point. The last few comments here look like fairly sizeable cock waving.

    But Alex continues to assert that anthropogenic climate change is not scientifically valid. Showing that he doesn’t have the basic scientific knowledge to evaluate scientific arguments (and let’s face it, he’s done that on this thread in spades), is important in showing that his arguments are driven by ideology and not reason or data.

    Don’t believe me. I’m not a climate scientist. You shouldn’t listen to me. Look at the scientific literature (not blogs). See what real climate scientists are actually saying. Read the IPCC report coming out shortly. Look at the critiques of that literature and who is making them, then look at whether those critiques have been answered by scientists or not. This is a skeptical approach to something that, whether you conclude scientists are right or wrong, is of vital importance. This is the thing the Alex is unwilling or more likely unable to do.

    We really need a coherent understanding of the science from the right wing to develop better policy. And because there is so much bunk being repeated over the science, we are missing that voice.

    Thumb up 0

  49. AlexInCT *

    Yeah. That would be good. Then you might read it. Start with the definition of ‘theory’.

    All right, lets play the game:

    principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

    So, you form a hypothesis, then you collect data, conduct experiments, and if the experiments and the data validate your hypothesis, then bingo, you now have a theory. However, as soon as your hypothesis is proven wrong, even once, unless the proof was wrong, your theory is dead on arrival.

    There are lots of different kinds of models. Most are a way of explaining collected data. A great many do not require an experimental process. If you are going to attack scientists for the inadequacy of their models, the very least you can do is show that you understand what a model is.

    Nice try, but no cigar. The AGW models didn’t try to explain any data, they were specifically created to run through data and then produce the results that the AGW cult was predicting: hot waterworld.

    See, if they had refrained from using the output of their models to advance their hypothesis’s claim manmade CO2 was going to drown us all in a hot waterworld, I might agree with you that there is a differentiation to be made. But they used their models as a means to validate their predictions. So these models were not explaining any dammed data: they were rigged to produce results. And that’s where this cult of yours failed.

    Backtrack all you want, but there is no denying their models were used to make predictions that drove policy, and those predictions failed to come true.

    No. I was right. I gave you the benefit of the doubt first time, but you really don’t understand the null hypothesis.

    No Stogy, I understand that defenders of your cult’s use of it is to deflect from the fact they have a hypothesis that’s faulty and been proven invalid, by time and the real data, when compared to their modeling and predictions, and am not interested in wasting time arguing something that really is irrelevant to the point that there is much more cultism, in the form of some otherworldly monster called “consensus science”, and very little real science going on. But you can attribute my lack of taking the bait as lack of understanding instead of what it really is: that I understand the tactic and am not interested in wasting time.

    Yah… so viability means…? It does have uses in science, but I don’t think they match the one you want it to. And the ‘when nobody can challenge it’ I assume refers to repeatability… but repeatability doesn’t really mean ‘nobody can challenge it’. It simply means that it is more likely that the methods used lead to the conclusions reached.

    No, I said exactly what I meant. Not only is the process repeatable, but nobody can use an experiment or test to disprove it. Likely doesn’t factor it stands or it doesn’t stand. If it doesn’t stand, then the hypothesis is incomplete or, as it is definitely in the case of AGW, faulty.

    Actually, science is full of consensuses (is there a plural?) on just about everything we know about the world.

    Bullshit. There is no consensus in science: there is right (as we understand it now) and wrong. It stands until someone disproves it. Once disproved, the hypothesis either goes dead or needs to be redone. And that’s the problem we have right now. Your cultists refuse to go back and redo the work to come back and continue this argument, and that’s because they know this time they will be watched like hawks and can not fudge this shit, meaning this hypothesis dies.

    Otherwise we would have to reinvent the wheel pretty much every time we did anything at all, you know, scientific.

    What nonsense. You want, desperately, to confuse agreed upon scientific theorem and laws to hold the same value as the kooky idea that a bunch of people saying something is so, without any real proof, makes it so. I do not question the wheel because I can reproduce the mathematics and physics, without fault, and with the same result every time. I don’t question calculus, or trigonometry, or even Newtonian physics, because nobody has been able to disprove them as fundamental. Even Einstein’s relativity theorem doesn’t disprove Newton’s mechanics despite the fact that they can be seen to contradict.

    Your attempt to pretend that a bunch of asshats coming together and signing some document lends the same level of credence to AGW’s dogma is not just idiotic, it is downright proof that this is religious and faith based with people like you. The indisputable fact is that time has shown us that the AGW cultist got it wrong. Period. Your belief that this crap is settled is purely faith based.

    There is a scientific consensus that planets in our solar system orbit the sun.

    Not there isn’t. There is verified proof that they do. We can observe it, without fault, time after time, and have even verified it through other means, so often, that it is accepted as the de facto way things are. Your attempt to pretend AGW merits the same credibility is ludicrous, because it is pseudo-science based of false and manipulated data, rigged models, and has not stood the scrutiny of time. The consensus we get told exists for AGW is one where a bunch of people, most of them unqualified quacks, came together and demonized their opposition so they can claim a legitimacy they have not earned. Get that through yout thick skull.

    It doesn’t mean that nobody has questions about the nature of gravity, the orbital paths of planets, or the amount of matter in the solar system.

    Again bullshit. We don’t have questions about AGW: we know it is bullshit, and that’s based on empirical data collected that contradicts the predictions, modeling, and core hypothesis AGW purports to stand on. That’s the reality you and other progressives tied to the agenda AGW pushes are desperately trying to avoid.

    On the other hand, science is not about what you can prove without a shadow of doubt.

    LOL! Actually, that’s precisely the purpose of the scientific method and why it places so much emphasis on repeatability and observability of expected results. As soon as doubt is introduced because your hypothesis fails to stand, you have shown that you were wrong about the science. The earth turns around the sun or it doesn’t. Gravity pulls things down, or it doesn’t. You want to use the details that do not affect the validity of the fundamental premise at hand to hide the fact that the problem with the AGW cult is the hypothesis that warming is manmade, and then caused by CO2, has not stood the scientific test. Either it is right or it isn’t, and the proof right now shows clearly that your hypothesis failed based on what your data, models and, predictions expected.

    And that’s why the real sciency stuff you never read is full of ‘probablys’, ‘might bes’ and ‘in all likelihoods’.

    You mean research around new hypothesis before conclusive theorems are put together? Because for that hypothesis to become a theorem, all the probablys and might-bes will have to be resolved, through experiments, observations, and validation, with nothing left to doubt. Because if I predict X, then the test results in Y, I know my hypothesis is incomplete or faulty. Now I am sure you would like us to think that the problem with AGW is that there are some faults but that the premise is accurate, but I call bullshit. If you want to convince me otherwise, do what everyone in the scientific community would do with a hypothesis that failed: start from scratch. Don’t pretend you can just start right in the middle, make some new predictions, and then get right back to pushing the social agenda.

    There are lots of problems with scientific consensuses, mostly that they hamper creative thinking and different ways of looking at problems. However they also establish accepted baselines for scientists to go beyond the consensus and develop new understandings of additional problems.

    Blah blah blah. Methinks you confuse consensus with acceptance of theorems and laws.

    This is a bit confusing… using consensus as a way… to … validate… a hypothesis…. you lost me here! No-one validates a hypothesis with a consensus. So it is clear that you don’t really understand what a consensus is either.

    I now have to question your reading comprehension too? What leads you to believe I imply anywhere that consensus validates a hypothesis? I think the problem is that you want to conflate acceptance of proven fact, that which has a track record of being checked and validated to the point that nobody can question it, with a bunch of quacks, most of them not even qualified to comment on the subject, saying there is a consensus about the validity of AGW’s hypothesis. That’s the problem here.

    Neither do I. That’s because they didn’t. Again, if this is your understanding of a consensus, then we are talking very different languages. The one you’re talking is not science. But I’m impressed at your knowledge of some of the big names of science.

    Actually Stogy, you are right and we are at odds about the word “consensus”. I say that doesn’t exist in science, because what you have in science is not consensus, but the acceptance of something proven. The AGW consensus isn’t just based on something unproven, it is, as I have said repeatedly, a bunch of charlatans coming together to pretend that something that has not been proven is factual, simply because there is a whole lot of them that agree it should be fact.

    You would like people to think that because the scientific community accepts certain fundamental principles that have been proven and is without a shadow of a doubt the way things work, and you could call that, if you reach, a consensus, that it means that because AGW cultist say there is a consensus about AGW that AGW is thus also proven, but what you are doing is putting the horse before the cart. The cultists must first prove that manmade CO2 is without any shadow of a doubt responsible for this warming, have people verify it through tests & observation, and then they can claim their dogma as settled. Until then it is just that: dogma. No amount of talk about a consensus will make it otherwise.

    Let’s look at an example: Two months ago, scientists announced that a fossil find in South Africa they claim has overturned the consensus on the age of life on earth. It’s pretty exciting. You can read about it here. Of course, there is still some time to go before the majority of scientists will actually accept that the consensus has been overturned.

    You are wrong to assume that a claim is enough to turn over established science (not consensus, but established science). And do you know why? Because they are going to make sure that the people making the claim got it right. This scientific rigor is something we never get with AGW research, as anyone that shows they didn’t gets shut down, not because they have science that can prove them wrong, but because the cultists say they have a biased source of funding from special interests. All while ignoring that the AGW cult is propped up and financed by this world’s biggest single special interest group ever: the nanny state.

    What they will require is that the fossil is examined by someone else, the dating methods checked, other fossilly kind of verification takes place… and even then, they’ll really really want to see another fossil dating from the same period or earlier before they consider the consensus overturned. But a consensus there is… er.. was… er… still is.

    Nice try, but no. There is no “consensus” especially as it relates to AGW nonsense, at risk of being overturned here. Established science could be overturned, if this find proves to be right. It happens, and it happens because people follow the scientific method and principle. Something the cult of AGW doesn’t. the consensus there, when it is brought up, I repeat again, is an attempt to shout down others by saying all of us want this to be the way things are so shut up already.

    I understand your point here. But once you are talking about a consensus, you are well beyond the hypothesis stage. You are at the theory stage.

    It’s not a consensus then: its established scientific principle and a theorem. And I certainly hope that you are not pretending that AGW is any kind of established science, because if you are stupid enough to believe that you have all but made my point for me that this is a religious movement and not science. If you’re really trying to tell me AGW is established science, with that track record and inability to get even the basic shit right, I am done wasting my time with you

    Scientists shouldn’t have to prove absolutely everything they do in a scientific experiment, or data collection method , or from a and if they had to, science would take a really really long time. Instead they base their work on that of other scientists’ findings (established knowledge, and often consensuses). A consensus allows for the development of new hypotheses and new experiments to collect data, based on commonly shared and data backed theories developed by a large body of scientists in a particular field.

    Erm actually, when they want to then make changes to our way of living that will affect billions of people and has an incalculable price tag to it, because a vague hypothesis has been used to predict world ending catastrophe, you will pardon me, and those of me that aren’t driven by emotion or ideological fervor, for demanding some degree of serious certainty. If I came to you with some blatantly half-baked bullshit and told you that I see the end of the world unless you allow me to fundamentally change things, at great cost to boot, would you not tell me to fuck off? And yes, I called AW blatantly half-baked bullshit, because it is. It’s got less to do with science and way too much to do with religious dogma.

    Your agenda is pretty clear.

    I make no bones, and have never made any bones, about it: I see AGW for what it is, and without them proving to me that they have a leg to stand on, I am not about to let a bunch of fascist nanny staters rob me of my prosperity or my freedoms. You need to convince me, with real science, that this expenditure and the removal of even more of my freedoms is worthy of a problem that you can’t prove exists. And please do not try to persuade me with appeals to emotion, especially when said appeals only come from your side when your side tends to benefit from them.

    Your understanding of science and the scientific process is not (again).

    Says the progressive with an agenda he can’t even admit to and an educational background that likely consists of a BA, or maybe an MA, to the guy with an MS in EE and a BS in EE and AE, that has worked as an engineer and dealt with this stuff first hand, and currently does a lot of software development, including modeling some real complex stuff. Yeah, sure bud. Don’t make me laugh.

    I’d quit while you are behind. The only thing you are showing here is that you don’t have the scientific wit to evaluate the work of real scientists.

    Except I am ahead. And the fact that your cult is floundering and nobody buys the koolaid you are selling is like nectar to me.

    Peace out!

    Thumb up 4

  50. CM

    The last few comments here look like fairly sizeable cock waving.

    Not even remotely. It’s like a discussion between an informed adult and a 3 year old child. Almost embarrassing to witness.

    Thumb up 1

  51. CM

    But they used their models as a means to validate their predictions.

    Where is your evidence of this? And why, as your own link shows, have climate models successfully reproduced the past and also made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations?

    Backtrack all you want, but there is no denying their models were used to make predictions that drove policy, and those predictions failed to come true.

    Where is your evidence? Or is this just more ‘received wisdom’ that you’re taken on faith?

    ….and am not interested in wasting time arguing something….

    Same old same old. All you have are the same old accusation, allegations, and insinuations. And then when challenged you say “not interested”.

    Your cultists refuse to go back and redo the work to come back and continue this argument, and that’s because they know this time they will be watched like hawks and can not fudge this shit, meaning this hypothesis dies.

    Hal has already pointed out that the ‘work’ has been ‘redone’, and that was funded by the Kochs.
    But then you don’t listen to what you don’t want to hear.

    Your attempt to pretend AGW merits the same credibility is ludicrous, because it is pseudo-science based of false and manipulated data, rigged models, and has not stood the scrutiny of time.

    Where is your evidence? Just because you say it, doesn’t make it so.

    Your belief that this crap is settled is purely faith based.

    I don’t ‘believe’ in climate change. I trust in the integrity of the scientific method to tell us the truth about our world.
    Whereas you place your faith in this all being nonsense, contrary to every prominent scientific organisation in the world.

    We don’t have questions about AGW: we know it is bullshit, and that’s based on empirical data collected that contradicts the predictions, modeling, and core hypothesis AGW purports to stand on. That’s the reality you and other progressives tied to the agenda AGW pushes are desperately trying to avoid.

    We can all observe your avoidance of providing any evidence of your ongoing allegations, insinuations, and accusations, despite being asked to. Thus, by your own standard, you’ve proven yourself to be wrong.

    LOL! Actually, that’s precisely the purpose of the scientific method

    Nonsense. ‘Proof’ is for mathematics, not science.

    Either it is right or it isn’t, and the proof right now shows clearly that your hypothesis failed based on what your data, models and, predictions expected.

    Where is this proof? Please provide it so we can assess and discuss it. Or don’t, and we’ll observe your avoidance for the millionth consecutive time.

    As soon as doubt is introduced because your hypothesis fails to stand, you have shown that you were wrong about the science.

    Please provide this legitimate doubt. Not just obvious nonsense. Nonsense isn’t doubt.

    Don’t pretend you can just start right in the middle, make some new predictions, and then get right back to pushing the social agenda.

    As Hal said, this all started a century ago and has been building from there. You can’t just pretend otherwise.

    Don’t pretend you can just start right in the middle, make some new predictions, and then get right back to pushing the social agenda.

    Did you ever actually stop and notice that nobody on this blog has actually been pushing a social agenda when it comes to AGW?

    The AGW consensus isn’t just based on something unproven, it is, as I have said repeatedly, a bunch of charlatans coming together to pretend that something that has not been proven is factual, simply because there is a whole lot of them that agree it should be fact.

    Wow Alex, that sort of faith actively requires religion.

    The cultists must first prove that manmade CO2 is without any shadow of a doubt responsible for this warming, have people verify it through tests & observation, and then they can claim their dogma as settled. Until then it is just that: dogma. No amount of talk about a consensus will make it otherwise.

    Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming. Nothing to do with dogma. To reject this as all fraud and misrepresentation and conspiracy requires a tremendous amount of faith and a tremendous amount of ‘received wisdom’, and a tremendous amount of sticking your fingers in your ears. All of which you consistently demonstrate.

    You are wrong to assume that a claim is enough to turn over established science (not consensus, but established science). And do you know why? Because they are going to make sure that the people making the claim got it right.

    Except that’s exactly what stogy is saying.

    This scientific rigor is something we never get with AGW research, as anyone that shows they didn’t gets shut down,

    Where is your evidence of this? You need clear evidence to prove your hypothesis. Even if introduce a little bit of doubt (even if it’s obvious nonsense) then our hypothesis fails.

    Something the cult of AGW doesn’t. the consensus there, when it is brought up, I repeat again, is an attempt to shout down others by saying all of us want this to be the way things are so shut up already.

    Brilliant! I assume that was intentional?!

    If you’re really trying to tell me AGW is established science, with that track record and inability to get even the basic shit right, I am done wasting my time with you

    Here we go – signalling the inevitable departure because the alternative is backing up ANYTHING you’ve claimed. Same old same old.

    I make no bones, and have never made any bones, about it: I see AGW for what it is, and without them proving to me that they have a leg to stand on

    They NEVER will. Nobody ever could. Because it would ALWAYS be a vehicle for socialism as far as you are concerned.

    You need to convince me, with real science, that this expenditure and the removal of even more of my freedoms is worthy of a problem that you can’t prove exists.

    You said we shouldn’t work backwards, and yet this is exactly what you and others keep doing. Physics and chemistry don’t make public policy decisions.

    And please do not try to persuade me with appeals to emotion, especially when said appeals only come from your side when your side tends to benefit from them.

    You’ve got it backwards again Alex. You are the one making arguments from emotion here. Stogy and Hal and I are doing the opposite. That’s observable. But not if you’ve got your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears.

    Says the progressive with an agenda

    Pure emotion there. I see literally see the spittal on your keyboard as you wrote that.

    Except I am ahead.

    Once again you’ve been absolutely torn to shreds, and offered no evidence to support your claims what-so-ever (while of course explaining how proof is required to support claims). That’s observable. But your religious faith won’t let you down and allow you to realise it, I’m sure

    And the fact that your cult is floundering and nobody buys the koolaid you are selling is like nectar to me.

    Then perhaps look beyond the right-wing politicial blogs that pretend to be about science. You’ll see things a little differently.

    Hot! Thumb up 4

  52. stogy

    Thanks CM. I can’t argue really against any his last post. I read his whole response with my palm pressed to my forehead and one eye closed. It was like watching a train wreck. I must have had an terrible expression on my face, because Mrs Stogy asked what I was doing and got all worried.

    He’s completely shifted his positions on just about everything – and even within the same comment he has trouble maintaining consistency. He started well enough – revised his scientific process (he got hypothesis in this time – yay!), managed to get a couple of terms right (although he’s still banging on as though experiments are the only way to conduct science).

    But when he gets further down – still arguing both his old position on consensus (no consensus! There is right and wrong!) and then that there in fact consenseses (but only if we can call it ‘established science’ – as though the term has some kind of meaning other than consensus). He’s all over the place again with other terms – again he’s talking about ‘viability’ and ‘proof’ (both have their place in their respective fields, as you point out, but are not generally considered scientific once you’re out of them). And then there’s this ‘without a shadow of a doubt’ stuff.

    Says the progressive with an agenda he can’t even admit to and an educational background that likely consists of a BA, or maybe an MA, to the guy with an MS in EE and a BS in EE and AE, that has worked as an engineer and dealt with this stuff first hand, and currently does a lot of software development, including modeling some real complex stuff.

    Then he touts his credentials as though they mean something. Man, if I was his schools, I would be demanding those degrees back. Because the level of argument is something I would expect from someone at a junior high school. He’s got almost everything demonstrably wrong.

    I work in health – I won’t say exactly what I do, but pharmaceutical science works by showing that a given drug works better than a placebo, or better than another existing medication, and with minimal harmful side effects. You just can’t go around saying “right or wrong” or “beyond a shadow of a doubt” or you would be a laughing stock. If we had to wait for er…. no shadow of a doubt, right or wrong proof… then no medicine would ever be approved. Ever. Because there is always doubt – that’s why we use probability factors and significance levels. They are essentially tests for levels of confidence (i.e. they show the margin of error) in your conclusions.

    I deliberately stripped out climate science so we could start by looking at what a ‘scientific process’ means, but he’s put it all back in – mixed up terminology, contradictory argument, overwhelmed by ranting, stream of consciousness – deranged and frothing at the mouth behavior. I can’t argue against that.

    I am not sure what else I can say here. I would really like a point by point discussion of climate science that wasn’t overwhelmed by ranting, position shifting, and an army of straw men. But unless he can actually argue properly, I am not sure there’s much purpose.

    Thumb up 1

  53. stogy

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  54. CM

    Thanks CM. I can’t argue really against any his last post.

    It’s utter garbage from start to finish.

    He’s completely shifted his positions on just about everything – and even within the same comment he has trouble maintaining consistency.

    The hallmark of those who cling to the faith. No standards, no internal consistency.

    Then he touts his credentials as though they mean something. Man, if I was his schools, I would be demanding those degrees back.

    If I lived in the US I’d want a list of projects he was involved in so I could actively avoid being anywhere near them.

    Because the level of argument is something I would expect from someone at a junior high school. He’s got almost everything demonstrably wrong.

    As I say, this whole thread reads like trying to have a discussion with a small child. It’s a little embarrassing.

    I deliberately stripped out climate science so we could start by looking at what a ‘scientific process’ means, but he’s put it all back in – mixed up terminology, contradictory argument, overwhelmed by ranting, stream of consciousness – deranged and frothing at the mouth behavior.

    He argues from emotion. He even admits it (“makes no bones”). And then turns around and accuses the other side of doing, when we’re injecting no emotion at all in what we are saying. But don’t you love how he describes how his own position fails utterly and miserably? That takes some doing.

