In “tribute” to a commenter…all you ever needed to know about Climategate

They have it all wrong. You are an climate COMMUNIST, not a eco-fascist. Silly goof-people.

That was excellent. Thanks for posting, Orac.

whyweprotets.net thread on the SWC award to Tom Cruise

Excellent video, Orac…I may eventually get up to speed about climate change. Every time we have an increase in tornadoes or more seismic activity in a given year, people get confused about the words “weather” and “climate change”, not realizing that weather changes are of short duration versus (the way longer) climate changes that we are experiencing.

One of my favorite “road trips” was the drive from Las Vegas straight north into the Canadian Rockies…west to mid British Columbia…back to Seattle; 3000 plus miles of glorious nature. We saw the Athabasca Glacier…before it disappears altogether. A great internet site, complete with pictures is:

Global Glacial Retreat

@ titmouse: Wow, just wow, that Tom Cruise is being honored by the Weisenthal Center….for what? Yes, Nation of Islam and its wacky leader Louis Farakhan have an affiliation with Scientology…(not so strange bedfellows).

@ titmouse: Yes, I remember Cruise’s rants. It’s all over the internet about the 2011 SWC “Humanitarian Award” honoree.

What’s the deal with the nominating committee at the SWC? Haven’t they been following the (unholy) alliance of Farrakhan’s group with Scientology…committee members need to go to the Anti-Defamation League’s web page “Farrakhan on Jews” to track the long career of this racist evil man.

For those not familiar with greenman aka Peter Sinclair (no, that isn’t outing him, he’s quite out already) he has an exellent series of short videos (link below). He mainly focuses on a particular egregious bit of nonsense and then debunks it in 5 to 10 minutes. These ones are called Climate Denial Crock of the Week.

youtube.com/view_play_list?p=029130BFDC78FA33

For those wanting a crash course in what we know and how we know global warming is happening, this video gives it in under 10 minutes.

youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas&p=029130BFDC78FA33

‘We saw the Athabasca Glacier…before it disappears altogether.’

And just how much longer do you think you’d have had to see the glacier if humans had never discovered fire?

Montana was 100% covered in ice recently. A couple hundred years ago, it was down to about 0.02% ice.

Blaming humans for the elimination of the last glacier in that area is one reason skeptics (or denialists, like me) think climate alarmists are incapable of critical thinking. That goes for Sinclair of the sonorous voice, too.

But, then, confusing seismic activity with climate or weather was already a tipoff, before you ever got to Athabasca.

@ Harry Eagar: Would you be the notorious global warming denier Harry Eagar from Maui, referred to in the web article:

Wake Up & Smell Harry Eagar

The Athabasca Glacier has retreated 1,500 meters in the last century…at an accelerated rate since 1980.

Wanna clarify your statement about “Montana was covered with 100 % ice recently….?

If you think the change in rate over the past 30 years is detectable on a time scale of 5,000 or 10,000 years, then you’re as delusional (and statistically challenged) as Peter Sinclair.

Quite the contrary; the more data points we have of the “before” rate, the easier it is to tell if there’s been a change in rate since.

I am the person beinmg tributed merely because I said elsewhere that Orac ran an “eco-fascist blog pretending to be scientific”. https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2011/03/ann_coulter_versus_physics_guess_who_win.php

This was in light of the attack on Ann Coulter over suggesting that the LNT theory (that low level radiation is harmful) had no scientific evidence behind it while the opposite theory (radiation hormesis) has a welter of evidence. Orac & indeed everybody else, failed to produce any evidence whatsoever for this “scientific” theory and no serious dispute remains there that there is no such evidence & it was entirely proper of Ann to raise the subject.

Incidentally part of the defence made to the “eco-fascist” claim was that (except for anti-nuclear scare stories obviously) this site does not push any “environmental” claims.

So this tread pushing the catastrophic warming scam presumably doesn’t exist 🙂

When we are told that the single best piece of evidence for catastrophic warming cannot be put in writing but must be seen on video we know we are dealing with showbiz not science.

So Orac if you (or anybody else) are so sure catastrophic warming is a problem you will have no difficulty answering all 7 of these points – any one of which, if unanswerable, disproves the entire scam.

I’m betting you can’t answer even 1.

1 – Do you accept Professor Jones’ acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?

2 – Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth by around 10% & that the consequent influence on world hunger is more beneficial than any currently detectable destructive action of alleged global warming?

3 – Do you accept that the Hockey Stick, as originally presented by Mann and the IPCC contained calculations that were inconsistent with good science and that Mann’s refusal to make calculations and algorithms available for checking were inconsistent with scientific principle?

4 – Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side, from Al Gore’s claim that South Sea islands had already been abandoned due to rising sea levels and Pachauri’s claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was “voodoo” are wholly, completely and totally untruthful and would have to be openly denounced by anyone on the alarmist side who has any trace of honesty?

5 – Do you accept that there are a number of geoengineering solutions which arithmetically can be shown would work (including stratospheric dust, the geritol solution or even just replacing CO2 burning with nuclear power) which would work at a small fraction of the cost of the war against fire, or in the case of nuclear, at negative cost?

6 – Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?

7 – Of the alleged “consensus” – can you name 2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state, who support catastrophic warming & if not can you explain how something can be a consensus when no member of a subset of 60% of the alleged consenting, consent?

To expand on #1)

Linking ground based measurements with satellite based measurements and atmospheric measurements, there is excess UV entering the lower atmospheric levels which is entering the system as heat in different ways. The laws of thermodynamics would indicate that the energy is in the system, the climate scientists just don’t know where. Given the size of the oceans and the continuing damages, it appears that the heat is there, it just isn’t being measured, yet. (Lyman & et al, 2010)

doi:10.1038/nature09043

Lilady, you have as much expertise as the journalist Harry Eagar. In fact you probably have a better appreciation and knowledge of the underlying scientific principles, than Harry Eagar. Harry Eagar is good at arguments from incredulity, but fails at anything deeper.

Thanks for hosting this discussion, Orac. There’s little value in arguing with deniers like Harry Eagar and Neil Craig, but for those who genuinely wish to learn about anthropogenic global warming, I’d like to recommend some excellent sources:

The Discovery of Global Warming, published both on paper and on the web by the American Institute of Physics, is the best possible introduction to the subject for laypeople;

For expert discussion of the scientific issues, with input from leading climate scientists, see the RealClimate blog, especially the start-here page;

For specific refutations of popular denier arguments, with citations to peer-reviewed sources, see SkepticalScience.com – also available as a smartphone app!

That’s just bluster, JayK. Would you care to estimate the ‘normal’ rate of retreat of N. American glaciers?

Lilady was primed by chicken littles to think in terms of catastrophic climate change in the warm direction, so when somebody told her the Athabascan glacier had retreated 1500 m in 30 years, she assumed that was a fast rate.

It’s slow. Very slow, if you’re into adjectives, less than half the rate observed in the era before humans began dumping combustion gases into the atmosphere.

I’m a denialist (a word coined by some notoriously unreliable Canadian PR agents) but I do not endorse Neil Craig’s list, or most of it. Nevertheless, Lilady can set her mind at rest. The glaciers are doing what glaciers do. She didn’t cause it, and if she buys an electric car, they won’t stop retreating.

The calculation is easy. 1500 m in 30 years is something like 600 miles in 20,000 years.

20,000 years ago, maybe less, the southern limit of the last Wisconsinian glaciation was Des Moines, Iowa.

The limit of permanent ice is a lot farther from Des Moines than 600 miles now.

Mal, the best possible introduction to the issue of glacial retreat is E. Le Roy Ladurie, ‘Times of Feast, Times of Famine.’ All direct observational science, no models, no algorithms, no proxies. And no catastrophic retreat, either.

2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state

I was not aware that there is a single worldwide state, but then I am not a libertarian.

Great video. It deserves all the publicity it can get.
In a perfect world, it would be nice if James Randi and Penn & Teller could watch it as well.
Well, here’s hoping.
(sigh)

Go, greenman, go!

Cogent comments are frequently described as “full of win. Neil @32 is full of Godwin.

More arm-waving from Jay. Care to answer the observational question or not?

Let the record show that Neil Craig has never denied my assertion that he is a Celtic supporter.

I gave you the citation that looks at the proxy data for glaciers, you can find the rate yourself, Harry. Or do you not understand how citations work? Your rate is bogus, useless and attempts to confound the issue by making it seem like a really small number.

But that’s what you do, isn’t it, Harry? Just like the anti-vax people, you hint at things and you confound the issues, you load the questions and then you never, ever, ever accept the answers.

Perhaps you might acknowledge, before you crap all over this thread again, that your question is so general that there is no answer. The Athabasca Glacier has had varying rates over the century, but has generally been increasing. If you want the science of how they know it is increasing, read the citation above. For what timeframe do you want the rate, Harry?

Do you even know why Athabasca Glacier is interesting for climate studies?

Wow, you’re right, Harry! I messed up and mistook reconstructions for proxy. Good job, you really showed me, I’m a total denialist now!

Except, there is all that data that indicates that glacier length is only useful for short term generation of climate change signature, which is probably why you’ve latched onto it like an ignorant pit bull. So guess I just don’t have it in me to be an ignorant denialist like you.

As for disbelief in the MWP? You haven’t a farking clue what you’re talking about, as usual and you didn’t provide a citation. You’re name dropping, but providing nothing of substance to back up your assertions.

Neil Craig @19:

So this tread pushing the catastrophic warming scam presumably doesn’t exist 🙂

What exactly do you mean by ‘catastrophic’? I’ve only seen the word used by climate change denialists and do not understand what is meant by it. Could you give some examples of what you would consider catastrophic and what you would not consider to be catastrophic? A 5% drop in crop production? A 50% drop? Half the world’s sea ports out of action? I’ve asked this question of others, but no-one has ever answered.

I’m also curious as to why you think that basic physics fails to operate when atmospheric CO₂ increases.

A sensible post Intercostal. You may be right about it beiong more probabnlt than not that there is some manmade warming. However, unless it can be shown to be seriously damaging on a world scale (ie catastrophic) it does not justify the alarmism and billions o=poured into, usually patently false, nostrums. I also agree with you about nuclear – it is obvious that, nuclear being the only system that can produce mass power without CO2, it is impossible for anybody, who truly believes in catastrophic warming, to oppose the only practical method of stopping CO2 rise. That the leaders of the eco-fascist movement uniformly do so proves volumes.

Richard see above for what catastrophic warming means. The example you give of a 5% crop reduction would count. However if you read my questions you will see I posit and nobody disputes that there has been a 10% crop rise due to CO2. It is likely, from experience of the Medieval warmth and climate optimum, that the extra warmth would olso improve crop growth further. I find it impossible to consider such things “catastrophic”.

I note that neither Orac nor any eco-fascist supporter has even attempted to answer the questions proving they know their scare story fraudulent.

@Neil — it surprises me that other people in this thread haven’t picked up on this yet, but I need to correct you about “no ‘statistically significant’ warming.” (Actually, there is a huge amount to correct you on, but I have a day job I need to see to.)

There is a vast amount of difference between
“no statistically significant warming”
and
“no significant warming.”