    I would really like a point by point discussion of climate science that wasn’t overwhelmed by ranting, position shifting, and an army of straw men. But unless he can actually argue properly, I am not sure there’s much purpose.

    I doubt you’ll find one on a right wing blog or discussion forum.

    That’s it! Down-votes for everybody!

    Yes of course, we’re all to blame here. Pffffffft.

    Thumb up 1

  55. Iconoclast

    A carbon tax is a conservative solution to a known problem.

    Yes, it’s desperately being sold as such, but the notion of putting the phrase “conservative solution” in the same sentence as “tax” is absurd on its face. Conservatives, generally speaking, do not consider government-levied taxes to be the solution to a problem, but rather, the problem itself, to paraphrase Reagan. For being touted as a “conservative” solution or idea, it really isn’t gaining much traction amongst conservatives…

    Is the Carbon Tax Seance Over? (A reality check for a trumped-up ‘conservative’ cause)

    Basically, two “conservative” groups are getting a lot of ink (and big bucks) for their support for a carbon tax to somehow get Republican politicians to go along. One is R Street, the breakaway group from the Heartland Institute. The other is Energy and Enterprise Initiative, founded by discredited former (ousted) Republican congressman Bob Inglis of South Carolina (he lost 27%-73%) . As IER president Tom Pyle stated to a reporter after the event:

    “I feel like they’ve been given an exorbitant amount of weight in terms of their voice in the conservative movement by the media,” Pyle said after the event. “So there’s this perception that there’s a groundswell of conservative support for a carbon tax, and it’s just not true. It’s the same couple, few people that keep popping up in the same articles,” he added.

    Conservative group launches broad anti-carbon tax campaign

    A conservative energy group is rolling out a multi-pronged push ahead of the August congressional recess that aims to put the carbon tax in its deathbed.

    “We’re hoping to put the final nail in the coffin on the carbon tax. The proposal should be dead on arrival by the time lawmakers come back from August recess,” Benjamin Cole, a spokesman with the Institute for Energy Research and its advocacy arm, the American Energy Alliance, told The Hill in an interview detailing the plan.

    To continue…

    Ironically, in Australia (where I lived for a bit, and I still have family), it was proposed ten years ago by the incoming conservative government, adopted by the now outgoing government, and then its original proponents switched their policy to oppose it because they had to look like they were an actual opposition. Their current conservative party alternative is a big, wasteful spending program – almost socialist you might say. And almost everyone agrees it isn’t going to work.

    Well, according to this article (emphasis added):

    Australia’s new government prepared to take control of the nation Sunday, with Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott vowing to immediately scrap a hated tax on carbon polluters…

    Abbott met with bureaucrats to go over his border security plans and said his first priority would be to repeal the deeply unpopular carbon tax on Australia’s biggest industrial polluters.

    Labor was ultimately doomed by years of party instability and bickering, and by its decision to renege on an election promise by implementing the carbon tax, which many Australians blame for steep increases in their power bills.

    So, if this article is correct, the incoming Labor Party originally promised to not implement a carbon tax, which is presumably one reason why they got elected. The bottom line is that Labor implemented it, it’s widely unpopular, and the Conservative party has vowed to repeal it.

    Thumb up 7

  56. AlexInCT *

    Essentially, to refute this claim I had to argue that [the not true claim] was not true.

    WTF are you talking about? Your side is the idiotic one that claims there is a consensus about AGW. An idiotic notion that amounts to a bunch of quacks, hacks, and politically motivated shitbags pretending that because there is a whole bunch of them, even though they do not understand either the system or the problem, that say AGW is real, it has to be so. You then tried to pretend that this hack consensus was the same as the acceptance of settled science, verified and proved through experimentation and observation, in other fields. I called you out for trying to employ this bait and switch tactics.

    The premise that manmade CO2 is responsible for warming that the whole AGW cult’s agenda resides on isn’t even a decent hypothesis anymore – your predictions were so off that it is a wonder to me AGW cultists aren’t just ridiculed for still pretending they have a leg to stand on – let alone a theorem worthy of scientific approval, which is what you hope to pull off here. AGW, contrary to what you might want to pretend, is not any kind of settled science, and for all intents and purposes is quackery at this point. When your side claims consensus exists, what they are really saying is that their faith is strong and any heretic that doesn’t want to accept it should be burned at the stake. There is nothing scientific about that bullshit.

    And the comeback from Alex: The claim was untrue. Where did you get the idea that [the not true claim] was true?

    Here is what is true Stogy: AGW is not settled science of any kind. In fact, based on how off the hypothesis and its defenders are, it amounts to dogma masquerading as something else. When people on your side claim consensus exists you would desperately like others to believe that what you have is scientific validation of AGW, but what you really have is a large group of quacks trying to fool people into thinking that’s so by claiming that because there are a lot of them that want AGW to be true it must be. AGW is not even bad science: it is faith masquerading as something else.

    Now stop wasting people’s time trying to pretend your cult has a scientific leg to stand on. It doesn’t. If you want to convince people llike me you do, follow the scientific process, allow the scientific method to do its thing, and when we finally get the predicitons to match what you are saying you might have a point to make. Until then, pretending your cult got it all wrong but should still be treated as if they got it right, all so you can keep pushing your collectevist social agenda, is fucking DOA. And we should all thank the pwoers that be for that.

    Thumb up 4

  57. stogy

    Here is what is true Stogy: AGW is not settled science of any kind

    Ugh! Yeah. The example that I was laughing about was really about consensus and validation. I wasn’t talking about AGW at all. But don’t let me stop you from making the same points again. You’re getting really good at these fact-free rants. Put up some links and some actual science points rather than just invective and we can talk. Until then, I’m done talking with you.

    Yes, it’s desperately being sold as such, but the notion of putting the phrase “conservative solution” in the same sentence as “tax” is absurd on its face

    Actually, from what I know, it isn’t technically a tax. It is a price on carbon – the 500 or so biggest polluters were charged for carbon emissions, prices on electricity went up by a fairly marginal amount as it turned out, and the collected funds were returned to taxpayers through the tax system. The net drag on GDP was about a tenth of a percent (ie. practically nothing). But it had a somewhat reasonable dampening effect on growth in emissions, so it wasn’t unsuccessful in the year or so since it has been rolled out. And prices on renewables dropped even further. My relatives who have just come through what they described as a torrid election, said that there was a lot of misinformation about the carbon ‘tax’. The outgoing leader promised to drop the price on carbon and switch to an ETS earlier than the plan called for. And this made it largely a dead issue as far as the election was concerned.

    But even then, as the new ‘liberal’ (i.e. conservative party) prime minister won’t have a majority in the Senate, he may not be able to get his changes through. And even if he does scrap it, most countries are going to have a carbon tax, ETS or some other carbon emissions reduction scheme by the end of the decade – I don’t really see that there’s any alternative. So probably it will end up being reinstated in Australia at some point. The real irony is that the carbon tax was actually a liberal policy about 10 years ago. And many in the party still support it.

    There’s even a nasty soundbite of the new conservative PM six-seven years ago saying, “why not a simple carbon tax?” while arguing against an ETS.

    My relatives have predicted that support for it will continue to grow over the next six months as the memory of the previous governments ‘lie’ recedes. Removing it may be a tougher sell than is predicted now.

    Thumb up 1

  58. stogy

    Basically, two “conservative” groups are getting a lot of ink (and big bucks) for their support for a carbon tax to somehow get Republican politicians to go along.

    There is substantial but hidden support in the Republicans in Congress for action on climate change. I would point to McCain and Gingrich as prominent members of the GOP who have been forced to deny their previous acceptance of global warming. They just can’t say they support it because the atmosphere has been so poisoned. I think serious action on climate policy won’t happen for five to six years in the US, meaning that we’re unlikely to meet the 2 degrees of warming recommended by many world bodies (such as the World Bank).

    But I do think that ultimately there will be a return to scientific sanity amongst congressional republicans. Democrats won’t ever be able to put through an intelligent policy on climate because of the opposition it will generate. This is why the Republicans are so important – I’m really hoping for a strong intelligent candidate in three years. I don’t really see anyone who fits the bill just yet but I’m hopeful.

    Thumb up 0

  59. Xetrov

    A carbon tax is a conservative solution to a known problem.

    There is substantial but hidden support in the Republicans in Congress for action on climate change. I would point to McCain and Gingrich as prominent members of the GOP who have been forced to deny their previous acceptance of global warming.

    “Republican” does not equal “Conservative”. Particularly when you bring up McCain.

    And no, a new carbon tax is not “Conservative”.

    Thumb up 3

  60. Iconoclast

    …the atmosphere has been so poisoned…

    Well, you have to admit that Al Gore did a fair amount of that poisoning himself. Sure, he got his Oscar and his Nobel Prize, but his movie was sensationalistic to the point of being propaganda, and while there are mitigating circumstances, his personal residence was reported to use several times the energy of the average home. Finally, he did sell his Current TV network to Al Jazeera, which is funded primarily by oil, meaning that Gore collected half a billion dollars in what is primarily oil money.

    Also, there is the overall image of Liberal do-gooder politicians flying private jets from one Global Warming / Climate Change “summit” to another…

    Because of things like this, AGW has a bit of a credibility problem, regardless of the science.

    Thumb up 8

  61. stogy

    “Republican” does not equal “Conservative”. Particularly when you bring up McCain.

    Heh! A mistake I was careful to avoid.

    Well, you have to admit that Al Gore did a fair amount of that poisoning himself.

    The fixation on Al Gore is something that only really occurs amongst contrarians. Nobody interested in climate science gives two hoots about him. They don’t talk about him, his movie, or his prize. I can’t remember the last time I even read about him except for here and Watts up with that. People interested in climate science do not regard him as an important source of information or policy.

    A couple of weeks back, there was a brilliant post on a skeptics blog (and I mean a real skeptic blog) defining a new fallacy – the Argumentum ad Monsantium. I think the same should apply to an Argumentum ad Al Gore.

    But I take your point – the image has damaged the perception of the science. On the other hand, do you expect us all to live in caves?

    Finally, he did sell his Current TV network to Al Jazeera, which is funded primarily by oil, meaning that Gore collected half a billion dollars in what is primarily oil money.

    The ironic thing about Al Jazeera being owned by an oil sheik is that I heard they picked up an award for scientific accuracy of reporting on climate change last week. I’ve got no idea what the new US channel is like, but here they’re the best source of news I can get.

    Thumb up 0

  62. AlexInCT *

    The fixation on Al Gore is something that only really occurs amongst contrarians.

    Really?

    Because Gore is the perfect medium to explain your cut. Here we have a failed divinity student turned progressive politician that tried to steal the 2000 election – with an army of lawyers, a rigged recount, and a biased state supreme court, while disenfranchising the military vote, and had to be smacked down by the SCOTUS to prevent that – only to go insane and turn into the pope of AGW. Now he jets all over the world telling everyone that those that do not share his faith are evil and pawns of one special interest or another , while making billions (including a sale of some TV station to a member of said special interest groups he constantly demonizes and wants to get rid of), and demanding the rest of us go live back in caves. I have forgotten more about science and the scientific principle/method than Al Bore ever knew about it. This guy is a snake oil salesman, which seems to be a consistent phenomenon with progressive themed agendas.

    I can understand why AGW cultists would like people to forget about ManBearPig, but this guy is a clown, and he is the pope of your church. We are not going just let that be forgotten because it is embarassing to your cult.

    Thumb up 6

  63. Iconoclast

    People interested in climate science do not regard [Al Gore] as an important source of information or policy.

    Well, you are the one who complained about a poisoned atmosphere — I was just providing a partial explanation. You were the one complaining that this “poisoned atmosphere” was preventing politicians from supporting AGW. It seems to me that you would want more people to come on board the AGW bandwagon, and, like it or lump it, Gore did make a ton of money being a spokesman for AGW. For a lot of people, he was their introduction to the issue, and his efforts were of such a high visibility that he did indeed receive a Nobel Prize and an Oscar, so trying to pretend that he is an irrelevancy strikes me as absurdly disingenuous. After all, we aren’t talking about people who are already “interested in climate science” — we are talking about why there aren’t more people who are.

    If you want to pretend that Al Gore never happened, knock yourself out. Just don’t come complaining to me that it’s going to take five or six years before “serious action” (whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean) takes place, and don’t go whining when people like me oppose “serious action” even if we find the actual arguments in favor of AGW plausible. If you people can’t practice what you preach, then there is simply no reason to take your alarmist prognostications seriously.

    Thumb up 11

  64. AlexInCT *

    Whatever…

    now I’m bored.

    I have been bored for a while now. It’s just too much ingrained into my ssystem not to let stupid people get away with pretending their stupis shit makes sense or should be taken seriously that has kept me coming back to bitchslap you cultists. I know it is a wasted time. You don’t fight with religious fantics because all they do is drag you into the mud they dwell in. But I am just too stubborn to let you luddites pretend you have anything to stand on. Plus I savor the tears and cries of pain from the dying AGW cult, so there is that sin on my part…

    Thumb up 6

  65. Xetrov

    Consensus (PDF)

    Color me surprised. 114 out of 117 models overestimated warming over the last 20 years, most significantly so. Now that’s consensus.

    The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade

    That definitely sounds like science worthy of further hamstringing our struggling economy with.

    Thumb up 7

  66. Dave D

    I’d like to see a correlation of the predicted degree of warming versus the funding received in those 117 studies. I bet there is a 90+% correlation.

    Oh, and in before Hal:

    “The authors are hacks of the petroleum industry. They shouldn’t be believed.”

    (sorry: couldn’t resist)

    Thumb up 6

  67. richtaylor365

    Sorry, I forgot you were also a kiwi. I am rather ashamed of my ambivalence, too lazy to drive 40 minutes to watch one of the oldest and most prestigious sporting events in history.

    As much as a “homer” as I am wrt to Americans winning everything sports wise, I have been rooting for the NZ team from the get go. Ellison is such a dick and anyone getting caught cheating in any sporting event deserves an ignominious death.

    I was going to go over next week to watch one of the races, hopefully you guys will lose a few to at least drag it out so I can get over there before it’s over.

    Thumb up 2

  68. stogy

    Xetrov and Dave D:

    Color me surprised. 114 out of 117 models overestimated warming over the last 20 years, most significantly so. Now that’s consensus.

    Why would Hal be questioning this? It largely matches what he has been saying about warming. It also notes that ENSO accounts for a least some of the hiatus in surface temperature rise, which is what I have been saying – although I think both the paper you found and Hal underestimate the effects.

    But notice, what’s discussed in this paper is measurements of surface temperatures – not ocean temperatures. Most heat is currently going into the deep oceans (as that appears to occur even faster during la nina periods, which have dominated over the past ten years). As I said, we’ll know more at the top of the next el nino (which also won’t be an accurate predictor of global trends – because by then we’ll be on the high side of natural variability). It’s fine to disagree with this of course, but then you have to come up with an explanation for the missing energy that the earth is still accumulating.

    The recent Kosaka and Xie paper showing that the hiatus fits within natural variability is also really interesting from a statistical and modelling point of view – and develops new ways of understanding the effects of ENSO on surface temperatures. It should ultimately, if repeated by others, lead to the development of better models.

    Thumb up 0

  69. Xetrov

    No worries, I’m sure they’ll get the next models right. If only they had more Government grants, then they could be twice as accurate and get 6 out of 117 models somewhere close to reality. And either way, it doesn’t matter that they overestimated the rise by over four times. The important thing to take away from this is that the temperature is rising, and that without massive US intervention RIGHT NOW (nevermind that China is the number 1 Co2 “producer” with India right on their heels), we are all doomed, because clearly mankind and the US is to blame.

    Did I cover it all, stogy?

    Thumb up 6

  70. CM

    OT, but Hey CM, have you been following the America’s Cup races here in the Bay Area?

    Hey Rich – hope you are well.
    As ilovecress says, the whole country is following very closely. It’s bigger news than the All Blacks (and even in the same week they play their most fiercest rivals South Africa here in Auckland). Of course it’s much bigger than it would have been if we were losing. But I’ve always been a fan regardless. Really looking forward to having it sailed here in Auckland next time (barring something catastrophic happening to ETNZ).

    I have been bored for a while now.

    Alex you could always post SOMETHING to support ANY of your claims. So far you’ve got NOTHING to support ANY of them. It’s all just generic ideological ranting, as stogy points out. You’ve been shown before how/why many of your claims are nonsense but you just blindly ignore it.

    Thumb up 0

  71. CM

    But notice, what’s discussed in this paper is measurements of surface temperatures – not ocean temperatures.

    I think some people are struggling to realise there is quite a difference between ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’. As you point out, climate change isn’t just measured by changes in global surface temperatures. They’re more concerned with wringing all they think they can out of 1998.

    It’s fine to disagree with this of course, but then you have to come up with an explanation for the missing energy that the earth is still accumulating.

    No, apparently they don’t. Remember: there are no standards. Whatever standards they demand of the other side don’t even remotely apply to them. That’s the ‘beauty’ of it – they think they get to have it both ways. You can bet your bottom dollar that during a similar period of high warming they would never accept the very arguments they are making. In fact as 1998 shows, they immediate flip the argument.

    The important thing to take away from this is that the temperature is rising, and that without massive US intervention RIGHT NOW (nevermind that China is the number 1 Co2 “producer” with India right on their heels), we are all doomed, because clearly mankind and the US is to blame.

    Intervention will make zero difference to the physics.

    Did I cover it all, stogy?

    You don’t hit as many contrarian talking points as Alex but you gave it a decent go.

    Thumb up 0

  72. CM

    Hey, look at the graph. It’s clear that warming stopped between 1972 and 1976, 1982 and 1992, and 1995 and 2000. And yet an EVIL SOCIALIST has placed a trend line IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
    How do these IDIOTS think they are fooling?! It’s easy to fool AL GORE because he’s SO FAT, but you can’t fool me, you DUMB ALARMIST FUCKS.

    Thumb up 0

  73. Xetrov

    er…. a small, revenue neutral carbon tax or price on carbon…

    Yup. And Obamacare is not going to raise the debt, and will save us all money on insurance premiums.

    er…we promise?

    Thumb up 7

  74. stogy

    And yet an EVIL SOCIALIST has placed a trend line IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

    That’s actually a really good point. What is it about this particular paper (one that has been eagerly embraced by contrarian blogs) that makes you more likely to believe it, but not all that other AGW cult sciencey stuff, because it must be written by the evil socialist puppetmasters, and they only want world government, and to tax the rich into oblivion, and to create a UN socialist global governance utopia?

    Surely you wouldn’t be influenced because it matches your political beliefs??

    Thumb up 0

  75. Xetrov

    Well, it will have to get through Congress. Make revenue neutral part of the bill. Not so hard…

    Not hard at all. After all, Social Security was “Revenue neutral”. Medicare was “revenue neutral”. Obamacare was supposed to save us and the government money. Government always follows through with its promises.

    And that disregards the fact that you want this “conservative” tax instituted because of unproven science based on severely flawed models. You should try selling your bridge somewhere else. I’m not buying.

    Thumb up 10

  76. stogy

    So what would it take to convince you that the science is in fact solid?

    I mean, we have two papers – Kosaka and Xie, and Fyfe et al. Both of these have different approaches to quantifying the effects of ENSO on warming. What makes you choose the paper that matches your political stance ahead of the one that doesn’t?

    Thumb up 0

  77. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 3

  78. AlexInCT *

    So what would it take to convince you that the science is in fact solid?

    Did you just ask this, yet again, after I have spelled it out like practically every time we have had the discussion?

    Let me type s-l-o-w-l-y: Go back to the drawing board. Start from scratch. In a totally transparent way, redo everything. Make sure that everything is peer reviewed by a neutral group – yes, those evil biased oil/gas/coal people get to participate because as special interests go, they are a peanut compared to the elephant that is the nanny state – and then work it out. Prove that man is behind this, without a shadow of a doubt, and that the warming isn’t just nature doing what nature has done for billions of years. If 15-20 years from now the models, predictions, and hypothesis work out, without flaws, we can accept it as valid. Until then all the collectivist bullshit stops. No carbon tax, no more attempts to grow the nanny state. No more attempts to undermine brown energy, and the subsidies & special regulation for all energy – brown, but especially green – go away. If you can’t prove man is the culprit, without any doubt, and I am going to stake a claim that’s going to be the case, not because it is to difficult to do, but because it is blatantly obvious nature is, then drop this crap.

    If your hypothesis bears out after the scientific process/method is allowed to run its course, I doubt that willl happen, but let’s say it does, we can then begin the process of quantative analysis that is needed to determine the solution, and more impportantly, what the cost vs. return for said solution is. The moment this becomes about onerous leftist politics and the left’s energy & taxation agenda again, however, this thing needs to die a quick death. No more social engineering or nanny state growing political solutions. That carbon tax shit is DOA. Produce technology and engineering solutions, like clean coal/gas and nuclear, and you have my vote. Until then, the AGW agenda driven cult can FOAD.

    Thumb up 7

  79. Xetrov

    So what would it take to convince you that the science is in fact solid?

    How about even a third of models that don’t double or quadruple actual warming? A quarter? How about even 10% of models being somewhere close to reality? I’ve heard for years from CM and others that the models are sound, and we need to trust them or else! Turns out all of that was absolute bullshit. Oh! Wait! It’s going into the oceans!!! We didn’t think of the Oceans!! Warning! The oceans will boil! Death to everyone! Unless the US institutes taxes on the evil oil companies! It’s hyperbole, and reeks of desperation to keep government money flowing to these “unbiased” scientists. I’ve heard for years how we can’t trust certain scientists because they are “in the pocket” of big oil, or some other special interest group. You don’t get a bigger special interest group than an all-powerful Federal government, which is where the bulk of the funding comes from for the organizations behind the two papers you cited above.