There has, in fact, been a significant warming trend since 1995. See http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html or event the Wikipedia page on “Instrumental Temperature Data” for a lead on this. However, one thing you may notice, looking at actual graphs, is that there is an awful lot of up-and-down from one year to the next. When the change is just over one year to the next, or a few years, we cannot say it represents an actual trend — it could just be “noise” in the system because the system has that much natural variability. However, as the number of years being examined increases, so does the probability that an observed trend is a real trend, and not just the noise of year-to-year variability and short-term cycles. And THIS is what is meant by statistical significance.

There needs to be a minimum number of years observed for statistical significance.

There has now been over 15 years since 1995 observed — it approaches statistical significance, and there will be a definite statistical significance to the trend since 1995 in the next 5 years, since as the period of time lengthens, the probability that the trend observed is happening “just by chance” decreases.

The way you are using this phrase, you seem to be arguing that there has been no effective warming. That’s bull. There has very definitely been effective, real, objective warming. The “statistical significance” refers solely to the measure of our certainty that it is a genuine trend, and that it couldn’t have happened simply by chance.

Understand?

Your interpretation of the rate of glacial retreat is also utter balls, but I have to deal with that at a later time. I have work.

Neil Craig @45:

However if you read my questions you will see I posit and nobody disputes that there has been a 10% crop rise due to CO2.

I ignored it because it is a plainly ludicrous claim that makes no attempt to tease out the different effects of CO₂, fertilizer, cropping practices, new cultivars, better economic incentives, better storage facilities and the rest. Even when temperatures and water supply are controlled, CO₂ fertilization frequently has little effect on harvestable yield. Higher than usual temperatures have cut yields by reducing cereal pollination and changes in rainfall patterns and the distribution of pests are not exactly beneficial for farmers.

Neil’s assertion re: no stat sig global warming. When Phil Jones said that, there had been no sig gw since 1998 at the 0.05 level…but there had been at the 0.056 level (or thereabouts…round it off to 0.06). Dr. Jones wasn’t saying there hadn’t been any warming but that 1998 to present wasn’t long enough to make it statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The fact that people still misquote and misinterpret this demonstrates their lack of knowledge on the subject, and the paucity of their arguments–i.e. if they had good arguments they wouldn’t need to recycle falsehoods for the umpteenth time after they’ve been vapourized.

by the way, a year later, the warming did meet the 0.05 level.

by the way, a year later, the warming did meet the 0.05 level.

I don’t believe that’s the case, actually; at least, not in HadCRUT. A simple OLS fit will achieve statistical significance at the 0.05 level, but the data display significant autocorrelation. Accounting for that leaves us with an insignificant result, right up to the present day.

One of the simplest approaches to dealing with Neil’s misinformation on this issue is to point out that, while the rate of warming in HadCRUT from 1995-present is statistically indistinguishable from zero, it’s also statistically indistinguishable from 1.7 K/century, which is approximately the rate of warming in HadCRUT from 1975-1995. If the best we can say is that the warming ranges somewhere between ‘completely unchanged’ and ‘stopped altogether’, it’s bloody obvious that the short dataset we’re using is insufficient to draw any solid conclusions.

“That’s what Le Roy Ladurie is about. He has direct observational data on glacial advance/retreat going back more than 500 years earlier than 1700”

And his calibration of his measurements was…?

I guess you also accept a stained glass window in Yorkshire is proof that there were grapes in Scotland during the roman occupation of the UK…

“” by the way, a year later, the warming did meet the 0.05 level.”

I don’t believe that’s the case, actually; at least, not in HadCRUT.”

It did Martin.

If you pick 1996 or 1994 you’d also have gotten statistical significance to the 95% confidence interval even at that time. Also, for trll, EVEN AT THAT TIME, the recording of Jones’ interview he explained that it was statistical significant at better than 90% but not to the 95% normally used by statisticians to denote “proven fact”.

Neil C –

I have some questions, since you seem a domain expert..

1) Let us assume that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. Can you please explain why the oceans are not frozen solid?

2) Assuming there is no greenhouse effect, which natural effect exists that exactly replicates the observations, including polar amplification?

3) And no, you can’t just say ‘natural cycles’. Which natural cycle?

4) Models question: If you run your model 10,000 times and pick out only the few dozen runs that match what you want to happen, is that ‘good science’, ‘scientific fraud’, or ‘post normal science’? Pick all that apply.

5) You can tilt a graph to zero the trend if you want. True/false?

6) Scientific theories are best overturned by stealing the personal correspondence of the scientists involved and digging through it for anything that can be found to be incriminating. Discuss.

Neil Craig

In Wow’s favour I note that not even it claimed there are any independent scientists who support this fraudulently named “consensus”.

James Lovelock is an “independent scientist” who supports the consensus.

I would also note that the “scientists” trotted out by the denialists are almost always funded directly or via a right wing/libertarian think tank. Pot Kettle Black.

Also, numerous examples of government scientists supporting the consensus when their government opposed the consensus have been provided. You have not addressed this. You are no different from a creationist troll or an antivaxxer in this regard.

Andrew says “Let us assume that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect.”

No lets not. This “assumption” you make is supported by nobody else even on your own loony side of the argument. You merely demonstrate what an ignoramus you are and what standard of ignorance and stupidity the ecofascist movement aspires to.

Bhedwards I didn’t. You lot did. The total failure of the entire ecofascist movement to be able to five a credible answer to all 7 of these questions, or even 1, proved it. That obviously includes yourself.

Militant True Believer – Congratulations, you have come up with the same, single, name of any independent scientist worldwide named as supporting the scam. I have asked the same question on sites and to newspapers worldwide and the only instances of people actually trying to answer were the Independent’s environment corresponent and somebody on a website in South Africa.

Like you they both named Professor Lovelock so clearly he is the ONLY such person it can be claimed of.