    But you go ahead and keep arguing that you can’t bend the laws of physics (hockey stick). And that the science is settled. Because if those models were truly based on real science and real physics, more than 3 out of 117 would have been at least somewhere close to reality. Clearly we (mankind as a whole) has no clue yet what causes warming and cooling on our planet enough to accurately predict, and base global economic policy on those predictions.

    Peace out.

    Thumb up 10

  80. stogy

    Make sure that everything is peer reviewed by a neutral group

    They already did this. As Hal pointed out. It was the BEST study and funded by the Koch brothers. They came out showing the same results as everyone else.

    How about even a third of models that don’t double or quadruple actual warming? A quarter?

    It’s true that the models didn’t predict the current ‘hiatus’. However, if it does end up being (as I think it will) that this hiatus falls within the bounds of natural variability, then the models will actually still be correct. The current hiatus will be seen as noise and not data – a product of ENSO. and not As we can’t know whether I am right or wrong, we’ll just have to wait and see.

    This is my prediction and you can hold me to it.

    And as you are saying the models are wrong, how do you explain the current hiatus? There must be a mechanism given the earth’s energy budget shows that the planet is still accumulating energy?

    Thumb up 0

  81. AlexInCT *

    They already did this.

    B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!!!

    The peer review you claim was unbiased was a fucking circle jerk that basically only allowed work sympathetic to their agenda to pass through their filter and ignored or discredited, not through scientific means but simply by impugning the source’s possible affiliation with brown energy, anything else. Anyone that pointed out that these cultists were ignoring the impact of the natural cycle was attacked, vehemently, in the most despicable and vile manner. They were labeled as deniers.

    It’s true that the models didn’t predict the current ‘hiatus’.

    No, the models failed. Period. That means, at a minimum, that the people claiming consensus or settled science on AGW and the effects they demand we destroy the world’s economies for are talking out of their ass, since they clearly don’t understand the process they claim they do, and more likely than not, that the hypothesis is simply wrong. I know you cultists are desperate to give off the illusion that your fundamental premise is still right, despite the fact you can’t get anything right, because otherwise you need to go back to the drawing board, where it needs to be all redone, but this time there will be serious scrutiny. And none of you want that. Sorry, but you are not going to get that.

    Start from scratch and prove your case scientifically, or give it up. That’s what you have left as options.

    Thumb up 8

  82. stogy

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  83. AlexInCT *

    OK. So you think the Kosaka and Xie paper was wrong. Why don’t you actually say what’s wrong with it (apart from the fact that it reaches conclusions you don’t like). Come on. I’m really interested. If you can’t get past the paywall, I’ll see if I can get you a copy.

    Nice attempt to bait and switch Stogy, but I am not biting. Again you cherry pick one thing to focus on, hoping you can channel the discussion in a way that will allow you to only focus on what you think can give you a win, but I am not biting. Go read the East Anglia revelations. I do not want to focus on any peer review of pro-AGW shit, I want to focus on the nasty and despicable practice that kept real good work that debunked the AGW myths from getting a fair shake.

    Given that you earlier in this thread you weren’t able to understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, you linked to a news article touting a 60% increase in arctic sea ice without investigating what that actually meant in terms of the actual trend, and that you are yet to actually put up any actual scientific arguments against climate science, I think I’ll take the recommendations of the world’s scientific bodies, along with just about every conservative part outside of the United States over your otherwise expert analysis of the AGW cultists and their nefarious plots.

    You gonna try this dumb shit again? Think that if you say it over and over people might come to believe the lie? I understand the difference perfectly. You are the one that is confused, or wanted to confuse the issues. And that’s because you are desperate to get people to think AGW is anything but a failed hypothesis. AGW is NOT a theorem. There is nothing established about it. The left pretends that because they got some hacks to say it is so, that it now is a theorem. Not how science works.

    Again, I have an education as an engineer, I have worked in that field, I have done modeling and I have conducted scientific experiments. What exposure have you had to the real scientific world or any scientific work? You keep pretending the one with the problem is me, when the one that has no clue how the scientific method really works is you. And I say this with certitude, because if you really understood and respected the scientific method and principle, you wouldn’t be a fucking AGW cultist: you would despise what they did to science and its credibility.

    But even if next year we have the next or the year after an el nino pushing global temperatures to historically unprecedented levels, then I doubt you will accept that either. It’ll just be more bait and switch.

    The problem with your logic is blatant. You seem to not want to allow for the distinction that things could be warming up simply because mother nature is doing it. I stress again that the hypothesis claims the effect is manmade. Your side has not proven that at all. You AGW cultists don’t get to claim you are right just because it is getting hot: you have to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the heat is manmade and not part of the natural cycle. And I will say it again – I know it will not sink in with you AGW religious fanatics, but people that are not in the grip of that cult’s fervor will understand it – and that is your side is the one claiming that the rises are caused by manmade CO2 emissions and not nature, and your side, so far, has not proven that at all. In fact, they have gotten it totally wrong.

    This has become boring as hell. I am not even getting any fun out of watching you desperately try to give your cult legitimacy it doesn’t have. I am starting to actually feel pity for you. The thing is, and we both know it, your side doesn’t want to redo its work. It can’t. hence the desperation and the need to keep pushing for the social agenda and the pretense all is well. if the AGW cultists want to convince people of their cause the work, while hard, is simple: do the real science, follow the scientific principle/method, and produce relyable outcomes that predict, without flaws and within a margin of error, your claim that man is causing the heating/cooling. Until then: give it up. Those of us that do not want more ass rape from collectivist shitbags and their agenda have had enough.

    Thumb up 9

  84. AlexInCT *
    not through scientific means but simply by impugning the source’s possible affiliation with brown energy, anything else.

    huh?

    Really?

    Did you miss all the cries of “denier” and the accusations that their studies were biased or unworthy because they were being paid for by the evil baby eating, virgin sacrificing, profit making oil/gas/coal/nuclear industry, instead of the all-powerful nanny state?

    Leave that tactic to CM. He is the master of feigned ignorance.

    Thumb up 9

  85. Iconoclast

    Also, AL GORE. That should be enough to change how the planet works. The AGW science before AL GORE was alive was only to set up AL GORE and His Church. Etc etc.

    Absurdly disingenuous it is, then…

    The simple fact is that Al Gore was a spokesman for your precious cause, and a very high-visibility one at that. It simply doesn’t help your cause that he is widely perceived to be a charlatan and hypocrite. It was none other than your tag-team cohort stogy who was whining about a “poisoned” political atmosphere, which was preventing politicians from hopping on board the AGW bandwagon, thereby delaying “serious action” on AGW for half a decade or more. Well, as I was patiently explaining to your cohort, part of the reason the atmosphere is “poisoned” is because of high-profile celebrities like Gore preaching AGW while flying around in private jets. This has nothing to do with anything being “enough to change how the planet works”, and everything to do with perception of an issue.

    Now sure, you are free to simply mock and ridicule and pretend that Al Gore and his ilk are irrelevant, but it seems to me that if the science is as sound as you preach it to be, you would want people to get interested. Unfortunately, for some reason, people don’t respond all that positively to apparent hypocrisy, nor are we impressed when apparent hypocrisy is swept under the rug of “irrelevancy”. Go ahead and pretend that having such an attitude will be beneficial to recruitment efforts. Good luck with that.

    Thumb up 11

  86. Dave D

    “recruitment efforts”

    That gave me a chuckle!

    Sorry….gotta go: There is a LDS or Jehova’s witness “recruiting effort” knocking at my front door right now!

    Thumb up 5

  87. CM

    I’ve heard for years from CM and others that the models are sound, and we need to trust them or else!

    Turns out all of that was absolute bullshit.

    Wrong on both counts. You’re exaggerating wildly on both to try and make it work.

    Oh! Wait! It’s going into the oceans!!! We didn’t think of the Oceans!! Warning! The oceans will boil! Death to everyone! Unless the US institutes taxes on the evil oil companies! It’s hyperbole,….

    That’s YOUR hyperbole. This constant need to grossly exaggerate, while complaining about exaggeration (not carried out by anyone here), is just silly. Why do you need to keep relying on it?

    Pointing out (correctly) that the oceans are taking up 90+% of additional heat content from global warming isn’t damage control, it’s called being accurate. If you want damage control, there are many accounts by climate pseudoskeptics of how Arctic sea ice has been “in recovery” any time over the last decade (it hasn’t), or how a not-quite-statistically-significant-yet-still-positive surface temperature trend since 1998 counts as “no warming” or even “cooling”. Xetrov for some reason you’re only to happy to promote nonsense like that. Following it up sarcasm doesn’t help.

    …and reeks of desperation to keep government money flowing to these “unbiased” scientists.

    That suggests that you think almost all the world’s scientists involved in climate science have been biased because of money. Is that true? Really? Do you realise how nutty that is (particularly when their work is published so fraud can be detected)?

    I’ve heard for years how we can’t trust certain scientists because they are “in the pocket” of big oil, or some other special interest group.

    You haven’t heard that from me. You can ignore that claim, it doesn’t make any difference to the physics, to over a century of consistent scientific understanding.

    You don’t get a bigger special interest group than an all-powerful Federal government, which is where the bulk of the funding comes from for the organizations behind the two papers you cited above.

    So? Unless there is an identified issue with the research then it’s not relevant.

    Clearly we (mankind as a whole) has no clue yet what causes warming and cooling on our planet enough to accurately predict, and base global economic policy on those predictions.

    Of course we know. We’ve known for a long time. Our understanding gets better all the time. We don’t need to know 100% in order to know we’ve got some serious problems coming up.

    The peer review you claim was unbiased was a fucking circle jerk that basically only allowed work sympathetic to their agenda to pass through their filter and ignored or discredited, not through scientific means but simply by impugning the source’s possible affiliation with brown energy, anything else. Anyone that pointed out that these cultists were ignoring the impact of the natural cycle was attacked, vehemently, in the most despicable and vile manner. They were labeled as deniers.

    Even though ‘keeping these out of the next IPCC report’ was discussed (in 2003) in the stolen private emails, some of the relevant papers WERE discussed in the following IPCC report (2007). For example here:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html
    Soon and Baliunas (2003)
    McIntyre and McKitrick (2003)
    How does that fit your theory?

    you need to go back to the drawing board, where it needs to be all redone

    It’s constantly being ‘redone’. That’s one of the great things about the scientific method – so much of it is overlapping that any previous errors or mistakes (big or small) are inevitably found at some point.

    Nice attempt to bait and switch Stogy, but I am not biting.

    He didn’t, you did, as I pointed out above.

    Again you cherry pick one thing to focus on

    Oh now that’s brilliant. You accusing someone, in a discussion about climate change, of cherry-picking. I didn’t think self-parody got that raw.
    You should be reminded yet again that you’ve provided NO EVIDENCE to support ANYTHING that you’re claimed. In terms of the science OR the accusations/insinuations/allegations against these people you can’t even name.

    I want to focus on the nasty and despicable practice that kept real good work that debunked the AGW myths from getting a fair shake.

    No you don’t, because ‘focusing’ means getting into detail, and you’ve shown in EVERY single discussion that detail is the LAST thing you want to get into. Because the very few times you’ve lapsed, you’ve shown how little you understand and proven that you whole narrative is ideological.

    The left pretends that because they got some hacks to say it is so, that it now is a theorem. Not how science works.

    It’s stunning that you think 97% of the world’s scientists working in a climate-change field are just ‘hacks’ and yet you claim to know about science. This is nothing but the rantings of a fruit-loop conspiracy nutjob.

    Again, I have an education as an engineer, I have worked in that field, I have done modeling and I have conducted scientific experiments. What exposure have you had to the real scientific world or any scientific work?

    This just underlines how far off the deep-end you’re gone on this. You’re way out on the fringe. As stogy pointed out even the world’s insurance companies have determined that this is very real. Unless of course that’s part of the huge conspiracy too.

    And I say this with certitude, because if you really understood and respected the scientific method and principle, you wouldn’t be a fucking AGW cultist: you would despise what they did to science and its credibility.

    Where is your evidence?

    You seem to not want to allow for the distinction that things could be warming up simply because mother nature is doing it.

    HOW is mother nature doing it? Science doesn’t just mean going ‘ah well, I’m sure there’s a good explanation for it’. For fuck’s sake Alex.

    Your side has not proven that at all.

    You claim to know all about science (and certainly you know more about climate science then the world’s climate scientists) and yet you’re asking for something found in mathematics? That’s just woeful.

    You AGW cultists don’t get to claim you are right just because it is getting hot:

    Denialist cultists don’t just get to claim “it’s just mother nature…..not sure how, but it doesn’t matter, it’s just natural”.
    Here is another denialist graph I’m sure you’d agree with – “the temperature is decreasing!”
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

    you have to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the heat is manmade and not part of the natural cycle.

    I don’t have to prove anything. I can look at what the science is saying and agree that the evidence is overwhelming and that we haven’t been using the planet in a sustainable manner. And then consider whether we can do anything, and if so, what is the best way to do something that minimises the pain. “Beyond a shadow of a doubt” would nice, but it’s very unlikely. This is why this is all about risk management. If something is proven ‘beyond a shadow of a doubt’ then ‘risk’ isn’t relevant.

    The longer we wait to transition, the greater the pain will be. And yet you argue for less pain and no action. You can’t have it both ways.

    And I will say it again – I know it will not sink in with you AGW religious fanatics, but people that are not in the grip of that cult’s fervor will understand it – and that is your side is the one claiming that the rises are caused by manmade CO2 emissions and not nature, and your side, so far, has not proven that at all. In fact, they have gotten it totally wrong.

    How so? Please explain how AGW has been shown to be totally wrong. Because you’ve, again, failed spectacularly to do so.
    I will say it again – you’ve AGAIN failed to present ANY evidence to support ANY of your claims.

    This has become boring as hell.

    So make it less boring by backing up your repetitive claims. ANY of them. It’s only boring because you can only ever repeat slight variations on the same few vague sentences.

    Did you miss all the cries of “denier” and the accusations that their studies were biased or unworthy because they were being paid for by the evil baby eating, virgin sacrificing, profit making oil/gas/coal/nuclear industry, instead of the all-powerful nanny state?

    As above, some of the main papers discussed in the emails (as being unworthy of being in the next IPCC report) did then appear in the next IPCC report. Notwithstanding that, they weren’t discussed as being unworthy because of who funded them. Ultimately funding is irrelevant, as the BEST study showed.

    Thumb up 1

  88. CM

    Absurdly disingenuous it is, then…

    Not sure how you happened to miss all the rest of the absurb disingenuousness in the rest of the thread?
    Oh that’s right, you don’t even pretend to be even-handed or objective or reasonable. That’s ok then, apparently. Such a cool little system you’re got set up for yourself there.

    The simple fact is that Al Gore was a spokesman for your precious cause,

    It’s not ‘my’ cause, and the degree to which it’s ‘precious’ is irrelevant.

    It simply doesn’t help your cause that he is widely perceived to be a charlatan and hypocrite.

    True. But then some people are just stupid and will consider a negative image of Al Gore to be more important that the future of the planet. There is not ever really going to be any convincing of those people. And I hardly think Al Gore has more influence than ongoing misinformation in the media, particularly right-wing media (and some of these stupid people will rely heavily on right-wing media to be ‘informed’). So although Al Gore doesn’t ‘help’ with some people, I think there are significantly larger factors. And Al Gore’s movie certainly increased awareness across a larger number of people, many of whom aren’t stupid, and would have gone on to do their own research (or at least pretend to I guess right?).

    It was none other than your tag-team cohort stogy

    Ah yes because you’re so much better off with your partners here. Pfffft.

    who was whining about a “poisoned” political atmosphere, which was preventing politicians from hopping on board the AGW bandwagon, thereby delaying “serious action” on AGW for half a decade or more. Well, as I was patiently explaining

    Gosh, poor you, being so patient and everything. I just see you pinching your nose.

    to your cohort, part of the reason the atmosphere is “poisoned” is because of high-profile celebrities like Gore preaching AGW while flying around in private jets.

    Yeah I think it’s the shameless, no-standards-involved, ideological reporting of that which is far more influential than the actual use of jets. Most of the people who lap that stuff up are never going to read or absorb anything that’ll alter their opinion on the issue. Which is why they invariably also mention Gore’s weight. Most don’t give a shit about any of the science, they’re far more interested in seeing support for their hatred of Gore and everything he stands for.

    Now sure, you are free to simply mock and ridicule and pretend that Al Gore and his ilk are irrelevant,but it seems to me that if the science is as sound as you preach it to be, you would want people to get interested. Unfortunately, for some reason, people don’t respond all that positively to apparent hypocrisy, nor are we impressed when apparent hypocrisy is swept under the rug of “irrelevancy”. Go ahead and pretend that having such an attitude will be beneficial to recruitment efforts. Good luck with that.

    It’s unfortunate, but I highly doubt people who believe apparent hypocrisy is more important than the science are every really going to consider this from anything other than an ideological angle. There are some who just don’t give a shit about the planet after they die, simply because there’s nothing in it for them personally. These same people disagree with Gore’s politics. Nothing is going to change that. If Gore had used scheduled flights, or a row boat, it wouldn’t have changed at all.
    Again I think misinformation in the media, and people relying on ideological political blogs for their science is much more of an issue.
    After all, using Godwin’s Law doesn’t mean the Nazi’s weren’t terrible, or irrelevant. It’s just often a good indicator of who you’re dealing with.

    Thumb up 2

  89. CM

    Sorry….gotta go: There is a LDS or Jehova’s witness “recruiting effort” knocking at my front door right now!

    You mean it’ll be based entirely on faith and not at all on science?

    Thumb up 2

  90. Xetrov
    I’ve heard for years from CM and others that the models are sound, and we need to trust them or else!

    Turns out all of that was absolute bullshit.

    Wrong on both counts. You’re exaggerating wildly on both to try and make it work.

    You had over 14,000 posts on Moorewatch, a good chunk of them on defending climate change. (not sure if the search result will work, searched for climate model as posted by CM, and there are a LOT). You really doubt that you spent literally hundreds of posts defending the models? Here’s a good one.

    The validity of models can be tested against climate history. If they can predict the past (which the best models are pretty good at) they are probably on the right track for predicting the future – and indeed have successfully done so. Climate modellers may occasionally be seduced by the beauty of their constructions and put too much faith in them. Where the critics of the models are both wrong and illogical, however, is in assuming that the models must be biased towards alarmism – that is, greater climate change. It is just as likely that these models err on the side of caution.

    That’s some funny shit right there considering what actually happened with the models over the last 20 years..

    Do you realise how nutty that is (particularly when their work is published so fraud can be detected)?

    *cough*

    114 out of 117 models overestimated warming over the last 20 years, most significantly so.

    And yet you and stogy have spent the rest of the thread dismissing (or trying to ignore) that…how did you put it…”fraud”. Nice word.

    Thumb up 5

  91. Xetrov

    Just spent some time in the archives from the link I posted above. And I remembered something that I apparently forgot in the last two days. NOTHING ever comes from these global warming debates. Keep trusting the science behind false models.

    I’m out.

    Thumb up 2

  92. stogy

    And yet you and stogy have spent the rest of the thread dismissing (or trying to ignore) that…how did you put it…”fraud”. Nice word.

    I argued why I thought the paper had reached the conclusions it had and why I think it doesn’t yet show the models are wrong. And I posted a new paper that comes to very different conclusions. And I asked you to spell out why you accept one paper over the other. And I’ve made a prediction based on what I think the evidence shows – we should know within two or three years whether I’m correct or not. So no, I didn’t ignore it

    On the other hand, nobody here has dealt with the …cough… “60% increase in arctic ice”. Which I can show is a highly misleading argument right now.

    But even more clearly, on this thread, CM and I have given examples of how scientists are deliberately misquoted, data cherry picked and time and even real skeptical work (The BEST study – which Anthony Watts said he would accept the findings from, until the results actually came out) has been ignored. Yet how many people here have commented on the BEST study?

    To this I should add that scientists have had their names, home addresses and telephone numbers given on contrarian websites and been physically threatened as a result. They’ve had their work subjected to vexations legal and FOI requests, and private correspondence stolen and misquoted and misunderstood (later cleared by multiple independent inquiries) They’ve also had their work and reputations defamed (and won in court). And then you accuse Gore of poisoning the atmosphere.

    Again – if the argument against AGW is so strong, why do people who question the science have to engage in such blatently misleading arguments and practices?

    But no. It’s fraud. Because you say it is. Along with some blogs. The other point is – if you are really opposed to any scientific arguments related to AGW, then you are doing a really poor job of it. There are much better arguments against climate science – I even hinted at what they are: climate sensitivity and variability in the hope that someone would say something or link to something actually interesting.

    But your actual understanding of the most basic concepts of climate science (and these are principles also accepted by most contrarians) is severely wanting. In the last few weeks, we’ve had “it’s a tax on breathing” (er… carbon cycle?), “it’s warming on Mars” (when your own links disputed the solar output cause), “the hockey stick is a measure of rising temperature” (Did anyone bother to look up what the hockey stick is a measure of?). We’ve also had confusion about the scientific process itself – not understanding the most basic scientific terms and principles.

    But then here you are perfectly satisfied to accept such bogus arguments because they fit your agenda. Scientifically, this means you’ll accept any paper that matches your political views and reject any that doesn’t, assigning it to a nefarious conspiracy, the work of a cabal of scientists, that are trying to subvert freedoms and introduce world government. The consensus only applies in reverse – majority of climate models wrong, but never to the 97% of climate scientists, all of the world’s top scientific bodies, most conservative parties outside of the US (including the incoming conservative government in Australia – which DOES have a big spending, direct action policy on climate change), the World Bank, insurance companies – even many oil companies.