In fact, following the revelations of climategate he changed his opinion, calling the catastrophic warming alarmists “insane”.
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/03/i-think-that-sceptics-have-kept-us-sane.html

6:Nil and counting.

I see none of these lying fascist charlatans have even yet attempted to behave honestly, nor has Orac. QED

Neil Craig you are a self assured ignorant ideologically blinded asshole who has the same anti-science tinfoil hatted beliefs as a creationist – that is not an ad hominen it is a description.

I am self employed in the upstream oil & gas industry. I would really like AGW to be false. Bu unlike you, I am willing to accept the validity of evidence that does not tell me what I want to hear. You are the “true believer” who rejects all evidence that contradicts you ideology or that make you feel uncomfortable.

I find it rather amusing that neil has decided to put a counter up for his preconceived and perceived “victories” against the blog.

Which is rather amusing, because none of his arguments have been valid at all, and when pointed out by others filled with invective and ad hominems instead of defending his points.

If there was a score that was being kept, with ad hominems counting as negative, I think neil would be in the negative range.

“” by the way, a year later, the warming did meet the 0.05 level.”

I don’t believe that’s the case, actually; at least, not in HadCRUT.”

It did Martin.

If you pick 1996 or 1994 you’d also have gotten statistical significance to the 95% confidence interval even at that time.

Those don’t match the results I get. Starting in 94, you can get a trend that’s barely significant or barely non-significant, depending on whether you use monthly or annual data, and on whether/how you account for autocorrelation. Starting in 96 gives a barely non-significant trend in all cases except an OLS fit to monthly data.

Neil: I am still waiting for you to justify your claim that crop yields have increased by 10% due to increasing CO₂, or is this something you plan on forgetting about until you are dealing with a more naive audience?

Instead he goes into a string of ad hom attacks proving he is personally a disgusting, wholly corrupt, child murdering Nazi animal incapable of the remotest trace of honesty who will instantly be denounced by every single alarmist with access to this site who is not provably a disgusting, wholly corrupt, child murdering Nazi animal incapable of the remotest trace of honesty.

I will say this much, when Neil Craig goes Godwin, he doesn’t go halfway. Anyhow, back to analyzing of the drill stem test conducted by morons who flared 2000 bbls of oil over a week of (umpteen thousand dollar a day) offshore rig time but who were too cheap to spend an extra grand for (high resolution) quartz pressure gauges.

Andrew that rather looks like an ad hom. If you have evidence that I have been unable to read comments gere (and presumably also to write them) you will be able to produce it. Otherwise you will wish to apologise, assuming you possess some slight trace of integrity.

Militant Believer do I take “it is a safe bet that almost all competent climate scientists will have received public funding” as an acknowlefgement that, despite diligent attempts, you, like everybody else have been unable to find any scientist whatsoever, not paid by government, who supports this fraud? Do I also take it that you do not dispute your only alleged example actually accuses you ecofascists of insanity?

Richard, had you not suffered from the afirementioned lack of reading comprehension, you would have noted that I have left it up to ecofascists like Orac to point this out & dissociate themselves from the pile of lies masquerading as an answer. However if you will publicly acknowledge that, if I produce such evidence, which the ecofascists have refused to mention, it will prove that they and you are indeed disgusting, wholly corrupt, child murdering Nazi animal incapable of the remotest trace of honesty and that6, as soon as I do so you will publicly apolofise. If you are not prepared to apologise if proven a liar then there is no point in doing your research work for you.

NJ I note your acknowledgement that you are unable to discuss on a factual basis, presumably because you know the fact prove the ecofascists liars. Ditto Nova.

Intercost if you have any evidence that malaria has spread north of where it used to be (it used to be endemic in Murmansk) or that massive melting of Greenland or Antadctica is taking place (Antarctica is actually growing) and sea level catastrophically rising (it isn’t) that would indeed be evidence of catastrophic warming. I ask you to produce some. What I said about nuclear is that it is the only way of producing MASS power. Bio cannot produce much, solar cannot prosuce baseload because there is no sun at night. Absolutely everybody who claims to believe in catastrophic warming and opposes nuclear is either wholly corrupt or deliberately trying to produce catastrophe.

11:Nil

I await an apology from ever single eco-Nazi who claims there are ever any circumstances under which they wi8ll not lie to murder children.

Neil: What on earth are you ranting about? I ask you to justify your claims and you accuse me of being a “disgusting, wholly corrupt, child murdering Nazi animal incapable of the remotest trace of honesty”.

It is far from normal for someone to go off the deep end so quickly and with so little provocation. In all seriousness, visit your nearest mental health advisor as quickly as possible.

@Neil Craig

Militant Believer do I take “it is a safe bet that almost all competent climate scientists will have received public funding” as an acknowlefgement that, despite diligent attempts, you, like everybody else have been unable to find any scientist whatsoever, not paid by government, who supports this fraud?

And do you still contend that Lovelock, who believes that “you can’t put a trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere without something nasty happening,” who worries, “Are our sea defences adequate? Can we prevent London from flooding? This is where we should be spending our billions,” and who argues that “climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while” is somebody who can be counted as a disbeliever in catastrophic global warming?

Are you really so desperate to find somebody rejects the global warming consensus that you are willing to embrace a guy whose views are actually more catastrophic than the consensus?

Just asking…

nc @ 75:

NJ I note your acknowledgement that you are unable to discuss on a factual basis, presumably because you know the fact prove the ecofascists liars.

I note your acknowledgement that you are unable to understand when someone points out that you are not only unintelligent but unable to recognize they are calling you unintelligent, thereby demonstrating your woefully deficient skills in reading comprehension.