    And then I’m told I need to go back and start again. But you don’t have even the most basic skills to analyze the data for yourselves. Instead you rely on misinformation sites for your arguments and rather than thinking for yourselves and looking at what they are actually doing with the data, you become useful idiots spouting propaganda and nonsense.

    If you want to be useful in opposing AGW, then start understanding the science, and really questioning it. I don’t care if you end up on the other side of the argument, but at least do a better job of it.

    Thumb up 2

  93. stogy

    Just spent some time in the archives from the link I posted above. And I remembered something that I apparently forgot in the last two days. NOTHING ever comes from these global warming debates. Keep trusting the science behind false models.

    I’m out.

    Too bad, Xetrov. At least you posted a couple of points that made me think.

    Thumb up 2

  94. CM

    You had over 14,000 posts on Moorewatch, a good chunk of them on defending climate change.

    More often I attacked arrogant ignorance and/or stupidity. Which is I very very rarely ever started any discussion. Strange that you fail to mention that. And that’s not even remotely the same as saying “the models are sound, and we need to trust them or else!”. Again, why the need to exaggerate? It speaks volumes.

    You really doubt that you spent literally hundreds of posts defending the models?

    No, but that’s not what you claimed.

    That’s some funny shit right there considering what actually happened with the models over the last 20 years..

    No idea why you’ve highlighted where I acknowledged that the models could (of course) be wrong. I thought you were attempting to argue that “we need to trust them or else”?

    *cough*

    ?

    And yet you and stogy have spent the rest of the thread dismissing (or trying to ignore) that…how did you put it…”fraud”. Nice word.

    I didn’t call the models fraudulent. I think you’re a little confused.
    stogy has more than covered this nonsense anyway.
    An explanation has been provided. You might not like it, but you certainly can’t claim it was dismissed or ignored. Why don’t you explain why you don’t like the explanation instead of engaging in that nonsense?

    On the other hand, nobody here has dealt with the …cough… “60% increase in arctic ice”. Which I can show is a highly misleading argument right now.

    They always go right down the memory hole. Every. Single. Time. As I keep saying, they don’t need to adhere to ANY standards, and certainly not the ones they staunchly require of others.

    Yet how many people here have commented on the BEST study?

    If I remember correctly the single response was: “that guy was never a ‘proper’ skeptic anyway”.

    To this I should add that scientists have had their names, home addresses and telephone numbers given on contrarian websites and been physically threatened as a result.

    Means to an end apparently. Freedom ™ being the ‘end’.

    They’ve had their work subjected to vexations legal and FOI requests, and private correspondence stolen and misquoted and misunderstood (later cleared by multiple independent inquiries)

    Ah but they’re ALL part of the conspiracy too. You just need to be a nutjob to understand stogy.

    Again – if the argument against AGW is so strong, why do people who question the science have to engage in such blatently misleading arguments and practices?

    Again, nothing but tumbleweeds. No wonder Hal gives up. It obviously gets real embarrassing real quick for him.

    But no. It’s fraud. Because you say it is.

    That sums up the whole thing. Because when you ask for evidence the response is “I’m bored” and “I’m out”.

    But then here you are perfectly satisfied to accept such bogus arguments because they fit your agenda.

    Bingo. And yet they have the gall to suggest that’s the only reason AGW theory exists. It’s astonishing.

    Scientifically, this means you’ll accept any paper that matches your political views and reject any that doesn’t, assigning it to a nefarious conspiracy, the work of a cabal of scientists, that are trying to subvert freedoms and introduce world government.

    Absolutely. This happens in EVERY discussion about this topic on this blog, and it happened EVERY SINGLE time at MW Forums. It’s no coincidence.
    It just doesn’t get more intellectually lazy or cowardly than promoting the whole fraud/conspiracy argument and then running away.

    Thumb up 0

  95. CM

    It’s funny reading the old MW Forum thread again. Alex is a straight replacement for crichton. Although that’s possibly a bit unfair to crichton.

    I’d forgotten that Blues (who posted under the name CzarChasm here briefly) acknowledged that he was relying on faith. (Post 683)

    Thumb up 0

  96. CM

    Peer reviewed paper confirms accuracy of climate modelling:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming

    The new research also found that, compared to the forecast, the early years of the new millennium were somewhat warmer than expected. More recently the temperature has matched the level forecasted very closely, but the relative slow-down in warming since the early years of the early 2000s has caused many commentators to assume that warming is now less severe than predicted. The paper shows this is not true.

    Allen said: “I think it’s interesting because so many people think that recent years have been unexpectedly cool. In fact, what we found was that a few years around the turn of the millennium were slightly warmer than forecast, and that temperatures have now reverted to what we were predicting back in the 1990s.”

    Thumb up 0

  97. stogy

    It’s funny reading the old MW Forum thread again. Alex is a straight replacement for crichton. Although that’s possibly a bit unfair to crichton.

    That’s funny too, because I was remembering Drumwaster (who used to post a lot here) the other day and comparing my old battles with him to Alex.

    Then I remembered that Drumwaster had a keen sense of humor and a whole drawer full of entertaining insults.

    I’m guessing his health must have let him down in the end, because even the Drumwaster’s Rants site disappeared a while back.

    Thumb up 0

  98. Seattle Outcast

    Peer reviewed paper confirms accuracy of climate modelling:

    Statistics confirms the inaccuracy and scew of climate modeling.

    Out of the nearly 120 climate model predictions, all but about 3 to 5 of them were on the high side, many of them by orders of magnitude.

    Any statistical analysis of these climate model predictions would start with the assumption that they are NOT weighted toward one side or the other, and are in fact roughly accurate. This would mean that the climate predictions would be in a nice bell curve with the actual climate data someplace near the middle, with half of them higher and half of them lower. With approximately 98% of the predictions lying to one side of the actual climate data, the only conclusion that can be made is that computer climate modeling has no relation to actual climate data at all. In other words, your climate model is a work of utter fiction and cannot actually be considered a “climate model” at all.

    I’ll bet that given the mean and standard deviation, the actual climate data lies about 5 or 6 sigma away from the predicted outcomes.

    This kick in the nuts has been brought to you by your resident professional statistician.

    Thumb up 5

  99. AlexInCT *

    I’ll bet that given the mean and standard deviation, the actual climate data lies about 5 or 6 sigma away from the predicted outcomes.

    You are wasting time explaining these details to the cultist. I don’t even bother to go into those details because it is like trying to talk logic with one of those “studies’ types. They will drag you down to their level of stupid, pull a bait and switch, then pretend they have a point that’s valid, and based on fact and logic, when there is nothing of that at all on their side, and you will be left feeling like you just did three rounds with an insane Mike Tyson. You are better off ridiculing them and letting them pretend they have a clue what they are talking about.

    I laugh my ass off every time one of them pretends that despite the fact they got it all wrong they are right, because basically, that’s what they are saying. They are so fucking stuck to their dogma that they don’t understand that they can claim success just because it is warm. Their joke of a hypothesis blames man: they need to prove that. They can’t. Instead we get panicked statements about bad el Niño or la Nina effects sometime in the near future – like the hurricanes that are not there now but were clearly coming because of AGW – a dead give away man is behind AGW and it is happening. I mean, are they real this stupid? Do they understand that both ocean effects are caused by accumulation of energy in the ocean from solar radiation?

    Give it up. Let them post a dozen more meaningless posts at the tail of the comment section and let this thing die off. They will go away thinking they won, but the rest of us know better. In the real world people are finally telling the cultists to stick it where the sun don’t shine, and that’s what counts

    Thumb up 5

  100. Seattle Outcast

    In twenty years we’ll be back to “global cooling”, which they are already starting to hype, plus one or two other manufactured scare tactics that all equal “cede all power to your masters” and “go fucking live in a cave”

    Thumb up 5

  101. stogy

    Out of the nearly 120 climate model predictions, all but about 3 to 5 of them were on the high side, many of them by orders of magnitude.

    I answered this already. But here is again:

    I argued why I thought the paper had reached the conclusions it had and why I think it doesn’t yet show the models are wrong. And I posted a new paper that comes to very different conclusions. And I asked you to spell out why you accept one paper over the other. And I’ve made a prediction based on what I think the evidence shows – we should know within two or three years whether I’m correct or not. So no, I didn’t ignore it

    But while we’re on the question of bogus statistics, no one has still dealt with this:

    On the other hand, nobody here has dealt with the …cough… “60% increase in arctic ice”. Which I can show is a highly misleading argument right now.

    I didn’t post this link – several people here did – arguing that it showed ice was recovering. But now no one here is defending it. Why not? If the argument against AGW is so strong, why do people who question the science have to engage in such blatently misleading arguments and practices?

    Answer the question for the chance to win…

    Thumb up 0

  102. CM

    Any statistical analysis of these climate model predictions would start with the assumption that they are NOT weighted toward one side or the other, and are in fact roughly accurate. This would mean that the climate predictions would be in a nice bell curve with the actual climate data someplace near the middle, with half of them higher and half of them lower. With approximately 98% of the predictions lying to one side of the actual climate data, the only conclusion that can be made is that computer climate modeling has no relation to actual climate data at all. In other words, your climate model is a work of utter fiction and cannot actually be considered a “climate model” at all.

    As pointed out, there was a period where the rate of warming was faster than the model mean, and then there was period where it was slower. Nobody expects climate data to be “someplace near the middle”.
    Additionally, it seems that 90% of warming is going into the deep ocean at the moment. As I’m sure you know, surface temps are only one measure of how the climate is changing. A cherry-picked period on no or little surface temperature increase does not spell “the end of global warming”. Anyone who thinks it does is either ignorant or an idiot (or both).

    This kick in the nuts has been brought to you by your resident professional statistician.

    Who exactly has been kicked in the nuts?

    You are wasting time explaining these details to the cultist.

    Still waiting for ANY details to back up ANY of your claims Alex.

    I don’t even bother to go into those details….etc

    And there it is. The rest if your excuse. The fact is that whenever you try to get into details you demonstrate that you have no clue what you’re talking about.

    I laugh my ass off every time one of them pretends that despite the fact they got it all wrong they are right, because basically, that’s what they are saying.

    You’ve got it backwards. We explain. You just say you’re right, but refuse to get into detail. We all know why, irrespectively of your lame excuses.

    Their joke of a hypothesis blames man: they need to prove that. They can’t.

    You’re STILL using a mathematical term when we’re talking about science. Sheesh. That’s a special talent.

    Instead we get panicked statements about bad el Niño or la Nina effects sometime in the near future

    Where was the panic?

    Give it up. Let them post a dozen more meaningless posts at the tail of the comment section and let this thing die off. They will go away thinking they won, but the rest of us know better. In the real world people are finally telling the cultists to stick it where the sun don’t shine, and that’s what counts

    Only one side has provided details and backed up their statements. That’s inarguable.

    In the real world people are finally telling the cultists to stick it where the sun don’t shine, and that’s what counts

    Sorry Alex but right-wing ideological anti-science political blogs ain’t “the real world”, no matter how hard you shut your eyes and cross your fingers and hope.

    In twenty years we’ll be back to “global cooling”, which they are already starting to hype,

    Unlikely, for very good reasons. But then we’re been through that as well.

    plus one or two other manufactured scare tactics that all equal “cede all power to your masters” and “go fucking live in a cave”

    Nobody is telling anyone to go live in a cave.

    I answered this already.

    Everything raised here has been well and truly answered. In detail.

    If the argument against AGW is so strong, why do people who question the science have to engage in such blatently misleading arguments and practices? Answer the question.

    They’ve all run away again. Same old same old.

    Thumb up 0

  103. AlexInCT *

    In twenty years we’ll be back to “global cooling”, which they are already starting to hype, plus one or two other manufactured scare tactics that all equal “cede all power to your masters” and “go fucking live in a cave”

    The end goal won’t change: the made up crisis they pretend should make us give up our freedoms is all that will. And watch them act all undignified as soon as we point out and laugh at them for yet again pretending that that another made up “manmade crisis” can only be solved by more collectivism.

    They’ve all run away again. Same old same old.

    Like I said: these fucking idiots still think that because we refuse to subject ourselves to their inability to accept the reality on the ground and let go of their dogma that they won. I guess when you believe that sort of stupid stubbornness in the face of facts, logic, and real science, is what makes you right, their whole “consensus science” nonsense makes sense.

    Meh, oh so weak. The good thing is less and less people take the cultists seriously every day, and that’s the real win. Oh those tears taste sweet.

    Thumb up 4

  104. stogy

    Alex, you linked to a news article which was demonstrably misleading – claiming a 60% increase in arctic sea ice this year as evidence of a sea ice recovery.

    Yet still no answer to my question. Here it is again (for the 5th time):

    If the argument against AGW is so strong, why do people who question the science have to engage in such blatently misleading arguments and practices?

    This was your link – either defend it or disown it.

    Thumb up 0

  105. AlexInCT *

    Alex, you linked to a news article which was demonstrably misleading – claiming a 60% increase in arctic sea ice this year as evidence of a sea ice recovery.

    The only one doing any misleading is you. I linked to that article in response to the pope of the AGW cultist movement making the ludicrous claim all Arctic ice would be gone in 2013. I then pointed out that contrary to the bullshit from the disingenuous watermelon movement – called that because as soon as you scratch an environmentalist you find a collectivist/marxist under there – what we have is Arctic ice growth.

    The point I made is a simple one, and I will repeat it again: The AGW cultists do not understand what’s going on with the planet’s climate at all, and worse, they are lying when they say they know it is man that is causing anything, so they need to be discredited and run out of town. People have finally caught on that the AGW movement doesn’t know its hand from its ass, has gotten the whole thing wrong, and lacks credibility, and it is a real good thing. I pray to whatever powers allowed the East Anglia revelation to happen, because that was when we finally staked this fucking AGW vampire and cut off it’s head. You can keep pretending you have anything to stand on, but you don’t. There is very little science going on in your religious movement, and lucky for the world, people have caught on.

    Go find the next crisis you can use to scare people into allowing you to pick up where your AGW crusade failed, because this one is played out. You know the work that needs to be done if you want to convince people. See you in 20-25 years to verify you got it right this time around, or not, and I am betting that’s the result, and we can take it form there. Otherwise, as I already pointed out FOAD.

    This was your link – either defend it or disown it.

    I will do neither. You can desperately keep trying to control the argument and direct it in a direction you think will give you a chance to pretend you have a legitimate argument that needs to be paid attention to, but I am not biting. The only ones needing to defend or disown anything are the lying fucks that are behind the AGW fake crisis they hoped to use to fuck people over with. Stop wasting my time.

    Thumb up 4

  106. Hal_10000

    Stogy, you’re arguing with people’s religion. Here is a great article from the Guardian showing how the claim that arctic sea ice is recovering and that global warming has reversed is complete bullshit. It is cherry picking one year’s worth of data:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions?CMP=twt_gu

    Here’s a hint. If you can trace the claim back to David Rose, it is almost certainly a bunch of garbage. Rose is the king of deceptive plots. He is CONSTANTLY doing this and constantly getting repeated in the “conservative” blogs. He has a long history of completely misquoting people, presenting cherry-picked graphs and ignoring basically every piece of data we have accumulated on the climate for the last century.

    You can also check out this video, which shows how the volume of sea ice has declined 80% on the last thirty years.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgiMBxaL19M

    I should also point out that Rose’s claim that scientists predicted 2013 would be “ice free” is incorrect. They scientists said 2030 at the earliest, probably like 2040, if then.

    But, back to your delusions…

    Thumb up 1

  107. Seattle Outcast

    On mismatches between models and observations

    Well, you see, all you did was prove that I already knew more about number crunching than you. What you linked to is known as the “baffle them with bullshit” defense. It only works if the other side doesn’t actually know what they are talking about.

    I’ll repeat it for you: “PROFESSIONAL STATISTICIAN”

    Aside from my engineering degree I hold five (5) ASQ certifications – advanced statistical analysis of data is my fucking job at a multinational aerospace corporation with an annual income counted in billions of dollars.

    You might want to believe me when I tell you that a statistical analysis of your 120 climate models fails the sniff test like a steaming pile of fresh dogshit pretending to be prime rib.

    Thumb up 4

  108. stogy

    the pope of the AGW cultist movement making the ludicrous claim all Arctic ice would be gone in 2013

    Gore quoted a scientist who was surprised by how low arctic ice got in 2007, and based his projections on that. At same time, other scientists were saying that his projections were a little extreme:

    “A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that’s what our models were telling us. But as we’ve seen, the models aren’t fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate. My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”

    So one scientist got it wrong. That’s how science works. Choosing the one scientist who got it wrong and making a huge case out of it is misinformation. Ice volume is still in steep decline and the decline appears to be accelerating.The science I’ve read says that as summer ice gets closer to zero, the year on year variability will increase. If you want links let me know.

    So you’re standing behind the Rose analysis? And Morano’s links to the same? That’s courageous! The ice area for August 2013 (drum roll):
    Sea ice area

    Now remember that this graph shows the same data that Marc Morano and David Rose are using – neither of them question the data at all. If they had said the data was wrong, then we would have a different issue. But they use this as a basis for claiming a 60% increase. And then for your own small contribution:

    what we have is Arctic ice growth.

    And then I clicked on the link you gave for Climate Depot

    That’s a brilliant graph, Alex. He’s really outdone himself. I pissed myself laughing when I saw it. Have you worked out how he’s done it? It’s brilliant! Really. I’m so impressed. The man is a god and he deserves every penny they pay him!

    It’s misinformation at its finest!

    OK. So you are still going to stand by it? Very courageous indeed.

    Even then I would argue that PIOMAS (ice volume) is a more accurate measure. Just in case you missed it, here is the volume again – PIOMAS

    Stogy, you’re arguing with people’s religion.

    Thanks Hal. Leaving unchallenged claims bothers me. Besides, I’m really interested in it, and I like looking at the arguments people are making about it.

    Thumb up 1

  109. stogy

    You might want to believe me when I tell you that a statistical analysis of your 120 climate models fails the sniff test like a steaming pile of fresh dogshit pretending to be prime rib.

    If the models failed, there must be an explanation. That would be either the data was wrong, the models didn’t use the data correctly, or there are flawed comparisons. Here’s something on that, if you’d like to read a little more.

    As an expert statistician, would you like to comment on which one you think it is?

    I’m still interested in why you think that the Kosaka and Xie paper doesn’t account for the hiatus (and hence the failure of the models). I’ll send you a copy of the full paper if you want to read it. But there is some analysis of it here and here and here and here and here. The Tamino stuff in particular should be right up your street – he’s a professional climate statistician.

    Thumb up 0

  110. stogy

    Hi SO, my last comment is still awaiting moderation, so hopefully this will come through in the correct order.

    Here’s an analysis of both the Fyfe et al and Kosaka & Xie papers, and then a later update with corrections. The Fyfe commentary is kind of brief, but the post includes a full emulation of the analysis used in the Kosaka. He ends up with a transient climate response of 1.05 C (0.6-1.9C).

    As a statistician, it would be great to get your take on it as well.

    Thumb up 0

  111. CM

    in the face of facts, logic, and real science,

    Let me know when you have ANY of these. I keep asking, you keep avoiding.

    It is cherry picking one year’s worth of data:

    That’s the thing, it’s not even very clever. It’s so woefully transparent. You’d think they’d at least TRY and support their case. All the they ever seem to be able to is undermine it. Which is why Alex runs a mile from detail (and now runs this ‘these fucking idiots still think that because we refuse to subject ourselves to their inability to accept the reality on the ground and let go of their dogma that they won” load of arse). Does he think we’re all 4 years old and can’t see through the pathetic facade?

    Well, you see, all you did was prove that I already knew more about number crunching than you.

    I did that by posting a link by the same climate scientist that Xetrov used?
    Wow. I’d like to hear how that works.

    I’ll repeat it for you: “PROFESSIONAL STATISTICIAN”

    Except when your political ideology gets in the way?
    I’ll repeat why you’ve got no credibility on that score: “UNSKEWEDPOLLS.COM”.
    It takes a special type of something to be suffering no embarrassment from that clusterfuck. Down the old memory hole huh?

    Aside from my engineering degree I hold five (5) ASQ certifications – advanced statistical analysis of data is my fucking job at a multinational aerospace corporation with an annual income counted in billions of dollars.

    You might want to believe me when I tell you that a statistical analysis of your 120 climate models fails the sniff test like a steaming pile of fresh dogshit pretending to be prime rib.

    See fucking earlier. But sure, fucking go ahead and fucking explain what I linked to is fucking nonsense.

    Thumb up 1

  112. CM

    Gore quoted a scientist who was surprised by how low arctic ice got in 2007, and based his projections on that. At same time, other scientists were saying that his projections were a little extreme:

    Alex has no time for explanations or detail. If it doesn’t suit his religion he’s not interested.

    But they use this as a basis for claiming a 60% increase.

    I’m sure SO can explain ‘regression toward the mean’ to Alex.

    Besides, I’m really interested in it, and I like looking at the arguments people are making about it.

    You’re courageous, expecting an actual argument.

    Thumb up 0

  113. CM

    But, back to your delusions…

    If I ever start believing this these sorts of grand conspiracy theories (in relation to anything) I sincerely hope someone I love sends me for some professional help. It REALLY is delusional.

    Thumb up 1

  114. Iconoclast

    Not sure how you happened to miss all the rest of the absurb disingenuousness in the rest of the thread?