Query for the crowd: Since nc is outnumbered as well as outclassed intellectually, he is being forced to respond to increasing numbers of posters, thereby eating up even more of his finite time. How long before he realizes we are toying with him like a cat does with a near-dead mouse and flounces off in a spray of misspelled obscenities?

He has been here a week; I give him perhaps one more.

Tres I note you make no attempt to name any independent scientist who supports warming alarmism. Note that if 60% of yhe scintists are not paid by the state and 60% are you have some difficulty with simple arithmetic

NJ still just ad homs. Outnumbered tndoubtedly but outclassed – tell that to your 120% chum.

BJ again you frmonstrate that you cannot answer any of the questions and are only capable of ad homs.

trill I note that only person you can quote as being on your side withoiy being paid to, isn’t, and calls you insane.

Jay – in short you are incapable of producing any facts or answering difficulat questions and are reduced to ad homs. Fortunately I never descend to such things you obscene, child murdering, thieving, fascist parasite.

Richard still waiting for you to confirm you will apolofise if I come up with the evidence you are wrong – something which I have left it up to any remotely honest ecofascist would have gad to already have told you is easily available if you look. The rest is simply rudeness, t9o be expected from fascists like you.

Andrew ho ho ho.

17:Nil

trill I note that only person you can quote as being on your side withoiy being paid to, isn’t, and calls you insane.

So the one person you cite as a scientist with some relevant credentials who has not been paid for his work is actually more concerned about catastrophic global warming (as clearly seen from his comments here) than those who are paid for their work. So what is your point? That the government is paying scientists to understate the risk of global warming catastrophe?

Just asking…

@Neil

I think you should probably pull your paranoid head of your ass and learn how spam filters work, not to mention realizing that Orac has better things to do than sit around twiddling his thumbs as he keeps an eye on the spam filter waiting for your fabulously enlightening pearls of wisdom.

Gosh, Neil Craig still evades supporting his claims.

What are you scared of, Neil?

BJ & trill you are just repeating yourselves and demonstrating, yet again, that no factual anser can support your cause.

The question is repeated because you have failed to give any answer, factual or otherwise. So here is the question again:

So the one person you cite as a scientist with some relevant credentials who has not received government funding for his work is actually more concerned about catastrophic global warming (as clearly seen from his comments here) than those who are paid for their work. So what is your point? That the government is paying scientists to understate the risk of global warming catastrophe?

Just asking…

Well if it wasn’t Orac proving himself a fascist, on several threads, or more likely if he is trying to row back from such proof this will appear:

Kreb anybody who checks what you say about my link http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/03/low-level-radiation-evidence-that-it-is.html will see that you are lying

#1 of the For Hormesis links is an overview wholly unrelated to what you say http://www.alamut.com/proj/98/nuclearGarden/bookTexts/Rad_hormesis.html
#9 is Professor Cohen on his research which found precisely the beneficial connection between radon and cancer which you assure “undoubtably” cannot be claimed by anybody. It appears doubt is indeed possible, indeed statistucally proven.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1998/cohen.htm

I can, of course, understand why you have “learned nothing” that disturbs you prejudices in “30 years” since you clearly never allow facts to interfere with them.

I ask you to acknowledge that my reading of these links is correct and your contention that the latter is a “dating agency” is non-factual.

Well if it wasn’t Orac proving himself a fascist, on several threads, or more likely if he is trying to row back from such proof this will appear

It had already appeared where you originally posted it before you posted here complaining about how you’d been censored, you daft sod.

However since those posts “caught in the spam folder” haven’t appeared we must assume Orac decided not to allow them. And has now started to row back in embarrasment.

I note that though Orac has enough energy to deny his censorship & throw in an ad hom accusation of sillinness and sodomy, he still refuses to answer any of the questions or produce any evidence.

Trill in scientific discourse your plea of insanity is no defence.

22:Nil

Richard still waiting for you to confirm you will apolofise if I come up with the evidence you are wrong – something which I have left it up to any remotely honest ecofascist would have gad to already have told you is easily available if you look. The rest is simply rudeness, t9o be expected from fascists like you.

It is you who has been hurling insults. My comments about your mental stability were intended as serious advice.

I’ve worked as a scientist – of course I am willing to change my views if presented with adequate evidence. That’s what scientists do.

Now, how about backing up your claim that crop yields have increased by 10% as a result of increasing CO₂?

As usual, more unintentional comedy gold from neil.

I am half tempted to put up my own scoreboard, just to count how many ad homs and unreasoned and illogical arguments neil puts up, just for the fun of it.

Kreb anybody who checks what you say about my link http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/03/low-level-radiation-evidence-that-it-is.html will see that you are lying

How specifically am I lying? All the links I referred to on your blog were still there last time I looked. What order they appear in on the page is of no relevance at all.

I ask you to acknowledge that my reading of these links is correct and your contention that the latter is a “dating agency” is non-factual.

I clicked on this link on your blog, and got a page that seemed at first glance to be advertising a dating agency. I see now it is actually a high quality source of scientific information dead link with the domain for sale. I apologize for my grave error.

Neil Craig, apparent mutant spawn of Tim Curtin sez:

There is nothing remotely controversial about saying more CO2 increases plant growth. It has been proven many times and is inherently obvious since plants eat CO2

There is nothing remotely controversial about saying more O2 increases people growth. It has been proven many times[1] and is inherently obvious since peoples eat O2

[1] Soylent Green Research Letters, vol. 32, February 2005

Ooops, First try is in moderation (that damn fascist Orac!)