    Right, since I didn’t respond to it, I must have “missed” it. As always, your logic is unassailable…

    I was initially commenting on stogy’s “poisoned atmosphere” complaint, providing what I have already described as a partial explanation (note to stogy: This means I never ever claimed that Gore did the poisoning all by his onesy, but he did do a fair amount of misrepresentation of the issues, and that sort of thing does indeed provide fodder for all of the “right-wingers” you and CM complain about), and stogy tried to dismiss that partial explanation as irrelevant, just as you seem to be doing right now. I simply observed that trying to dismiss Gore as “irrelevant” given his ridiculously high visibility as a spokesman on this issue comes across as “absurdly disingenuous”, meaning that the phrase “absurdly disingenuous” was specifically being applied to the notion of dismissing Gore as “irrelevant”.

    So when you come along and double-down on the “Gore is Irrelevant” song and dance, I merely observed how apropos the initial application of the phrase “absurdly disingenuous” appeared to be, and elaborated on it a bit. It’s really not my problem that you walked right into it.

    Oh that’s right, you don’t even pretend to be even-handed or objective or reasonable.

    Yeah, you’re catching on — I don’t pretend to be any of those things. You, otoh, pretend to be all three, apparently.

    Such a cool little system you’re got set up for yourself there.

    I wasn’t aware that a lack of pretense was a “system”, but I guess we learn something new every day.

    It’s not ‘my’ cause, and the degree to which it’s ‘precious’ is irrelevant.

    And yet you are the one who whines about people not caring about what happens to the planet after they’re dead…

    True. But…

    …but but but RIGHT-WINGERS…and CONSERVATIVE BLOGS…and IDEOLOGY…yeah, I got it.

    Your rant rather reminds me of Romney and his 47% — people who are deemed simply too far gone to ever be reachable…

    What you don’t seem to get is that this issue isn’t just about the science; it absolutely is ideological, or, at the very least, has damned significant ideological ramifications. You see, there are many groups out there who have always hated capitalism and “big business” (especially “big oil”), and who have always advocated governmental solutions to all perceived societal problems, and these types of groups naturally swarm to an issue such as AGW like flies to manure, and AGW provides a welcoming tent to such groups. And it is no coincidence that these groups tend to be left-leaning. AGW provides a perfect cover for curtailing the personal liberties of selfish individuals, and the promotion of collectivist solutions. This makes it a clear threat to personal liberty in the here-and-now, which is an argument I have already made, and the fact that it is argued so vociferously by left-wingers such as stogy and yourself simply doesn’t help matters any, especially when you and stogy consistently blame “right-wing ideology” for the poisoned atmosphere while transparently downplaying the role of left-wingers such as Gore.

    Thumb up 9

  115. salinger

    I’ll repeat it for you: “PROFESSIONAL STATISTICIAN”

    Ha ha ha ha – since when does actual experience in a field warrant anything but derision here? Ah ha ha.

    Keep flaunting your bonafides.

    Oh here’s one to make your head explode – 15 years ago I coulda been your boss, being a six sigma black belt QM and all.

    Thumb up 1

  116. Seattle Outcast

    Ha ha ha ha – since when does actual experience in a field warrant anything but derision here?

    Since I only get paid for being right, not for just chucking out requests for more research grants.

    Oh here’s one to make your head explode – 15 years ago I coulda been your boss, being a six sigma black belt QM and all.

    Yeah, we have one of those. He’s not my boss.

    Thumb up 3

  117. Seattle Outcast

    I’m sure SO can explain ‘regression toward the mean’ to Alex.

    Yeah, but I’m limiting my participation in these dogfights with religious whackjobs these days. Particularly on football Sunday.

    Would someone out there besides about three of us please pick up book on basic statistics and learn how to sort through data for bullshit? That means you in particular CM – go fucking read a math book.

    Thumb up 1

  118. stogy

    Yeah, but I’m limiting my participation in these dogfights with religious whackjobs these days.

    I call bullshit on your credentials – if you understood even the most basic stats you would have taken Alex apart over his support for the 60% rise in arctic sea ice story.

    But I understand if Kosaka and Xie is beyond you – climate stats are a fairly specialized field.

    Thumb up 0

  119. Seattle Outcast

    I call bullshit on your credentials – if you understood even the most basic stats you would have taken Alex apart over his support for the 60% rise in arctic sea ice story.

    Oregon Inst. of Technology: Electronic Engineering

    Certified Mechanical Inspector
    Certified Quality Technician
    Certified Quality Auditor
    Certified Quality Engineer
    Certified Six Sigma Green Belt

    Certified RAB Lead Auditor: ISO9000, AS9100, ISO14000, ISO27000

    My daily morning crap knows more about data analysis than you do.

    There’s a lot to pull apart on the arctic sea ice claims, but if you really want me to start ripping the whole thing to shreds, it will be the “the arctic is melting” crowd holding the short end of the stick. To start with, if you really want to be honest about the levels of annual winter and summer arctic ice, you need to go back at least a century, and not start cherry picking start dates to support a specific short term trend that supports a talking point. At least, if you want to make an HONEST assessment of the long term, which shows that short term cycles of more and less arctic ice are to be expected.

    It’s just like when people decide to use the end of the little ice age to support their garbage “hockey stick” instead of going back 12,000 years to the beginning of the Holocene epoch, as well as entirely discredited efforts to eliminate known warm periods via cherry picked tree ring sample proxies. In the long term, it’s quite evident that there have been several periods that were actually WARMER, and lasted for centuries. And somehow polar bears managed to survive all this.

    Thumb up 3

  120. Mook

    Stogy, you’re arguing with people’s religion…

    ..I should also point out that Rose’s claim that scientists predicted 2013 would be “ice free” is incorrect. They scientists said 2030 at the earliest, probably like 2040, if then.

    Yet

    Wieslaw Maslowski told members of the American Geophysical Union in 2007 that the Arctic’s summer ice could completely disappear within the decade. “If anything,” he said, “our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer… is already too conservative.”

    Source

    Did any of the AGW cultists publicly challenge Maslowski at that time in 2007? For that matter did any of them publicly challenge Al Gore’s ominous but wrong climate forecasts? Or are they all like Hal pretending that “all the scientists knew” that those imminent doom predictions were BS?

    More importantly, AGW “scientists” are/were predicting that they know WHY changes were occurring.. an arrogant and absurd assumption given the incredible number of unknowns.

    Thumb up 3

  121. Hal_10000

    Did any of the AGW cultists publicly challenge Maslowski at that time in 2007?

    Try keeping up with the thread Mook. And try reading your own link:

    “My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”

    And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: “I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you’ve had in previous years. But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out.”

    When someone makes a prediction we think is wrong, we don’t all grab microphones and “challenge him”. We publish papers and make analyses that show it to be incorrect. Maslowksi made an aggressive prediction (that is not yet wrong, incidentally. He said 2016+-3 years). Everyone else’s prediction was different.

    Again, cherry-picking. Dozens of analyses have been made for the decline of sea-ice. You ignore on those and instead focus on one comment. This is as opposed to the climate skeptic side where everything they have predicted — on the rare occasions they actually make predictions — has been dead wrong.

    Thumb up 0

  122. AlexInCT *

    Stogy, you’re arguing with people’s religion…

    Coming from people that believe in AGW, despite the evidence they have no fucking clue what they are talking about, with faith bordering on that of a fanatic, this is some priceless shit, Hal.

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Thumb up 4

  123. CM

    Right, since I didn’t respond to it, I must have “missed” it. As always, your logic is unassailable…

    Yeah good one.

    …when you come along and double-down on the “Gore is Irrelevant” song and dance,

    Except I didn’t so the rest doesn’t follow.

    Yeah, you’re catching on — I don’t pretend to be any of those things. You, otoh, pretend to be all three, apparently.

    I try to be all three. But of course it’s all about pretending for you. You couldn’t possibly accept that anyone who disagrees with you is sincere. As you’ve said, you’ve come up across others that aren’t sincere, so you’ll just assume nobody is.

    I wasn’t aware that a lack of pretense was a “system”, but I guess we learn something new every day.

    Yeah good one.

    And yet you are the one who whines about people not caring about what happens to the planet after they’re dead…

    I don’t recall whining about it. I’m fascinated by it, sure.

    …but but but RIGHT-WINGERS…and CONSERVATIVE BLOGS…and IDEOLOGY…yeah, I got it.

    That’s superb, considering that’s exactly what Alex and Seattle Outcast (and to a certain extent you) do throughout the entire discussion. But I guess you missed that too. Good one.

    Your rant rather reminds me of Romney and his 47% — people who are deemed simply too far gone to ever be reachable…

    I’m talking about a fringe. Romney was talking about half the population.

    Thumb up 0

  124. Hal_10000

    Got it Alex. Decades-old scientific theory supported by thousands of pieces of evidence that correctly predicted the late 20th century rise in temperature = people who have no fucking clue what they’re talking about

    Crackpots like David Rose and Chris Monckton cherry-picking one year’s worth of ice data and ten years worth of temperature data and deliberately misquoting papers == SCIENCE!

    Got it.

    Thumb up 1

  125. Mook

    Try keeping up with the thread Mook. And try reading your own link

    I did read it. You should try rereading it yourself. You cited Professor Peter Wadhams. Wadhams endorsed Professor Maslowski’s wild ass prediction, saying saying that Maslowski’s model was “more efficient” than others because it “takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice”. Wadhams validated and endorsed Maslowski’s models.. albeit with cover your ass caveat that it might not happen exactly when Maslowski predicts it. Maslowki at the time was predicting the end of Arctic ice by 2010, with 2013 at the latest. Oops, another “proven model” wrong again.

    Thumb up 4

  126. Mook

    Decades-old scientific theory supported by thousands of pieces of evidence that correctly predicted the late 20th century rise in temperature

    Citation please. Show us Hal who, when and where predicted “correctly” the 20th century rise in temperature?

    Thumb up 3

  127. Hal_10000

    Oops, the most aggressive of numerous models, most of which predict complete ice melt sometime toward the mid-century, was wrong.

    Fixed that for you.

    Citation please. Show us Hal who, when and where predicted “correctly” the 20th century rise in temperature?

    We JUST talked about this in the other thread. I referred you to Guy Stewart Callendar and even linked his papers from the 1920’s. I’m not digging that up again. JFGI.

    Thumb up 1

  128. Mook

    Guy Stewart Callendar

    Yes, I remember well that joke of a citation. Some guy in 1938 made a vague prediction and THAT is what you’re hanging your hat on as the prime example of “solid” science?

    Thumb up 5

  129. AlexInCT *

    Got it Alex. Decades-old scientific theory supported by thousands of pieces of evidence that correctly predicted the late 20th century rise in temperature = people who have no fucking clue what they’re talking about

    I am gonna laugh my ass off at this one too, Hal.

    You obviously mean decades of manipulated bullshit, falsified data that then conveniently was misplaced, propaganda bordering on religious apocalyptic nonsense, models and predictions that failed miserably, and the inability to ever prove even if you give them and inch and they take a mile, that man is behind any of their dogma’s doomsday predictions? You should be ashamed of calling yourself a member of the scientific community, or at least come clean and admit you are paid by government, so you leave no doubt of why have to worship at the altar of AGW.

    So temperatures have risen. Who the fuck cares? They have been going up and down for billions of years. At one point in time this planet was nothing but hot cosmic gas. Then it was a molten mass. When it finally cooled enough to generate an atmosphere and the oceans temperatures still fluctuated wildly. We have gone back and forth between sheets of ice a mile or more high, covering either pole and coming down or going up, depending on your perspective, and have had temperatures so radically high that ice was non-existent. Man was never around for either of these.

    Now, suddenly, when the left wants to grow big government and people don’t want to go along a bunch of scumbags that see a way to make money from a willing government that is glad to fun their lies sells their souls and signs up to this ludicrous notion that man is suddenly the reason things might be getting warm. Even worse, the rest of us get told we have to sacrifice our freedoms and give up energy independence so the left can grow government even more, while they live like fucking royalty and ignore all the evil they want to dump on us.

    If anyone has no clue what they are talking about it is the fucking idiots that pretend they know what’s going on and that man is behind it. Shame on these fucks and their lies. There isn’t even an ounce of humility or doubt with these fools, despite a mountain of evidence that they have it all wrong and clearly are talking out of their ass. This is insanity can only be attributed to fanatical faith. And we all know that seems to include you.

    Crackpots like David Rose and Chris Monckton cherry-picking one year’s worth of ice data and ten years worth of temperature data and deliberately misquoting papers == SCIENCE!

    QED, baby.

    Because after all, the fact that AGW crowd is totally wrong in their predictions and has so far gotten nothing right, still validates their bullshit. Based on this level of hubris coming from your cult, I have to say that even the Scientologists seem more humble and grounded in reality than you AGW cultists. I guess like with liberalism, where the more you get things wrong, the more credibility and power you have, AGW is the only scientific discipline where the more you get shit wrong the stronger you make the case for more AGW government intervention.

    The farce is strong with this one…

    Thumb up 5

  130. Hal_10000

    At one point in time this planet was nothing but hot cosmic gas.

    Let’s try to stay on things that are germaine. No one denies that the climate has changed before. But it doesn’t just change randomly. Prehistoric man did not wake up one day and find a glacier in his living room. It changes for reasons. And the explanation we have that is most consistent with the data is AGW.

    You also need to make up your fucking mind. Is the temperature of the planet going up or not? Because you’ll claim one second that it isn’t (even though you earlier conceded the point when BEST came out). THen you’ll claim it’s all natural variation/cosmic rays/pixies the next. Make up your mind. Which brand of pseudo-science are you backing: the one that claims that thousands of temperature records have been faked in a stunning conspiracy of silence? Or the one that claims they are accurate but the cause isn’t understood?

    Because after all, the fact that AGW crowd is totally wrong in their predictions and has so far gotten nothing right

    Except that they’ve gotten it right. Temperatures have risen, sharply. The predictions have been slightly high. But let’s compare their predictions to those of the climate skeptics, which I’ll link here:

    Oh, wait. The climate skeptics haven’t made any predictions because they are not doing science. They are simply cherry-picking one year of ice data out of 40, one decade of temperature data out of ten, misquoting scientists, misrepresenting the state of debate and calling this “skepticism”.

    When the skeptics have an alternative that better explains the data — not vague inaccurate handwavy stuff about the temperature of Mars — then I might be prepared to listen.

    The most telling part of this thread is that Al Gore’s name has been mentioned 44 times (including requotes). Al Gore is not a scientist. He’s not a climate scientist. He’s barely a college graduate who flunked God. Al Gore produces no models and no predictions. Al Gore’s name is on no fundamental papers nor is he part of a research group. He is a middling politician who has tried to make some fame and fortune for himself out of environmental concerns.

    But what Al Gore IS is a liberal democrat. And that is the motivation behind a massive fraction of this “skepticism”. Because Team Blue accepts it; because Team Blue wants to use it advance their own agenda; it MUST be a bunch of bullshit. It simply has to be because Al Gore and the liberal Democrats can’t be right.

    Al Gore isn’t right. He’s quoting (and often misquoting) other people’s science. And he’s hyping his own solutions which are not solutions at all. You can accept the science behind global warming and still think Al Gore is a fruitcake. I do it every day.

    Thumb up 3

  131. stogy

    Did any of the AGW cultists publicly challenge Maslowski at that time in 2007?

    And yet still no-one here, apart from us cultists, will challenge Alex over his use of an article on this thread that quite willfully misleads you to believe that arctic sea ice has staged a massive recovery?

    Why would anyone need to make up statistics like this if the case against AGW was so strong?

    Thumb up 0

  132. AlexInCT *

    Let’s try to stay on things that are germaine.

    You think mentioning that the AGW cult wants to pretend that warming is a new phenomenon and that man is the only possible reason not germaine to a discussion where the cultists want to destroy the modern world? Like I said: it is all about faith with you types.

    No one denies that the climate has changed before.

    I call bullshit. You yourself have told me on these very boards that nature’s effects don’t count and that it is a given man is behind this warming. But we can pretend that suddenly the AGW cultists have accepted that warming happens naturally when they have spent a decade or more pretending there is an optimum temperature and were it not for man, we would be there.

    But it doesn’t just change randomly.

    Who says things change randomly? More importantly, who says that what is happening isn’t perfectly natural? What hubris! Just because nobody understands the complex system doesn’t suddenly make it magical, random, or require the invention of an external source so an agenda can be served. The shameful thing is that you cultists pretend you understand what you don’t.

    Prehistoric man did not wake up one day and find a glacier in his living room. It changes for reasons. And the explanation we have that is most consistent with the data is AGW.

    .

    Double bullshit. There is no “consistency” or any other proof of any kind, other than a whole bunch of manufactured bullshit, that shows man is responsible for the changes at all. You can keep pretending that connection was made, but it was not. In fact, the people that made it got it all wrong. And yet, here you are pretending like even though they got it wrong it is still right. That’s bullshit.

    You also need to make up your fucking mind. Is the temperature of the planet going up or not?

    What temperature would that be that you are referring to? See I do not believe there is an optimum or even normal temperature. The thing is always in flux because of a complex system we barely understand and completely out of our control. We can adapt to these changes, but we can not influence them in any way. Certainly not with social engineering bullshit.

    Because you’ll claim one second that it isn’t (even though you earlier conceded the point when BEST came out). THen you’ll claim it’s all natural variation/cosmic rays/pixies the next. Make up your mind.

    I think the one needing to pretend there is confusion and then in others so you can then lie about understanding what is going on, is you. I have no confusion. I readily admit the system is so complex, dependent on so many pieces, most of them so utterly complex and misunderstood and unknown, that the one thing I know for sure is that NOBODY understands it. The sun, radiation from space, the ocean’s, the earth’s rotation, water vapor, geological effects, and so many other things come together that the thing is baffling. Those that pretend to understand this so they can blame man, obviously don’t. More importantly, those that attribute the changes to man, are fucking liars.

    Which brand of pseudo-science are you backing: the one that claims that thousands of temperature records have been faked in a stunning conspiracy of silence?

    I am backing science. The one that says that when you fake data, models, findings, and so on, then destroy that stuff, you are no longer doing any science. I know you hold no respect for science since you seem to be sucking at the government’s teat, but don’t lump me with your kind, please.

    Or the one that claims they are accurate but the cause isn’t understood?

    None of the claims by the AGW people are accurate, and that’s because nobody understands the planet’s complex climate system with any degree of accuracy that allows them to predict anything worthy of destroying modern civilization for. Start there. Once you can explain the natural model accurately we can have a discussion about man. If you don’t understand the base model you are trying to pretend is influenced by man, you are going to get it all wrong. And that’s what has happened.

    Except that they’ve gotten it right. Temperatures have risen, sharply.

    So because temperatures have gone up the AGW cultists are right? Really? It doesn’t matter that the temperatures are going up because of something else? I too can make a prediction without any understanding of a system, say it was my magic powers, and if I happen to get lucky will you grant me the same courtesy right? Not holding my breath.

    The predictions have been slightly high.

    If 4-6 orders of magnitude qualify as slightly, yeah sure.

    But let’s compare their predictions to those of the climate skeptics, which I’ll link here:

    Oh, wait. The climate skeptics haven’t made any predictions because they are not doing science. They are simply cherry-picking one year of ice data out of 40, one decade of temperature data out of ten, misquoting scientists, misrepresenting the state of debate and calling this “skepticism”.

    Actually the majority of the skeptics have not made any predictions because most of them say the same thing: we do not understand the system with any modicum of certainty, and hence, we can not predict with any degree of accuracy. That’s the main and fundamental point everyone opposed to the cult of AGW has been making. And I would much rather they make no predictions than make false and inaccurate predictions like the cult of AGW has done.

    When the skeptics have an alternative that better explains the data — not vague inaccurate handwavy stuff about the temperature of Mars — then I might be prepared to listen.

    So you are basically saying you prefer claims that is all done by magic over admitting we don’t understand the system. Check. Besides, I love the burden of proof you put on the people that say they don’t understand the system but really feel blaming man so collectivists can fuck us over, while sucking AGW cock. And quit lying. You won’t listen. Your faith won’t be shaken by anything.

    The most telling part of this thread is that Al Gore’s name has been mentioned 44 times (including requotes). Al Gore is not a scientist. He’s not a climate scientist. He’s barely a college graduate who flunked God. Al Gore produces no models and no predictions. Al Gore’s name is on no fundamental papers nor is he part of a research group. He is a middling politician who has tried to make some fame and fortune for himself out of environmental concerns.

    Most of the dirtbags pushing AGW are not scientists. Shit, most of them don’t even know how to do basic math or use logic. And Al Gore made billions peddling this fucking snake oil while jetting all over the world. Your side awarded him prizes and called that pile of manure he put out a documentary. They dragged him into schools to fill the heads of little kids with that bullshit he was selling. Then he went and showed the whole thing for the scam it was, and suddenly your side can’t run away from him fast enough. Without this man and his campaign of lies and falsehoods your movement wouldn’t have had the visibility it got. The left desperately wanting to disassociate Al Gore from AGW smacks of the same desperation the left suffers when it tries to separate the murder of 100 million and the imprisonment of billions by people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kims, and so on from communism. It is a hollow attempt to legitimize the illegitimate.

    Al Gore was the pope of the church of AGW while it counted. Once he was exposed suddenly nobody feels he was a serious contributor. Save your revisionist history for uninformed idiots, because I am not falling for it.

    Go back to the drawing board. AGW is DOA.

    Thumb up 5

  133. CM

    You yourself have told me on these very boards that nature’s effects don’t count and that it is a given man is behind this warming.

    Oh Jesus Fucking Christ on a Bike. You’re unbelievable.

    Thumb up 0

  134. CM

    Sorry guys I checked out about a hundred posts back. Can anyone summarize the arguments in a hundred words or less?

    Us: Science, detail, explanations, acknowledgements of uncertainties.
    Them: Al Gore, mass conspiracy theory, fraud, misrepresentation, cherry-picking, throwing whatever they find at the wall in the hope that it sticks, insinuations, accusations, allegations, no supporting evidence whatsoever, more Al Gore, socialism.

    Thumb up 0

  135. CM

    I know you hold no respect for science since you seem to be sucking at the government’s teat

    There we have it. Public funding = fraud.
    Batshit insane.

    It doesn’t matter that the temperatures are going up because of something else?

    So demonstrate what is caused it. Otherwise your theory is simply your ideological narrative.
    This is the thing – you require a certain standard to be met but don’t even get close to demonstrating it yourself. Your ‘theory’ doesn’t get get up to bat let alone to first base.

    I too can make a prediction without any understanding of a system, say it was my magic powers, and if I happen to get lucky will you grant me the same courtesy right? Not holding my breath.

    No, and this is Hal’s whole point (which you’ve missed) – we can show how/why, and it makes sense. So exactly the opposite of what you’re trying to suggest.

    That’s the main and fundamental point everyone opposed to the cult of AGW has been making.

    Nonsense. Like you, they’re all over the place, throwing anything and everything at the wall to see if anything can stick. No matter how woeful (see your ice recovery crap as a perfect example).

    And Al Gore made billions peddling this fucking snake oil while jetting all over the world.

    He’s also fat. Don’t forget that.

    Go back to the drawing board. AGW is DOA.

    You should quite while you’re a long long way behind. You’re still to present ANY evidence to back up ANY of your claims. That’s no accident.

    Thumb up 0

  136. CM

    Oh look, here;’s a picture of the North Pole in 1962: http://navsource.org/archives/08/0858411.jpg

    What’s all that funny liquid stuff next to the submarines anyway?

    What does that ‘prove’?
    Would it matter if the subs rendezvoused with an icebreaker during that voyage? Or even what month that was?Disappearing ice north of Greenland at the scale of today is indeed something new.

    As you were.

    I take that as a ‘no’ to any such relevant question.
    Deny all you want. It doesn’t change the facts that the Arctic sea ice is getting less each summer and before long there’ll be a period in summer when the Arctic will be virtually ice free. Photos from 1962 won’t change that.

    Thumb up 1

  137. Iconoclast

    The most telling part of this thread is that Al Gore’s name has been mentioned 44 times (including requotes). Al Gore is not a scientist

    I don’t recall anyone claiming he was a scientist. In which of the 44 occurrences was that claim made? No, the point is that he was a spokesman for the cause. Spokesman. Not “scientist”. Also, he is high-visibility, while the climate scientists themselves are practically invisible.

    Perception is half the battle. Good luck with pretending otherwise…

    Thumb up 7

  138. AlexInCT *

    Global warming predicted 20,000-2,000,000 million degrees of warming?

    No Hal, they predicted anywhere from 5-10 degrees (celsius) of warming, with some predicting even higher temperatures, and we barely got a fraction of a degree. You know exactly what I was saying, you just are trying real hard to out-CM/out-Stogy the stupid it looks like now.

    Thumb up 4

  139. Xetrov

    Sorry guys I checked out about a hundred posts back. Can anyone summarize the arguments in a hundred words or less? (What happened to jimk’s hammer, anyway?)

    “It’s getting warmer”

    “Seems to have stopped”

    “No, it’s just on vacation in the deep ocean.”

    “The overwhelming majority of models have been wrong for 20 years”

    “That doesn’t really matter cause these guys over here say so. They’re false models that aren’t really false, cause physics and stuff.”

    “Al Gore is an idiot”

    “Al Gore IS an idiot, but he’s an idiot that doesn’t matter.”

    “I’m a statistician, listen to me, bitch!”

    “Oh yeah, I’m a six sigma blackbelt”

    “You’re stupid”

    “No, you’re stupid.”

    That’s about it.

    Thumb up 5

  140. AlexInCT *

    That’s about it.

    You forgot to mention the daily masses at the church of AGW are going on mornings, noons, and evenings, and that this Thursday is your Carbon Credit pot luck. All are welcome. Someone bring a virgin to sacrifice in the volcano.

    Thumb up 3

  141. Hal_10000

    No Hal, they predicted anywhere from 5-10 degrees (celsius) of warming, with some predicting even higher temperatures, and we barely got a fraction of a degree. You know exactly what I was saying, you just are trying real hard to out-CM/out-Stogy the stupid it looks like now.

    Predictions have ranged from 1 degree per century to 4 degrees per century within a mean of 2. Considering we’re looking at 1.5, that’s hardly 4-6 orders of magnitudes (an order of magnitude being a factor of 10, hence my jibe that you were talkign about 20,000-2 million degrees).

    Thumb up 0

  142. AlexInCT *

    Predictions have ranged from 1 degree per century to 4 degrees per century within a mean of 2.

    Then you have not looked hard enough. Al Gore’s own documentary precicted 7 degrees, or more, in a decade, if I recall correctly. Then there was the bullshit from the IPCC that also made the case that unless the UN got to tax everyone, double digit temp jumps would follow, again in a matter of one or two decades tops. The tropics was supposed to get so hot life would cease to be possible in it. Most of the planet woould end up under water and covered with water vapor. Shit, I even remember some retards claiming Earth would go the way of Venus with a run away greenhouse effect, and anyone that pointed out how insane that comparison was, considering the difference of any greenhouse effect between the two, got accused of being a denier. And these fucks were all taken seriously to drive home the fear.

    BTW, when reality is a fraction of a degree temperature rise and your predictions are hundreds of times higher, that’s some order of magnitudes. Maybe not 4-6, but enough to prove you are fucking beyond wrong. You can focus on that minutia, if you want, and igfnore the fact that you cultists are so wrong it is alughable. I will udnerstand that desperate need. Me, I am focusing on the fact they couldn’t even get them within a 10% – which as far as tollerances goes is a pretty high margin – of the actual values.

    Thumb up 4

  143. Hal_10000

    Then you have not looked hard enough. Al Gore’s own documentary precicted 7 degrees, or more, in a decade, if I recall correctly.

    You don’t. That’s the problem. You can look these things up. The last IPCC report is public. They all are. And they have consistently predicted warming in tenths of a degree per decade.

    I’m done. You’re in pure fantasyland now.

    Thumb up 0

  144. CM

    You can focus on that minutia, if you want

    You mean specifics. Detail. As opposed to just making shit up, which is all you do.
    Again, you’ve provided NOTHING to support ANY of your claims.

    Thumb up 0

  145. CM

    “No, it’s just on vacation in the deep ocean.”

    Not quite – the deep ocean is warming. Warming is still occurring (as a result of the energy imbalance).

    Thumb up 0

  146. Hal_10000

    CM, the thing about this issue that drives me nuts is watching people whose opinions I respect and largely agree with be led down the path of pseudoscience by the likes of David Rose. Every few weeks, they run out some piece of pseudoscience claiming that global warming is “debunked”. And conservative pundits fall for this game of intellectual “catch the ball” every time. I mean, we’ve been here before. A few years ago, the sea ice level rose a bit and they proclaimed it was “recovering”. And then it plunged to record lows and skeptics like Rose and Monckton were silent.

    As an illustration, here is how David Rose and his ilk would report the results of Super Bowl 47.

    The case for the Ravens having won Super Bowl XLVII continues to collapse. The liberal media will tell you that the Baltimore Ravens won Super Bowl XLVII. But this is not about sports: it’s about giving a victory to a state that voted for Obama and giving the MVP to a man named Joe from Delaware.

    Research by the Daily Fail has shown that San Francisco outscored Baltimore in the second half 25-13. How could Baltimore win the game when they could even win the second half? The second half is far more important the first and it wasn’t even close.The Niners outgained the Ravens by over a hundred yards and had more first downs. The Ravens failed to convert two fourth downs. Research shows that most of the time when a team goes for it on 4th, they are trailing. And if the fail to convert, they lose.

    Believers point to the final score but football is a really complicated game. There are 22 guys on the field and the statistics only track a few key players. Research has shown that offensive linemen can play a huge part in the game yet there is no data on what the offensive linemen did in the Super Bowl. If you don’t understand what went on at the line of scrimmage, you can’t claim that any team really won.

    In fact, the Daily Fail has evidence that Baltimore was not even in the Super Bowl. Just weeks before, the pundits were predicted New England vs. Atlanta. They are now claiming that neither team was even in the Super Bowl.

    In May of this year, we spoke to Coach Harbaugh, who said he wasn’t sure how his team won the Super Bowl and wasn’t sure they’d even make the playoffs this year.

    Thumb up 2

  147. CM

    Hahaha, nice. That’s very good.

    Yes I think it’s a real litmus test for conservatives/libertarians. It indicates the degree to which they’re invested in their ideology. It shows whether they’re willing to let their ideology over-ride anything else, no matter how desperate and bat-shit crazy they will appear.

    Thumb up 0

  148. CM

    I don’t recall anyone claiming he was a scientist. In which of the 44 occurrences was that claim made? No, the point is that he was a spokesman for the cause. Spokesman. Not “scientist”. Also, he is high-visibility, while the climate scientists themselves are practically invisible.

    Perception is half the battle. Good luck with pretending otherwise…

    But he’s not promoted as a spokesperson by anyone else but Al Gore. And even then is he really that visible? In my experience the only time he ever comes up in discussion is when deniers bring him up. Sure he had his film, which I saw at the movies almost 7 years ago, but since then he’s been just one voice among many, and not a ‘scientist’ voice either.
    If we never heard from Al Gore again I’m very confident it would make zero difference to public opinion on climate change. I’m just as confident that his name would still appear 44+ times in every discussion though.

    Thumb up 0

  149. CM

    The Arctic Ice misrepresentation.

    Note that he didn’t say words to the effect that “The Arctic will be ice-free in summer by 2013″ as claimed by David Rose. What he actually said, and converting the mathematical symbol into plain English, was:

    IF this trend persists the Arctic Ocean will become ice-free by AROUND 2013!

    which is a very different thing.

    Thumb up 1

  150. CM

    You don’t. That’s the problem. You can look these things up. The last IPCC report is public.

    The trend reported in the IPCC report was 0.13°C per decade.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html

    Predictions have ranged from 1 degree per century to 4 degrees per century within a mean of 2. Considering we’re looking at 1.5, that’s hardly 4-6 orders of magnitudes (an order of magnitude being a factor of 10, hence my jibe that you were talkign about 20,000-2 million degrees).

    0.13°C per decade would be 1.56°C over a century. But as this isn’t linear some decades may see no warming, and some may see faster warming.

    Thumb up 0

  151. Iconoclast

    But he’s not promoted as a spokesperson by anyone else but Al Gore. And even then is he really that visible? In my experience the only time he ever comes up in discussion is when deniers bring him up.

    Well, his sale of Current TV to Al-Jazeera was less than a year ago, and I can find lots of articles to fill the void between then and now, but I doubt that would make you budge from your “Al Gore is Irrelevant” position, which you will now deny holding. Let’s just observe how convenient it is that he is so invisible to you personally. Like I keep saying, perception is half the battle, but you are indeed free to pretend otherwise. Again, good luck with that.

    Thumb up 8

  152. CM

    Well, his sale of Current TV to Al-Jazeera was less than a year ago, and I can find lots of articles to fill the void between then and now, but I doubt that would make you budge from your “Al Gore is Irrelevant” position, which you will now deny holding. Let’s just observe how convenient it is that he is so invisible to you personally.

    As I said, I think other factors are much more relevant in terms of public opinion. I don’t agree that he has “ridiculously high visibility as a spokesman on this issue”, at least not for a long while. I’m willing to bet that the usual suspects used the sale of Current TV story as yet another opportunity to bang on obsessively about him, and most likely engage in the usual misrepresentation. But a small group being obsessed/deranged about someone doesn’t necessarily make them relevant outside that group. I bet most of the time his name appears is because those who despise him are talking about him.

    Like I keep saying, perception is half the battle, but you are indeed free to pretend otherwise. Again, good luck with that.

    There’s nothing anyone can do if fake skeptics want to keep obsessing over Al Gore, as evidence in this thread and every single time the topic comes up.
    Thanks for the wishes though, much appreciated.

    Thumb up 0

  153. Iconoclast

    I knew you wouldn’t budge…

    Thursday, August 22, 2013, 11:43 AM — Al Gore likens global warming deniers to slavery, apartheid perpetrators

    Thursday, August 22, 2013 — Al Gore: Republicans tell me privately they believe in global warming

    17 Jun 2013 12:28 PM — Al Gore, raising the heat on Obama, calls Keystone an “atrocity”

    May 6, 2013, 5:10 PM — Report: Al Gore’s net worth at $200 million

    That last one is from CBS News, part of the liberal MSM, and hardly a “Gore hater” group. But you just keep right on pretending that Gore is invisible and irrelevant, and you can also keep pretending that you’re not being absurdly disingenuous by holding such a position.

    Thumb up 13

  154. AlexInCT *

    Iconoclast says:
    September 17, 2013 9:49 am at 9:49 am (UTC -4) |

    Al Gore was relevant, brilliant, informed, and we HAD to listen to what he had to say on AGW in his “documentary”, because the world’s future depended on it, before he became irrelevant to the conversation, because he was exposed as a snake oil salesman and now is causing credibility damage to the cult’s agenda.

    That’s the argument from them in a nutshell. When you depend so fiercely on historic revisionism, you take for granted that everyone else is going to go right along, I guess. Pathetic isn’t even a good way to describe it.

    Thumb up 3

  155. Hal_10000

    Gore is relevant to policy: he’s made money off these bullshit carbon credits. He’s irrelevant to the science case.

    CM, I liked that 5 stages thing, but it conflated some legitimate concerns — the inability of alternative energy to provide large-scale power — with pseudo-scientific concerns. Don’t think that’s particularly helpful. There are two debates here I try to keep separate. One is a scientific debate (is global warming happening?), where I tend to land on the “left” side. The other is a political/economic one (what do we do about it?) where I tend to land on the “right” side.

    Thumb up 0

  156. CM

    I knew you wouldn’t budge…

    I didn’t budge, but then my position wasn’t and isn’t the one you’re suggesting. But you go right ahead and continue. I’ve corrected you once, so it can no longer be just a mistake. Yet again, we’re now into misrepresentation territory. Which certainly is very fitting for this topic.

    But you just keep right on pretending that Gore is invisible and irrelevant, and you can also keep pretending that you’re not being absurdly disingenuous by holding such a position.

    You just keep right on misrepresenting it and I’ll keep pointing it out.
    Here is what I said (the bolding is new to illustrate the main points in relation to your claim):

    True. But then some people are just stupid and will consider a negative image of Al Gore to be more important that the future of the planet. There is not ever really going to be any convincing of those people. And I hardly think Al Gore has more influence than ongoing misinformation in the media, particularly right-wing media (and some of these stupid people will rely heavily on right-wing media to be ‘informed’). So although Al Gore doesn’t ‘help’ with some people, I think there are significantly larger factors. And Al Gore’s movie certainly increased awareness across a larger number of people, many of whom aren’t stupid, and would have gone on to do their own research (or at least pretend to I guess right?).

    Yeah I think it’s the shameless, no-standards-involved, ideological reporting of that which is far more influential than the actual use of jets. Most of the people who lap that stuff up are never going to read or absorb anything that’ll alter their opinion on the issue. Which is why they invariably also mention Gore’s weight. Most don’t give a shit about any of the science, they’re far more interested in seeing support for their hatred of Gore and everything he stands for.

    It’s unfortunate, but I highly doubt people who believe apparent hypocrisy is more important than the science are every really going to consider this from anything other than an ideological angle. There are some who just don’t give a shit about the planet after they die, simply because there’s nothing in it for them personally. These same people disagree with Gore’s politics. Nothing is going to change that. If Gore had used scheduled flights, or a row boat, it wouldn’t have changed at all.
    Again I think misinformation in the media, and people relying on ideological political blogs for their science is much more of an issue.
    After all, using Godwin’s Law doesn’t mean the Nazi’s weren’t terrible, or irrelevant. It’s just often a good indicator of who you’re dealing with.

    Nowhere did I say that Gore is invisible and/or irrelevant. I chose my words carefully. Clearly you decided not to take any care reading them.
    And here we are again – you’re involved in the discussion and hey presto we’re right back into this same old silly bullshit.

    Thumb up 1

  157. CM

    Al Gore was relevant, brilliant, informed, and we HAD to listen to what he had to say on AGW in his “documentary”, because the world’s future depended on it, before he became irrelevant to the conversation, because he was exposed as a snake oil salesman and now is causing credibility damage to the cult’s agenda.

    That’s the argument from them in a nutshell. When you depend so fiercely on historic revisionism, you take for granted that everyone else is going to go right along, I guess. Pathetic isn’t even a good way to describe it.

    Actually (as I’ve said before) it was Gore’s film that really did make me think seriously about this issue for the first time. But rather than just believe and accept everything within the film, I undertook my own research on the topic. So it was a spring-board. The more I looked into it, the more I wanted to understand about it. We can discuss how accurate or inaccurate the film was (in detail or taken as a whole) but ultimately the point is that it sparked my attention.
    Still waiting for ANY evidence to support ANY of your claims Alex. So far Gore is WAY WAY ahead of you on that score – all you have is ideology. For a start, I’ve yet to see him promote nonsense as stupid as the ‘ice recovery’ one you did, which you’re now completely ignoring. Hoping for some ‘revisionism’ there? You certainly like to pretend you haven’t been completely embarrassed every time this topic comes up. Which is cute and fascinating and all, but also rather eye-opening when you try to accuse anyone of ‘revisionism’.

    Thumb up 1

  158. CM

    CM, I liked that 5 stages thing, but it conflated some legitimate concerns — the inability of alternative energy to provide large-scale power — with pseudo-scientific concerns. Don’t think that’s particularly helpful. There are two debates here I try to keep separate. One is a scientific debate (is global warming happening?), where I tend to land on the “left” side. The other is a political/economic one (what do we do about it?) where I tend to land on the “right” side.

    Whether we can do anything about it is contained within the final two stages. The first three stages are only about the scientific debate. Rather than conflate them the stages separate them, as you suggest.
    Here is the full piece.

    Thumb up 0

  159. hist_ed

    One is a scientific debate (is global warming happening?), where I tend to land on the “left” side

    Amend that to: “One is a scientific debate (is global warming happening and are human emissions its primary driver?)”

    Thumb up 6

  160. Iconoclast

    Nowhere did I say that Gore is invisible and/or irrelevant

    You imply as much — in your highlighted self-quotes, you clearly try to move the emphasis away from Gore and onto “right-wingers” and “conservative blogs” and “ideology”. Or pure recalcitrance. At the very least, you seem to want Gore to be irrelevant and invisible. Nowhere did I ever claim that Gore was 100% responsible for the “poisoned atmosphere”, but my words have been misrepresented to imply that I did make such a claim. And I got the “Gore Isn’t A Scientist” response at least a couple of times, even though I never claimed he was a scientist. I only claimed he was a high-visibility spokesman, and I even got a balking response to that. “But he’s not promoted as a spokesperson by anyone else but Al Gore”, to be exact. At every turn, I got the impression that I simply should not talk about Gore, which clearly implies that he is “irrelevant”. He’s the man behind the curtain to whom I’m not supposed to pay attention. I am supposed to regard him as invisible. Whatever his sins, right-wingers are worse, so I “should” pay attention to them, instead.

    So yeah, I use a little bit of rhetorical license to illustrate how things appear to me. You don’t like it. Too fucking bad.

    If anyone cares to notice, I haven not discussed the science at all in this thread. I have only discussed perception. Like it or lump it, this is a political issue, and politicians and celebrities are indeed in the public eye preaching AGW while flying around in private jets. Yeah yeah YEAH I know, you personally don’t give a fuck because “SCIENCE GODDAMNIT!!” And I already know your response: “If they’re too stoopid to look beyond the obvious hypocrisy and research the science themselves then fuck ‘em.” At least, that’s how it’s coming across to me.

    Thumb up 8

  161. CM

    You imply as much — in your highlighted self-quotes, you clearly try to move the emphasis away from Gore and onto “right-wingers” and “conservative blogs” and “ideology”.

    Right, because I think they are MUCH more relevant in terms of what we’re talking about here (influence). That doesn’t mean Gore is irrelevant. Otherwise I would have used different words.
    But here we go YET AGAIN – apparently YOU get to decide what I mean. Doesn’t that ever get tiring?

    At the very least, you seem to want Gore to be irrelevant and invisible.

    I don’t really care. I don’t think he makes much of a difference.

    At every turn, I got the impression that I simply should not talk about Gore, which clearly implies that he is “irrelevant”. He’s the man behind the curtain to whom I’m not supposed to pay attention. I am supposed to regard him as invisible. Whatever his sins, right-wingers are worse, so I “should” pay attention to them, instead.

    I couldn’t give a shit who you pay attention to. That’s very clearly not what I was doing at all.
    I wasn’t comparing ‘sins’ either, I was talking about influence.
    Here we go yet again.

    If anyone cares to notice, I haven not discussed the science at all in this thread. I have only discussed perception. Like it or lump it, this is a political issue, and politicians and celebrities are indeed in the public eye preaching AGW while flying around in private jets. Yeah yeah YEAH I know, you personally don’t give a fuck because “SCIENCE GODDAMNIT!!” And I already know your response: “If they’re too stoopid to look beyond the obvious hypocrisy and research the science themselves then fuck ‘em.” At least, that’s how it’s coming across to me.