OK Richard thats all I asked…. from you and the others making the same complaint.(Snip 2 links)

Greenhouses. You extrapolated from greenhouses? Seriously? First of all adding CO₂ won’t help plants that are constrained by other resource limits such as water, or light or nutrients. This is not a problem in the controlled environment of a greenhouse. These resource limits are however a much bigger constraint on crop yields than the CO₂ supply. Secondly you’ve taken the increased CO₂ levels in isolation, not taking into consideration the climate changes that come with them or the problems for plants (heat stress, drought, and floods etc.) that come with them. A good primer on this can be found here.

I have been following this discussion for some time although I haven’t contributed because of time constraints.

What I find especially striking is how Neil Craig’s choice of phrasing reveals how unscientific his reasoning process is. In his last comment he states

I use the term “undeniably” in the normal sense that it cannot be honestly or even credibly denied

Science is a collective process in which a large number of people engage in attempting to replicate or disprove the results of other people’s experimental findings and either confirm or dispute them. It also involves taking their hypotheses, calculations and explanations as a basis for new experiments to attempt to verify or disprove them.

What is essential to this process is the possibility of honest and even credible disagreement.

This morning I peeked into Richard Feynman’s book, “Surely You’re Joking Mr Feynman”, looking for a specific quote and stumbled upon an earlier section (about pg 250) where he describes how he and Murray Gell-Mann came up with a theory of beta decay which predicted that electrons should come out from the decaying nucleus symmetrically in all directions. (with reference to the angle at which the proton recoils from the neutron) A very good experimenter, Valentine Telegdi, measured the number of electrons and found that 11 percent more came out in one direction than the others. He mentioned this at a conference and wrote them a letter in which he said that

The F-G (Feynman-Gell-Mann) theory of beta decay is no F-G.

Feynman and Gell-Mann considered how to respond and realized that Telegdi was a very good experimenter and would be much better than they at finding something wrong with his experiment. So they decided to just wait. Two days later they got another letter from Telegdi who had found out from their theory that he was disregarding something. When he took that into account, his results agreed with their theory.

What is important is not who turned out to be right or wrong, but that both sides were willing to consider that they might be wrong and responded to the disagreement by looking at their own work in more depth and considering the possibility that they might be wrong.

In contrast, in this and other threads, Neil Craig has made lists of statements or questions. Other commenters have responded to those in detail. But, instead of considering that he might be wrong or even attempting to respond with a better explanation to persuade others that he might be right, Neil Craig chooses to call the person attempting to reason with him

a corrupt lying, murdering, fascist, parasite without the most remote trace of integrity

Sorry, Mr Craig, but your concept of science is “no F-G”.

let’s ignore the CAS pathway
Should read “CAM pathway” (I’m resorting to the WWW now).

Key phrase from a wikipedia article: “C3 plants cannot grow in hot areas because RuBisCO incorporates more oxygen into RuBP as temperatures increase.”

In other words, the “currently detectable destructive action of alleged global warming” include an end to rice and barley production; without any concomitant improvement in the productivity of C4 species. This would not be good.

Squirrel if you had actually been interested in scientific principles you would long ago have criticised the various peopel here, who, instead of providing answers, engage in ad homs. Your contention that, in science, nothing can ever be denied is rubbish.

I am well aware of Feynmann’s views having blogged on his speech about Cargo Cult Science and how very well both catastrophic warming and LNT, depending on people in white coats making assertions without the evidence, fits it.

Doktor you repeat the question and then refuse to answer it. Nobody disputes that some plants are less affected by more CO2 (or water or temperature) than others or that others are moreso. That is how “average” effect is made up.

Julian – Richard made an enormous point about the experiments being carried out in greenhouses or as he put it “Greenhouses. You extrapolated from greenhouses? Seriously?” How exactly experiments in how plants absorb atmospheric changes is to be managed without them taking place in an enclosed atmosphere is something I look forward to seeing Richard or you try to explain? Not being “willfully disingenous, hypos”critical and mendacious in the extreme” I am sure both of you will rush to do so.

Or not as the case may be.

Note that “the only independent scientist in the world who supports catastrophic warming” has still to identify himself.

And that no ecofascist writing here, reading here or having heard of this site feels able to answer even 1 of the 7 questions which every alarmist who actually believes the scam must be able to answer.

26:Nil

Richard said “of course I am willing to change my views if presented with adequate evidence. That’s what scientists do”

I guess that shows me for allowing myself to believe that there were any circumstances whatsoever where any of the fascists here would ever behave with the remotest trace of honesty.

Richard you have been given the evidencce you demanded , indeed considerably more than the evidence and your objections are clearly wholly dishonest.

No, you gave one minor and far from conclusive piece of evidence.

Your objectin that scientific experiments cannot be done in greenhouses, apparently because the laws of physics, and biology, do not work within greenhouses is a doctrine unknown to science and can never be claimed by anybody with the remotest trace of respect for the discipline.

Firstly that wasn’t Richard, it was me. Secondly that’s a strawman. I didn’t say anything that could be honestly construed as saying scientists can’t or shouldn’t do experiments in greenhouses; they can and should. The point is that you can’t legitimately draw rock solid conclusions from these experiments regarding the world outside the greenhouse. Your QED from this one piece of evidence is way premature.

Your objection that the experiment was done by changing only 1 factor, the amount of CO2, proves you don’t even know what scientific experiment is. Experiment is done, precisely, by isolating particular factors and seeing what changes happen.

True, but the problem is all you learn about is that one factor. Outside the greenhouse CO₂ isn’t isolated, it interacts with and its effects are affected by other factors in complicated ways. You simply can’t draw firm conclusions about how CO₂ acts on plants in the outside world from greenhouse experiments. Well you can but you’re wrong to do so.
Here’s an analogy. A biotech firm discovers that chemical “X” kills tumor cells preferentially over healthy cells in a lab culture. Would this company be justified in going straight to commercial production of their “miracle cancer cure”?