    I do agree with you that perception is important (I spent a long time discussing ‘perception’ at MW Forums in relation to the invasion of Iraq).

    Who else other than Al Gore is adding to the perception problem? He’s only ONE guy. Was Todd Akin largely at fault for the perception problem voters had of the Republican Party? Or was he but a minor player, and weren’t a lot of those people who made the biggest song and dance always going to vote Democrat anyway?

    At the end of the day climate change is a complex issue requiring considerable time and effort to even begin to get to grips with. When it comes to doing something about it the complexities and communication is just as difficult, possibly even more so. Perception is always going to be an issue, I don’t see a way around it. The fake skeptics and woeful media reporting have certainly a done a fine misinforming people, and I think they shape perception on the issue (in terms of the general public) far more than one guy who many people just don’t like anyway.

    Thumb up 0

  162. CM

    So yeah, I use a little bit of rhetorical license to illustrate how things appear to me. You don’t like it. Too fucking bad.

    You claimed I posted something definitive when I took care not to. That’s not rhetorical license, that’s misrepresentation – because you’ve purposely altered my opinion to suit your argument. That you’ve set this up (as you do) to claim some sort of victory by pre-empting me not liking it (using a swear word for emphasis) doesn’t change that at all. Or even fucking change that at all.

    Thumb up 0

  163. Iconoclast

    But here we go YET AGAIN – apparently YOU get to decide what I mean.

    I get to decide what your words mean to me, absolutely. Just like you get to decide what my words mean to you. You can give me the same old “but I’m objective and you’re an asshole” song and dance yet again if it gives you catharsis, but I ain’t buying it. We all have our biases and lenses, but some of us like to pretend we’re above that.

    Right, because I think they are MUCH more relevant in terms of what we’re talking about here (influence).

    Maybe, but the antics of Gore and his ilk are what give “right-wingers” and “conservative blogs” and “ideology” fodder with which to work. Yeah, I know, Gore could use a rowboat and it wouldn’t make one iota of difference, in your view. Well, maybe, but the truth is that you have no way of knowing that. It’s a hypothetical, useful only for deflection and mental masturbation.

    You claimed I posted something definitive when I took care not to.

    Where did I claim that you personally posted something definitive? No, when I say, “you can pretend that Al Gore is irrelevant and invisible”, I am talking to all of you, as a group. I got the “Al Gore Is No Scientist” routine from Hal and stogy. Stogy went to lengths to paint Gore as irrelevant. You gave me a “Yes BUT RIGHT-WINGERS“, response, clearly trying to diminish any role Gore may be playing. You kept questioning Gore’s visibility, claiming that he is not all that visible to you personally, in an attempt to undermine my general claim with your specific anecdotal data point. Etcetera.

    No, I never claimed that CM personally posted any specific thing.

    Who else other than Al Gore is adding to the perception problem?

    President Obama, with his “War on Coal” and droning on about our “addiction to oil”, while carting his family around the world on one vacation after another, putting people out of work with his draconian policies while hosting concerts at the White House, and so forth.

    Obama’s trip to India has a carbon footprint bigger than many US cities

    Sting’s Wife Admits They’re Hypocrites About Global Warming

    Hypocrisy of champagne environmentalists is deceitful and distracting

    Celebrity Hypocrisy and Selective Outrage

    I only used Gore as a representative example because he is so obvious, but yeah, I’m getting it, we’re supposed to overlook all of this liberal hypocrisy, buck up and learn the science anyway. Because right-wingers. And conservative blogs. And ideology.

    Thumb up 8

  164. CM

    I get to decide what your words mean to me, absolutely.

    But that’s not what you do, you respond as though that’s what I meant.

    Just like you get to decide what my words mean to you.

    If I take your words in a way they weren’t meant, you should certainly tell me, and I’ll consider them the way they were meant. Otherwise it’s a complete waste of time.

    You can give me the same old “but I’m objective and you’re an asshole” song and dance yet again if it gives you catharsis, but I ain’t buying it.

    I don’t need to, it’s all here in black and white.

    We all have our biases and lenses, but some of us like to pretend we’re above that.

    Some of us try to be as objective as possible, yeah. I don’t see the point otherwise, you’re just fooling yourself if you don’t.

    Maybe, but the antics of Gore and his ilk are what give “right-wingers” and “conservative blogs” and “ideology” fodder with which to work.

    And his ilk? Where did his ‘ilk’ come into the picture here? We were talking solely about the impact Gore has had on perception. Who are these ‘ilk’ and what are some examples of their ‘antics’?
    The ideological idiots will always find something. Yes, it would be good if they were given nothing, or as close to nothing as possible, but they do a find job misrepresenting things that aren’t even remotely ‘antic’-like anyway.

    Yeah, I know, Gore could use a rowboat and it wouldn’t make one iota of difference, in your view. Well, maybe, but the truth is that you have no way of knowing that. It’s a hypothetical, useful only for deflection and mental masturbation.

    Of course it’s my view. Which is why my comments are scattered liberally with “I think”.
    The same goes in reverse of course. So I’m not sure what your point is.

    Where did I claim that you personally posted something definitive? No, when I say, “you can pretend that Al Gore is irrelevant and invisible”, I am talking to all of you, as a group.

    But you’ve been discussing this with me specifically and responding specifically to my comments.
    Now all of a sudden your changing what you meant, even though that’s inconsistent with how the discussion developed beyond that point?
    Weird.

    I got the “Al Gore Is No Scientist” routine from Hal and stogy. Stogy went to lengths to paint Gore as irrelevant. You gave me a “Yes BUT RIGHT-WINGERS“, response, clearly trying to diminish any role Gore may be playing.

    I’m sorry that the people doing everything they can do to misinform are ideological right-wingers. Not my fault.

    You kept questioning Gore’s visibility, claiming that he is not all that visible to you personally, in an attempt to undermine my general claim with your specific anecdotal data point. Etcetera.

    It was my opinion but I’m talking generally, not just visibility to me. That’s obvious from what I said.

    No, I never claimed that CM personally posted any specific thing.

    Iconoclast:

    I doubt that would make you budge from your “Al Gore is Irrelevant” position, which you will now deny holding.

    But you just keep right on pretending that Gore is invisible and irrelevant, and you can also keep pretending that you’re not being absurdly disingenuous by holding such a position.

    Absurdly disingenuous indeed.

    I only used Gore as a representative example because he is so obvious, but yeah, I’m getting it, we’re supposed to overlook all of this liberal hypocrisy, buck up and learn the science anyway. Because right-wingers. And conservative blogs. And ideology.

    Wow. That really is something.
    Good luck with that.

    Thumb up 0

  165. CM

    Obama’s trip to India has a carbon footprint bigger than many US cities

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/11/obamas_india_trip
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/india.asp

    Even Watts eventually acknowledged that he was basing that on figures that had been made up (of course he did so by having a go at people for having a go at him rather than the source of the error).

    If you get your ‘perception’ from Anthony Watts and his ilk then you’re essentially a lost cause – you’ve already made your mind up on the issue, based on political ideology. What Al Gore does or doesn’t do IS going to be completely and utterly irrelevant to that. Pretending otherwise is just fantasyland.

    Thumb up 0

  166. Iconoclast

    And his ilk? Where did his ‘ilk’ come into the picture here? We were talking solely about the impact Gore has had on perception. Who are these ‘ilk’ and what are some examples of their ‘antics’?

    My second post in this thread, my first post on this particular topic mentioned politicians in the plural:

    Also, there is the overall image of Liberal do-gooder politicians flying private jets from one Global Warming / Climate Change “summit” to another…

    Because of things like this, AGW has a bit of a credibility problem, regardless of the science.

    Iconoclast, September 12, 2013 10:50 AM

    The very next day, I again mentioned celebrities in the plural while using Gore as a representative example:

    …high-profile celebrities like Gore preaching AGW while flying around in private jets.

    Iconoclast, September 13, 2013 3:45 PM

    In that very same post, I explicitly used the phrase “Al Gore and his ilk” (bold emphasis added):

    Now sure, you are free to simply mock and ridicule and pretend that Al Gore and his ilk are irrelevant, but it seems to me that if the science is as sound as you preach it to be, you would want people to get interested. Unfortunately, for some reason, people don’t respond all that positively to apparent hypocrisy, nor are we impressed when apparent hypocrisy is swept under the rug of “irrelevancy”. Go ahead and pretend that having such an attitude will be beneficial to recruitment efforts. Good luck with that.

    Iconoclast, September 13, 2013 3:45 PM

    So “ilk” came into the picture quite early on, so sorry you’re having such trouble keeping up.

    I’m sorry that the people doing everything they can do to misinform are ideological right-wingers

    Gore’s movie had misinformation in it. Left-wingers in general also misinform. Pretending that it’s only right-wingers who misinform is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

    And while you yammer on ad nauseam about “influence”, your apparent unwillingness to consider how those “misinforming” right-wingers are themselves influenced by left-wing hypocrisy is likewise intellectually bankrupt. But then, you are already on record as believing left-wing hypocrisy is irrelevant:

    …I highly doubt people who believe apparent hypocrisy is more important than the science are every really going to consider this from anything other than an ideological angle. There are some who just don’t give a shit about the planet after they die, simply because there’s nothing in it for them personally. These same people disagree with Gore’s politics. Nothing is going to change that. If Gore had used scheduled flights, or a row boat, it wouldn’t have changed at all.

    CM, September 13, 2013 6:59 PM

    What those words are telling me is that you consider liberal hypocrisy to be irrelevant — “right-wingers” would continue to “misinform” regardless, even if all left-wingers could be bothered to practice what they preach. Also implicit in your words is the notion that people “believe apparent hypocrisy is ‘more important’ than the science”, which is another way of saying that hypocrisy is irrelevant, or should be. Only the science is important — people should be willing to let liberal hypocrisy slide and do as liberal hypocrite celebrities and politicians say, not as liberal hypocrite celebrities and politicians do, because SCIENCE.

    But of course, that isn’t what you meant, is it? How fucking convenient. Even though you outright claim that “if Gore had used scheduled flights, or a row boat, it wouldn’t have changed at all“, with no qualification whatsoever.

    Iconoclast:

    I doubt that would make you budge from your “Al Gore is Irrelevant” position, which you will now deny holding.

    But you just keep right on pretending that Gore is invisible and irrelevant, and you can also keep pretending that you’re not being absurdly disingenuous by holding such a position.

    Absurdly disingenuous indeed.

    On your part, agreed. Again, I never explicitly stated that you posted the phrase “Gore is irrelevant and invisible”, and you have thus far failed to show that I did. I did explicitly claim that you implied that Gore was irrelevant and invisible:

    Nowhere did I say that Gore is invisible and/or irrelevant

    You imply as much — in your highlighted self-quotes, you clearly try to move the emphasis away from Gore and onto “right-wingers” and “conservative blogs” and “ideology”. Or pure recalcitrance. At the very least, you seem to want Gore to be irrelevant and invisible. Nowhere did I ever claim that Gore was 100% responsible for the “poisoned atmosphere”, but my words have been misrepresented to imply that I did make such a claim. And I got the “Gore Isn’t A Scientist” response at least a couple of times, even though I never claimed he was a scientist. I only claimed he was a high-visibility spokesman, and I even got a balking response to that. “But he’s not promoted as a spokesperson by anyone else but Al Gore”, to be exact. At every turn, I got the impression that I simply should not talk about Gore, which clearly implies that he is “irrelevant”. He’s the man behind the curtain to whom I’m not supposed to pay attention. I am supposed to regard him as invisible. Whatever his sins, right-wingers are worse, so I “should” pay attention to them, instead.

    Iconoclast, September 18, 2013 3:31 AM

    So, epic fail on your part, but good on you for trying so very hard.

    If you get your ‘perception’ from Anthony Watts and his ilk then you’re essentially a lost cause…

    That is a big “if”. There were four cites and you managed to “fisk” one of them, which is only 25%. You are free to draw conclusions from 25% of data while ignoring 75%, of course, and best of luck with that.

    First dog Bo is airlifted to Obama holiday home

    Using a separate jet to fly your dog to your holiday home? Regardless, to people like you, “it wouldn’t matter if he used a row boat…” “Pfft.”

    The point of my first cite was the carbon footprint, not the monetary cost. How convenient for you to have missed that, but that means you’re “fisking” a straw man. Even at that, the debunked figure of $200 Million/day may have originated in India:

    US to spend $200 mn a day on Obama’s Mumbai visit — from the Press Trust of India

    So it isn’t as if Watts pulled the figure out of his ass, necessarily. And the actual carbon footprint story’s basis may also have been exaggerated, but the point remains: Perception is half the battle. And the point stands, your straw man tilting notwithstanding.

    Thumb up 8

  167. CM

    So “ilk” came into the picture quite early on, so sorry you’re having such trouble keeping up.

    You’re right, I’d forgotten.

    Gore’s movie had misinformation in it.

    Very little.

    Left-wingers in general also misinform. Pretending that it’s only right-wingers who misinform is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

    Pretending that’s what I said is dishonestly at it’s most obvious. The first sentence speaks volumes though.

    And while you yammer on ad nauseam about “influence”, your apparent unwillingness to consider how those “misinforming” right-wingers are themselves influenced by left-wing hypocrisy is likewise intellectually bankrupt.

    Well that would be that complete lack of having any standards that I mentioned.

    But then, you are already on record as believing left-wing hypocrisy is irrelevant:

    Wow, more blatant lying. You just don’t give a shit do you? What a dick move.
    I explained what people I was talking about.

    What those words are telling me is that you consider liberal hypocrisy to be irrelevant — “right-wingers” would continue to “misinform” regardless, even if all left-wingers could be bothered to practice what they preach.

    Then you have some serious reading comprehensive issues.

    Also implicit in your words is the notion that people “believe apparent hypocrisy is ‘more important’ than the science”, which is another way of saying that hypocrisy is irrelevant, or should be.

    Not “people” but the people I’m talking about, you big fat liar.
    It’s just amazing how you continually think you have the right to redefine what people say.

    Only the science is important — people should be willing to let liberal hypocrisy slide and do as liberal hypocrite celebrities and politicians say, not as liberal hypocrite celebrities and politicians do, because SCIENCE.

    Nope, they shouldn’t let hypocrisy slide at all, and I’m certainly not going to defend blatant hypocrisy when it’s pointed out. Many of the criticisms made in your links are valid.
    Now you’re doing that lazy dumb move of trying to pretend something must be either one thing or the other.

    But of course, that isn’t what you meant, is it? How fucking convenient.

    I have no idea why you create situations like this. Just bizarre.

    Even though you outright claim that “if Gore had used scheduled flights, or a row boat, it wouldn’t have changed at all“, with no qualification whatsoever.

    There was most definitely a qualifier in there. Nice cherry-picking. Perfect topic for it too.

    I did explicitly claim that you implied that Gore was irrelevant and invisible:

    And yet I didn’t.

    So, epic fail on your part, but good on you for trying so very hard.

    Utter nonsense. But then you’re just making meaning up randomly now. Yet again if I said ‘hello’ I’m confident that you could write up a rant to explain how that means “fuck you” and it how it doesn’t matter what I actually meant, it’s only what you take it to mean that counts.

    That is a big “if”. There were four cites and you managed to “fisk” one of them, which is only 25%.

    LMAO. It speaks volumes. It’s EXACTLY what I mentioned earlier about the influence that misinformation has. If it comes from Watts, it’s likely to be wrong.

    You are free to draw conclusions from 25% of data while ignoring 75%, of course, and best of luck with that.

    Seriously weak. Anyway, I have no problem with actually criticising hypocrisy – my point is context and putting it into perspective, and allowing the hypocrisy of others to affect a judgement about one’s own standards. AND the science. Oh but of course science is now being made a bad word.

    Using a separate jet to fly your dog to your holiday home? Regardless, to people like you, “it wouldn’t matter if he used a row boat…” “Pfft.”

    Liar.

    The point of my first cite was the carbon footprint, not the monetary cost. How convenient for you to have missed that, but that means you’re “fisking” a straw man.

    Not at all. Watts reached his carbon footprint figure based on that $200 million, which included the ludicrous claim of 3000 people and forty aircraft. Watts ate it up, like the fake-skeptic he is, and extrapolated it into a carbon footprint.

    So it isn’t as if Watts pulled the figure out of his ass, necessarily.

    Yes well I did note that. Apparently when you’re a mouth-frothing climate ‘skeptic’ a single foreign news report quoting an anonymous Indian official but providing no detail at all is all you need to make claims. Same old same old. It doesn’t matter how many times things like this come back to bite Watts on the ass, it’s all just forgotten. It’s all a means to an end, as I’ve noted. Standards only apply to the ‘warmists’, as I noted.

    And the actual carbon footprint story’s basis may also have been exaggerated, but the point remains: Perception is half the battle. And the point stands, your straw man tilting notwithstanding.

    Wasn’t even remotely a straw man, as explained. Not sure what you’re smoking.
    But you’ve confirmed that ‘exaggeration’ is outweighed by ‘the point’. I.e. it doesn’t matter how many stupid claims are made, or whether they can be supported: the ends justify the means.

    Thumb up 0

  168. Hal_10000

    Sorry, hist, but 81% of Brits accept climate science and … that’s a point in your favor? I’d stick to the American polls, which are more mixed.

    Thumb up 0

  169. CM

    Couple of things to note about that report. One, it’s a working paper (PDF) and has not been subject to peer-review (yet), Second, the 19% relates to those who said ‘No’ in relation to this question:
    As far as you know, do you personally think that the world’s climate is changing?

    And yet The Express has somehow magically converted this into “…those who resolutely do not believe in climate change….” Entirely different question.

    Same old same old then. Yet another example of misinformation. If you misinform then people will be misinformed, so then you can then in turn misreport on that. Nice little cycle they’ve got going on there.

    There has long been a significant disconnect between what the scientists think and what the public thinks. Doran & Zimmerman (2009) (PDF) illustrated clearly that the more uninformed someone is, the less likely they are to agree that human activity is a contributing factor in changing mean global temps. The misinformers have done well (see the cycle I noted above). You could also argue that the scientists have done poorly. But the misinformers don’t have any standards or rules, they can say literally anything they like. It’s hard compete with that, particularly when the scientists’ primary role is to carry out science, whereas the misinformers’ primary role is to promote and spread misinformation and to confuse the general public.

    The scientific consensus has been further assessed just recently (PDF). Here is the abstract of this peer-reviewed study….

    We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

    Of course this apparently means (if you’re bat-shit delusional that is) that more and more scientists are just frauds. Science is apparently what you do for a living if you’re into fraud.

    Thumb up 0

  170. hist_ed

    in 2005 it was 95%. Since AGW is all about trends, do the math on this one. Is it linear? losing roughly two percent a year? Or do we use the multiplier: Anti-AGW beliefs quadrupling every 8 years or so. Someone should really model this.

    Thumb up 4

  171. CM

    What was 95% in 2005?

    Since AGW is all about trends, do the math on this one. Is it linear? losing roughly two percent a year? Or do we use the multiplier: Anti-AGW beliefs quadrupling every 8 years or so. Someone should really model this.

    ;-)

    Thumb up 0

  172. CM

    Gosh, look at all that Arctic ice recovery. It’s a wonder the whole planet isn’t covered in ice.

    Perceptions of the Arctic can be used as a litmus test to distinguish between skepticism and denial. There is simply no question that Arctic sea ice is in the midst of a rapid decline, at rates and to minimum extents unseen in millennia. The body of scientific research also clearly shows that most of that rapid decline is due to human influences on the climate. There’s simply no sense in denying the rapid human-caused decline of Arctic sea ice; doing so is a clear indicator of a lack of skepticism and abundance of denial.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/19/climate-change-arctic-ice-sixth-lowest-in-millennia

    Thumb up 0

  173. Iconoclast

    Very little.

    Enough.

    Pretending that’s what I said is dishonestly at it’s most obvious. The first sentence speaks volumes though.

    Wrong:

    I’m sorry that the people doing everything they can do to misinform are ideological right-wingers. Not my fault.

    CM, September 18, 2013 5:53 PM

    “THE people…” Not “SOME of the people…” but “THE people…” That implies exclusivity, whether you care to admit it or not. That implies that there are no “ideological left-wingers” out there trying to misinform people, whether you care to admit it or not.

    The first sentence speaks volumes though.

    When taken out of context, I’m sure it does…

    I’m sorry that the people doing everything they can do to misinform are ideological right-wingers.

    Gore’s movie had misinformation in it. Left-wingers in general also misinform. Pretending that it’s only right-wingers who misinform is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

    When taken in context, it is to be taken as a generalization of the first sentence, and qualified by the third sentence, given that the third sentence is an implied admission that right-wingers also do indeed misinform. The point is that it isn’t only “ideological right-wingers” who misinform. For one who’s apparently so comfortable accusing others of misrepresenting (and lying), you do a bang-up job yourself.

    Wow, more blatant lying.

    Nope. I provided an explanation, which you didn’t quote and apparently ignored, so you appear to be taking my statement out of context. “Blatant lying” implies that I am deliberately trying to misinform someone, when I’m merely stating how things come across. It’s easy to toss out accusations. It’s harder to back them up.

    You just don’t give a shit do you?

    Not any more, I don’t, no.

    Not “people” but the people I’m talking about…

    And who, exactly, would that be? Who are you talking about? And why do they matter?