Your objection that global warming is going to produce other damaging changes is (A) irrelevent to whether CO2 has the effects it undeniably* does

Actually it’s the net effect of CO₂ that’s relevant.

(B) a lie anyway – warmed climates have higher crop yields.

Not so fast.

I again point out that anybody in the ecofascist movement, who has the remotest trace of honesty will feel obliged to say what a lying anti-scientific piece of filth Richard is. (Kreb, who on the Coulter thread, is claiming to be involved in scientific discussion this means you)

Once again it wasn’t Richard. Furthermore, and this may surprise you, it’s possible for people to honestly disagree on the significance of a single bit of evidence. Try considering the possibility that people are honestly unpersuaded by the greenhouse evidence.

I note that, of course, none of the liars here have even attempted to answer any of the 7 questions. That proves, undeniably* that you one and all know catastrophic warming to be a total fraud.

If nobody was attempting to answer them, then what the hell are you responding to? Think. But here, I’ll answer the first 2. 1. Yes, he said that. So what? It doesn’t mean what you think it means. Do you seriously believe that you made some sort of point with that? 2. I deny that anybody has any business making any firm claim about the effects of increased CO₂ on crop yields so far. We just don’t have sufficient evidence to be doing so.
1 further observation: Your conclusion “that you one and all know catastrophic warming to be a total fraud” does not logically follow from the lack of answers you consider suitable.

I again point out that anybody in the ecofascist movement, who has the remotest trace of honesty will feel obliged to say what a lying anti-scientific piece of filth Richard is. (Kreb, who on the Coulter thread, is claiming to be involved in scientific discussion this means you)

How is Richard in any way lying? You are the one who claimed in #19 that “the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth by around 10%”, and have yet to provide evidence that crop growth has been improved at all in the real world. Wow has provided evidence that “Although the elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 that raise temperature can also raise crop yields, the detrimental effect of higher temperatures on yields overrides the CO2 fertilization effect for the major crops.”

Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean that they are lying. If you explain why experiments in a greenhouse where temperature is held constant are more meaningful than the real world where rising CO2 leads to increases in temperature, I’m sure there are people who would be willing to discuss this. I suggest you rein in the “obscene, child murdering, thieving, fascist parasite” bullshit, it makes you look like a lunatic.

If you can find a way to increase atmospheric CO2 without increasing global temperatures, you will indeed have found a way to improve the yield of some crops. Good luck with that.

Otherwise, crop yield will be reduced by increasing temperatures as the article Wow cited explains.

There are additional problems with the physiological changes brought on by higher growth. E.g the production of natural insecticides is not increased and therefore the toxicity of the plant to natural predators is reduced. When the leaves are eaten, the plant is unable to grow as well and insects will eat more plant matter because they are able to.

Neil has nothing other than hope and a blind hatred to drive him.

Infinity:Nil.

Neil,

Your claim is “adding CO₂ to Earth’s atmosphere has increased crop yields.” That is a claim about real-world crop yields: very little of humanity’s food supply comes from greenhouses.

First, show that crop yields have increased. Then show that the CO₂ level is the cause, rather than, for example, improved plant varieties or increased use of fertilizer.

But the first step is crucial: if something hasn’t happened, explaining why it should have is not experimental science.

Kreb if Wow’s article is correct and high temperatures reduce fertility the Brazilians must be hoping for cooling so that the dester of the Amazon can reach the levels of fecundity of northern Canada.

Wow the irony of denying “deniers” (another ad hom) right to say that greenhose evidence doesn’t count (perhaops you could produce some evidence of it) while saying that this is good alarmist “science” is clearly lost on you. I still ask you to produce some falsifiable evidence of CAGW, or indeed some link to where you have described the various end of the world cults as scientists because their predictions are all provable (or otherwise) someday. In fact the millenarians are much more scientific because the warming alarmists say catastrophic warming started in 1979 so we are already a quarter of the way to 2100 so that if the calim is not false we must be seeing a quarter of a catastrophe, which would clearly be evidentially noticeable.

Vicky you are clearly as ignorant of the subject as the average ecofascist. Crop yields worldwide have increased far more than 20% precisely because of better crop yield and technology, all of which the murdering eco-Nazis have been uninterested in or opposed to.

29:Nil

Kreb if Wow’s article is correct and high temperatures reduce fertility the Brazilians must be hoping for cooling so that the dester of the Amazon can reach the levels of fecundity of northern Canada.

For one thing with average year round temps of 80 F or 25 C the amazon isn’t all that hot right now. For another thing it is vulnerable to AGW.

Wow the irony of denying “deniers” (another ad hom) right to say that greenhose evidence doesn’t count (perhaops you could produce some evidence of it)

1. Nobody is denying your right to say anything. 2.Nobody is saying greenhouse studies don’t count,they do. We’re saying that they are not sufficient to support sweeping claims about worldwide agricultural output. As for evidence the FACE studies I mentioned earlier are producing much more mixed results than the greenhouse studies.

…while saying that this is good alarmist “science” is clearly lost on you.

Ummm…what? Preview is your friend.

I still ask you to produce some falsifiable evidence of CAGW,

Nobody here believes in CAGW, that’s a denialist strawman. As for plain old garden variety AGW, here are a couple of things I would accept as falsifying AGW.1 The discovery of a new to science negative feedback large enough to negate CO₂s warming effect. Remember the main plank of AGW is that rising CO₂ levels should produce higher temps. All the known natural negative feedbacks have been accounted for and they are not enough. 2. A new to science source of warming large enough to produce the warming we’ve seen so far and does so in a way that mimics a greenhouse effect i.e. simultaneously cooling stratosphere and nighttime lows and winter temps rising faster than daytime highs and summer temps. Once again known natural sources have been accounted for.