    If you’re talking about some lunatic fringe, then take your sanctimony and stick it, because I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about perception in general. Something like 34% of Americans believe AGW is a problem, which means that 66% don’t, or don’t have any opinion at all either way. People on your side are bellyaching about a “poisoned atmosphere”, and you seem to be whining that it’s primarily due to a fringe “ideological right-winger” element, while fighting tooth and nail to downplay the role of liberal celebrities and their collective hypocrisy.

    …you big fat liar.

    It’s just amazing how you continually think you have the right to redefine what people say.

    Yeah, look who’s talking.

    You can toss accusations at me all day long, but it means nothing if you can’t keep your own house in order. Being human, we both fuck up when it comes to how carefully we read, consider and/or recall what our opponent says. It’s part of the human condition, and you’re no better than anyone else. The difference is, rather that simply toss out accusations, I go back and tediously reconstruct and re-quote what was actually said and then proceed to analyze the text. Not to your liking, apparently, but that’s ultimately inconsequential. and yes, in addition to this, I reserve the right to toss out accusations. And yes, I am lazy, which is why I don’t make any attempt to pretend I’m anything other than a biased conservative. For all your alleged effort at being objective, it really doesn’t come across. The tossing of the occasional bone aside, you consistently appear to give greater slack to liberals and harsher criticism to conservatives, forthcoming denials notwithstanding.

    Thumb up 9

  174. hist_ed

    Perceptions of the Arctic can be used as a litmus test to distinguish between skepticism and denial. There is simply no question that Arctic sea ice is in the midst of a rapid decline

    Yup. But every time there is some picture of a stranded polar bear (who really are not stranded-amazingly enough they can swim and their population has tripled or quadrupled in the last few decades-follow that trend baby, AGW must be GOOD for them) or a glacier calving or water at the North Pole a bunch of people throw that pic around saying “See see see GLOBAL WARMING YOU HEARTLESS BASTARDS!!!” We set a record high in July (heh a poem) in the US and Al Gore and company, whist getting rhetorically blown by most of the press, trumpeted it as “See see see GLOBAL WARMING YOU HEARTLESS BASTARDS!!!” (no one wanted to mention about how the previous record was set in the 1930s). Hurricane Katrina is exhibit A. There are still silly hippies, Al Gores, reporters and all the rest who say “See see see GLOBAL WARMING YOU HEARTLESS BASTARDS!!!” every time Katrina is mentioned when we know that Katrina wasn’t that big a storm and that Atlantic storms aren’t increasing. We focus on the Arctic sea ice. It’s melting you see, so, you know “See see see GLOBAL WARMING YOU HEARTLESS BASTARDS!!!” No one wants to talk about the Antarctic adding ice for the few decades, right? Or how, if you are afraid of poor Bangladeshis getting flooded by the rising ocean (despite Bangladesh getting bigger-growing into the sea over the last few decades) that Antarctic ice is more important because it rest on land-Arctic ice is already in the water so if you melt it it doesn’t displace much more volume.

    So yeah, its getting warmer. I am happy to say that. This year’s Arctic sea ice is not really important evidence. It is kinda funny though that when we skeptics throw your side’s tactics at you, you get all butt hurt and snivelly (spell check tells me snivelly is not a word. It damn well should be).

    Another trend we should track. Someone really needs to do the math on this: Every IPCC report is less alarmist than the last one. Every one predicts a somewhat lower temperature in 2100. Graph that trend line and we can predict the year the IPCC decides that 2001 will be colder than today. It can be too many reports away if the trend holds.

    Thumb up 3

  175. Hal_10000

    hist, I get mad at the climate dipshits when they claim every heat wave and lightning strike is global warming. The evidence that global warming causes more extreme weather events is shaky, at best. The NOAA itself has told people to knock it off. We’ll always get heat waves; we’ll always get hurricanes. Even IF global warming makes these more likely, it will show up on decades-long timescales (e.g., a few extra hurricanes a decade). It isn’t so far.

    My rule is that the further away you get from the data, the more shaky your conclusions. I like to arrange the questions like so:

    1) Is the planet warming? I’m 99% sure based on the data in hand.
    2) Is it manmade? I’m 80% sure based on the pattern of warming and the lack of alternative explanation.
    3) Will it be bad? I’m about 50% sure that it will be; but it’s the sort of thing I’d prefer not to find out by irreversible experiment.
    4) Will it cause specific effect X? I have very low confidence in any secondary or tertiary effects of global warming. I’m sure it will have them; but knowing which ones is tricky. It’s hard enough to pin down global warming itself, least of all the effects of it.
    5) Should we prioritize dealing with it? sorta, mostly by economic reform and basic research. But there are much more pressing environmental issues to address, such as malnutrition. As Lomborg says, if you’re worried about polar bears, worry about poaching, not global warming.

    Thumb up 1

  176. hist_ed

    Jeeze Hal there I am doing my best to throw some bombs (well maybe grenades or M-80s) and get CM to write a 4 page post with detailed responses to 4 or 5 word quotes from my work and you go and throw that big ‘ole blanket of reasonable on it. Well, shit. HOw’s a guys supposed to get (re) demonized ’round these parts?

    We’re close, Hal, pretty close. I guess its time for the point counter point quoting thing.

    1) Is the planet warming? I’m 99% sure based on the data in hand.

    Me too. The rub to this one is how much? It’s been warming since there were only 700 million people and most industry was powered by muscles or water wheels. So, we have to look at the data, right? We have proxy data going back essentially forever. 600 million years in Al’s movie. Unlike most people, I was trained to look up primary sources. So when I read Al’s book that went with his movie I thought “Hey, when he does that neato story about how when he was a kid he thought Africa fir with South America like a puzzle and CO2 does too, I thought I’d have a look. Luckily some others had the same thought. Turns out that CO2 rises when temperatures increase. Problem is, using Al’s own data, more than 50% of the time the temperatures go up first, and then the CO2 increases after a few decades or centuries. So, it looks like rising temperatures may cause increased CO2 (and some of the most alarmist AGWist admit this-they get all hot and bothered about feedback loops and shit).

    So, for the medium turn we have proxies. Tree rings and stuff. This is where the big news from Climate gate comes in as I have ranted about before. That famous “hide the decline” was not about current temperatures. IT was because the proxies, the method we use to determine whether or not it is not hotter than any time in human history, didn’t match the thermometer about a third of the time. Shit, that means they suck as a way of determining how hot it was, say, a thousand years ago. Back to my history training again. Turns out Greenland, was green. As the glaciers melt, they revealed agriculture (there areas are still too cold to grow wheat, they are just not permafrost anymore). In the Swiss Alps the retreating glaciers revealed mining operations. And there are writings from China, Britain and elsewhere that let us know that they were warmer, too. But the scientists, the guys we are supposed to trust, pretend that it was colder then.

    For the recent temp record we have actual thermometers. Except you can’t just take a reading and record it, right? And compare from year to year? Nope, the data has to be adjusted. And almost all the thermometers are close to cities. And none are in the 70% of the planet that is ocean. And they seem to shut many of them down at random. And there are pictures of the thermometers with light bulbs in their little chambers so the poor scientists can read them at night, and next to park burn barrels and barbeques and jet engine exhausts and air conditioners vents. So am I really supposed to think “Yeah they got it.”

    Here’s where I get to talk about my Dad. Dad’s a retired Boeing engineer. Designed airplanes for 40 years. When Boeing needed an engineer to manage a military contract to build a version of the 767 that had to fly with two big holes in the side, my dad is the guy they put in charge. He spent a lifetime crunching numbers. If memory serves, when they looked at his project, he had a spreadsheet where the surfaces of the 767 variant was graphed in 2 centimeter squares. Each square had its own drag coefficient. That spreadsheet made sense to him. He has spent the last two years looking at IPCC reports. He can’t figure out what those guys are doing with physical temperatures readings. There is no consistent was the raw data is being manipulated to provide adjusted temperatures (you should see his 120 some page PP on AGW).

    Sow what are we left with? Satellite Data. The only truly reliable temperature record we have starts in 1979. So yeah, it’s been getting warmer for the last few centuries. I agree. Just don’t think anyone knows how much.

    2) Is it manmade? I’m 80% sure based on the pattern of warming and the lack of alternative explanation.

    Uh Hal, don’t you mean that man has contributed? Do you really think 100% of the warming in the last X years is entirely because of man? Meaning absent us, the planet temperature would not have changed? Not even James Hansen believes this. So I am going to assume you mean that man is making it hotter than it otherwise would have been. You know what? I think I probably agree. The big question is: how much? Since the only really reliable temperature measure series starts in 1979, we know it got warmer for 20 years and then didn’t for 15. This doesn’t convince me that we have to start shuttering coal mines. Go back a little further and we get into data problems. As I have pointed out a lot, the decade from 1935 to 1945 was as warm (or within a fraction of a degree as warm) as it is now. Pick 1960 as your start date and in the US you get a shitlosd of warm. Pick 1934 and you don’t even get a rounding error. So what about the rest of the world? They were kinda busy. Africa and most of Asia were primitive basket cases rules by uncaring colonial empires or uncaring dictatorships (or in Civil War). The Soviets rely shouldn’t be relied on for temperature readings. And Europe, well, they really had other things on their minds. So the US is kind of it for (semi) reliable temp records right? So I am skeptical of anyone making any definitive statements that go back before 1979.

    3) Will it be bad? I’m about 50% sure that it will be; but it’s the sort of thing I’d prefer not to find out by irreversible experiment.

    Like everything else that changes, there will be good and bad. More people die from extreme cold than extreme heat every year (as our buddy Bjorn likes to point out), so probably less people die from temperature. It will be tougher to grow food in Texas but easier in Canada. New Orleans and Venice will likely go away, but that will happen regardless. And Bangladesh keep growing. Humans will adapt. And we will probably do so with more money and better technology than we have today. Imagine if in the 1930, the US decided it really needed to do something about investing in future health care. We’d spend 1% of our GDP stocking up on stuff we just know that we’ll need for out growing population. Stockpiles of crutches for polio victims. Piles of iron lungs. “Just in case” you know be because we owed it to future generations.

    4) Will it cause specific effect X? I have very low confidence in any secondary or tertiary effects of global warming. I’m sure it will have them; but knowing which ones is tricky. It’s hard enough to pin down global warming itself, least of all the effects of it.

    Yup. You know the quotes as well as I: scientists admitting that they have to scare the shit out of us so we will fund the next junket to Rio.

    5) Should we prioritize dealing with it? sorta, mostly by economic reform and basic research. But there are much more pressing environmental issues to address, such as malnutrition. As Lomborg says, if you’re worried about polar bears, worry about poaching, not global warming.

    Yup again. Whatever happens, we’ll be better able to deal with it if the world is richer-free markets and free trade will better adapt us to whatever is coming than any carbon tax, wealth transfer, etc.

    And again, the Indians and the Chinese aren’t go to slow down their economic growth for this. Yes, the Chinese are building solar panels, mostly to sell to us and the West Europeans, but they are also building shitloads of coal plants and locking up fossil fuel sources. I’ll look at the numbers again soon, but China emitting four times the US’s carbon by 2050 (and India 2-3 times) means we can do fuck all (short of nuking ‘em) to slow down the CO2 train.

    Thumb up 4

  177. CM

    Iconoclast YOU took MY statement out of context.

    “I’m sorry that the people doing everything they can do to misinform are ideological right-wingers. Not my fault” was in the context of climate change. I would never claim that as a general statement, that would be patently absurd.
    Yes, obviously I’m sure you could find an example of an ideological left-winger misinforming on the issue, but overwhelmingly and consistently the misinformation comes from the ideological hard right.

    For some reason the tools (to quote, link, make bold or italic etc) are not appearing for me.

    Thumb up 0

  178. Iconoclast

    “I’m sorry that the people doing everything they can do to misinform are ideological right-wingers. Not my fault” was in the context of climate change.

    I am fully aware of that. My point is that there is still misinformation on AGW from the left. Sometimes the science is misrepresented by the left, that is a simple fact of life. But my main point is that when people see liberals paint dire pictures in an AGW context, and try and guilt-trip us into radically changing our lifestyles to “save the planet” while they don’t change theirs, the people who witness this hypocrisy will not be incentivized to research the science themselves. That you continue to downplay that with such fierce determination doesn’t speak well of your alleged objectivity.

    I would never claim that as a general statement, that would be patently absurd.

    And it would be just as patenetly absurd to assume that I was taking your statement in such a fashion. I even lead off with the claim that Gore’s movie contained misinformation. I would have thought that, under normal circumstances, that would have been enough to ackowledge the context. But there you go, telling me what I mean.

    Thumb up 5

  179. CM

    Some misinformation on AGW from the left is a world away from claiming that “Left-wingers in general also misinform [on AGW]”.

    Who on the left is “doing everything they can do to misinform”? Certainly not Al Gore, notwithstanding that he could have used some different wording in his film at various points. Even if it was accepted that he had some misinformation in that film, it would be unreasonable not to consider what the nature of it was, and in the context all the information in the film that was not misinformation, and in the context of his public statements outside the film.
    Contrast that to all the ideological right-wing blogs/websites which are dedicated to misinforming on a day to day basis. Where are the left-wing sites that do the equivalent?
    The mainstream media constantly underplay or misreport the science, often to try and provide some false balance. The ‘ice recovery’ nonsense being an example.

    You see it as ‘downplaying’, I see it as putting it in the right context and having a sense of proportion. Again I do agree that celebrities being hypocrites would give some people the lame justification, weak-as-hell as it is, to mock/ignore/deny the issue. But those who can justify living in ignorance, or getting their science just from ideological blogs, are likely going to either need no justification at all (because ‘FREEDOM’) or would find it just as easily somewhere else.

    When it comes to AGW an astounding proportion of the public lives either in ignorance or has been led to believe utter nonsense. In my view it would absurd to try claiming that celebrity hypocrisy plays any more than a very minor role in that.

    Thumb up 0

  180. Iconoclast

    Some misinformation on AGW from the left is a world away from claiming that “Left-wingers in general also misinform [on AGW]”.

    Poor wording on my part — it was meant to be a generalization, not a claim that everyone on the left misinforms.

    Who on the left is “doing everything they can do to misinform”?

    Perhaps no one, but then, admitting that possibility “is a world away from claiming” or implying that it’s absolutely true. That being said, I can concede that, if the science is valid, there would simply be little to no reason for anyone on the left to be “doing everything they can do to misinform”, but then, it’s still possible that the science can be misrepresented in order to advance an agenda, even on the left. If there is legitimate debate on what could or should be done about the issue, that debate can still be misrepresented to advance a specific course of action even if such action is not objectively warranted or advisable. It neither advances the discussion nor illustrates objectivity to act as if the possibility doesn’t exist.

    You see it as ‘downplaying’, I see it as putting it in the right context and having a sense of proportion.

    But of course, that begs the question, who are you to determine what the “right” context is? It may be your preferred context, but to proclaim it as the “right” context is presumptuous, to say the least. The same hold true for the “proportion”.

    Again I do agree that celebrities being hypocrites would give some people the lame justification, weak-as-hell as it is, to mock/ignore/deny the issue.

    “Weak-as-hell” in your opinion. A simple fact of life is that we are all ignorant to some degree, and we are all lazy to some degree. There are only so many hours in the day and people don’t all have the same set of priorities. In addition, displayed hypocrisy in the hear-and-now is a lot more visible than a “degraded planet” in the somewhat distant future, and people more easily relate to that which is immediate and visible than something distant and somewhat abstract. Sure, it’ll be real when (if) it happens, but it’s still an abstraction in the here-and-now, for many if not most people.

    But those who can justify living in ignorance, or getting their science just from ideological blogs, are likely going to either need no justification at all (because ‘FREEDOM’) or would find it just as easily somewhere else.

    This certainly sounds arrogant, especially when the concept of freedom is being impugned. But that is a real issue, whether you care to acknowledge that or not. This is a perfect vehicle for massive oppression, and therein is its real danger, in the view of many, including myself.

    Thumb up 5

  181. CM

    Off topic again (well back to a brief off topic discussion to be more accurate), but Oracle Team USA are about to pull off what must be the most amazing comeback in the history of sport. The America’s Cup event is first to 9 wins, and OTUSA started at -2 for cheating, and Emirates Team New Zealand got to match-point (i.e. 8) with OTUSA back on 1. SO OTUSA needed 8 wins in a row to retain the Cup. They’re just won 7 in a row. It’s now 8-8 and they’re HOT favourites to win the last race (which should be in about 22 hours time).
    What makes it interesting is that OTUSA has 1 American on board, the rest are mostly Kiws and Aussies. The OTUSA are also NZ built, and it was NZ boat-builders that were flown over to make changes which turned the whole thing right around.
    I fear NZers are about to turn into a bunch of dicks if and when we do lose this tomorrow.

    “This certainly sounds arrogant,”

    And yet you’ve been having a go at me for “keeping my house in order” while acknowledging poor wording of your own which set up this whole latest round of nonsense.

    I’ll certainly join you (or anyone else) in coming down hard on those celebrities who say one thing but do another. I’ll also criticise and get annoyed when anyone exaggerates the science, especially for political purpose. I also have no doubt that some people on the extreme left want to use this issue for political reasons, to promote increased government control. My feelings for them are the same as for the fucking idiot protesters (as opposed to the non-fucking idiot protesters) who did nothing to assist the opposition to the Iraq war – “just fuck off, you’re not helping, you’re making it more difficult”.

    I assume I’m the only one who has lost the tools to quote, link, bold etc?

    Thumb up 0

  182. hist_ed

    So CM, about AGW- the celebrity asshole hypocrisy is entertaining and somewhat important. It shows an attitude that is also shared by politicians and academics: The poor people must adapt while they get to enjoy their wealth. Remember that when she was speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi made a big stink about getting her own air force jet-not exactly green. Al Gore is the best target because he came awfully close to being president and apparently thinks that because he is important he gets to have whatever the fuck carbon footprint he wants while I am bad for owning an SUV and a minivan. Bet you the head of the IPCC logged more miles in a private jet last year than every person on this site combined.

    What is far more important to me, CM, is how certain the IPCC is about its claims when nature doesn’t seem to want to cooperate. Every time they publish they reach new heights of hubris. The idea that they can be certain how world’s climate works is absurd. At best they are giving us educated guesses.

    And by they way, Antarctica set a 35 year record for ice this year:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

    This is not a blip; it’s a decades long trend. Doesn’t really seem that the catastrophic rise of the oceans is really that imminent.

    Thumb up 2

  183. CM

    “The poor people must adapt while they get to enjoy their wealth.”

    Yes and I agree that perception in relation to this IS important.

    “What is far more important to me, CM, is how certain the IPCC is about its claims when nature doesn’t seem to want to cooperate.”

    The warming of the deep ocean means nature isn’t cooperating? How does that work? We know there still a significant energy imbalance. If that goes into the ocean rather than continuing a linear atmospheric warming trend over a specific 10-15 period then that doesn’t mean “nature isn’t cooperating”.
    The IPCC has never claimed there will be linear atmospheric warming. There are uncertainties everywhere, this is work in progress in terms of updating the science and the models. That’s the whole reason there are new assessments carried out regularly.

    “Every time they publish they reach new heights of hubris”

    I don’t see it. This would only appear to be the case if you don’t actually look at the science. I.e. if you conveniently ignore ocean warming and the energy imbalance and solely concentrate on ‘atmospheric warming’.

    “The idea that they can be certain how world’s climate works is absurd.”

    I don’t understand how you can conclude it’s “absurd”. That we can construct accurate models of the past would seem to dispel that suggestion. The deep ocean taking some warming for a short period instead of the atmosphere doesn’t throw everything out.

    At best they are giving us educated guesses.

    Nonsense, it’s built on extensive ongoing research and physics. Not even remotely ‘guesses’.
    Yes, precise predictions are going to be prone to error. But we have a very good idea about what will happen in a number of areas in a general sense. We have a good grasp on the signal, even if we can’t predict the noise.

    “And by they way, Antarctica set a 35 year record for ice this year:”

    And how was this inconsistent with what was predicted?
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

    Thumb up 0

  184. Iconoclast

    And yet you’ve been having a go at me for “keeping my house in order” while acknowledging poor wording of your own…

    Because you’ve been accusing me of lying when I’ve been making honest mistakes. Also, my “having a go” at you is “a world apart” from your sanctimoniously passing judgement on millions of people you don’t even know, people you accuse of “justifying their ignorance”, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

    I’ll certainly join you (or anyone else) in coming down hard on those celebrities who say one thing but do another. I’ll also criticise and get annoyed when anyone exaggerates the science, especially for political purpose. I also have no doubt that some people on the extreme left want to use this issue for political reasons, to promote increased government control.

    Fair enough. And for what it’s worth, I’m with you on those who misrepresent the science and misinform the public. We can disagree on who has more influence, but we can both acknowledge that both groups are a problem (misinformers and hypocrites).

    Thumb up 3

  185. Iconoclast

    I assume I’m the only one who has lost the tools to quote, link, bold etc?

    Nope, you’re not the only one. I cheat by using an external editor, with macros that provide the formatting. I am a bona fide nerd, for better or worse.

    Thumb up 0

  186. AlexInCT *

    I assume I’m the only one who has lost the tools to quote, link, bold etc?

    It seems the comment module lost the plugin that exposes the functionality, or something.

    Here is some basic HTML for those of you that still want to use these capabilities until it comes back:

    To create quotes wrap your quote in the following:

    <blockquote>your text here with no trailing or leading spaces</blockquote>

    To indent:

    <i>your text here with no trailing or leading spaces</i>

    To bold:

    <b>your text here with no trailing or leading spaces</b>

    To strike out text:

    <strike>your text here with no trailing or leading spaces</strike>

    Let me know what else you might want to try.

    Thumb up 0

View Mobile Site