…or indeed some link to where you have described the various end of the world cults as scientists because their predictions are all provable (or otherwise) someday.

Once again CAGW is a strawman.

In fact the millenarians are much more scientific because the warming alarmists say catastrophic warming started in 1979 so we are already a quarter of the way to 2100 so that if the calim is not false we must be seeing a quarter of a catastrophe, which would clearly be evidentially noticeable.

Ignoring your bad math, you’re still wrong something like AGW doesn’t work in a nice linear fashion, it’s a snowball effect, modest changes at first with larger and larger effects later. And FWIW we are seeing changes consistent with the early stages of Warming.

Vicky you are clearly as ignorant of the subject as the average ecofascist. Crop yields worldwide have increased far more than 20% precisely because of better crop yield and technology, all of which the murdering eco-Nazis have been uninterested in or opposed to.

Nobody here is against those things. Who do you imagine that you’re arguing with?

29:Nil

AGW doesn’t have to be catastrophic to be a problem worth addressing. Ignoring the problem is likely to be more expensive than addressing it.

If it is worth spending trillions merely to ameliorate warming it must, by definition, be catastrophic.

No. It must be by definition worth trillions of dollars,nothing more. Some perspective. Global GDP is about 62 trillion dollars. 1 trillion dollars is about 1.7% of global GDP. Spread over 20 years that’s 0.09% of global GDP per year. 10 trillion dollars (much more than anybody is proposing to spend) is a little less than 1% of global GDP per year. This is hardly the birth of Global Big Brother. This is especially so considering that the bulk of the money is nothing more than redirecting energy investment that is going to be made anyway from some forms of energy production to others. To be worth addressing AGW, the costs of neglect must merely be greater than the costs of mitigation. On the best information available to date AGW comfortably meets that threshold.

If Tres says it is not catastrophic but pretends it is worth spending that thenn he is, by definition, a wholly corrupt, lying thieving fascist parasite with less integrity or human decency than my toe nail clippings.

Do you even know what “by definition” even means? I suppose some of the dispute here is about what you mean by “catastrophic”. Since you mixed AGW with millenarian doomsday scenarios my assumption is that your definition is somewhere in the neighborhood of “apocalyptic”. Since no serious supporter of the consensus is making such claims, and in fact such claims are pretty much exclusively found in the deniers’ strawman version of AGW, I reject the use of the term. I do think that Pretty Bad Anthropogenic Global Warming (PBAGW) is bad enough to be worth addressing even though it’s unlikely the world would come to an end if we don’t.

Obviously the same applies to every member of the alarmist movement.

You do like to make sweeping claims from single data points don’t you?

I note nobody, not even eco-Nazi in chief Orac, here now disputes Tres’ acknowledgement that all the catastrophe claims they and others have been pushing are deliberate lies.

I doubt that anybody,even “eco-Nazi in chief Orac”, is paying attention to this thread anymore. It’s just you and me sweetheart.

Actually, Mr. Craig, I think the reason why nobody’s responding to you is because you come across as the type of person who wears their underpants on their head. Seriously, “eco-nazis”? Do you know what the actual Nazis did? Do you? Do you?

Yes i do Grey.
Nazis believe in mass murder of human beings. The German Nazis murdered about 35 million and you Nazis have tripled it.
Nazis believed mere facts must give way to the “triumph of the will” like you.
Nazis believe in censoring free discussion by vindictive attacks on the people making them and ultimately by force as you do (force is obviously limited across the internet but scum like Hansen have called for the imprisonmentof people for doubting the catastrophic warming whic you all know to be a deliberate fraud.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary I must accept the lying thireving Nazis here as rerpresentative of the movemnet.

Grey if you have any evidence of the underpants scenario you claim you will be able to produce it. If not you will, if there are ever any circumstances under which anybody should treat you as remotely hionest you will apologise. If not if there were any circumstances under which Orac or any other eco-Naxzi here were to be remotely trusted they would dissociate themselves from scum like you.

Tres you have already acknowledged that the entire catastrophic global warming story is a deliberate fraud and the refusal of any alarmist to dispute you shows it is known to be such by at least almost all its proponents. If you have any further point to make please first provide evidence that it is at least 10s of thousands of times closer to honest that the highest standard of honesty to which you ever aspire.

(Nazi Nazi Nazi blah blah blah)…but scum like Hansen have called for the imprisonmentof people for doubting the catastrophic warming whic you all know to be a deliberate fraud.

Citation most definitely needed for the Hansen accusation.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary I must accept the lying thireving Nazis here as rerpresentative of the movemnet.

You have never shown any regard for evidence or even an understanding of it.

Grey if you have any evidence of the underpants scenario you claim you will be able to produce it. If not you will, if there are ever any circumstances under which anybody should treat you as remotely hionest you will apologise. If not if there were any circumstances under which Orac or any other eco-Naxzi here were to be remotely trusted they would dissociate themselves from scum like you.

The “underpants scenario” is Grey’s way of calling you a crank, a nutter, a loony. Compelling evidence (there’s that word again) for which is your obsessive godwining of everybody you disagree with while representing yourself as holding the moral high ground. Your way of disregarding spelling, syntax and even a basic level of coherence also supports the case.

Tres you have already acknowledged that the entire catastrophic global warming story is a deliberate fraud…

No I haven’t. Your reading ability is equal to your writing ability.

…and the refusal of any alarmist to dispute you shows it is known to be such by at least almost all its proponents.

That does not logically follow.

If you have any further point to make please first provide evidence that it is at least 10s of thousands of times closer to honest that the highest standard of honesty to which you ever aspire.

What would you accept as evidence?

So still no supporter of warming alarmism willing to say that the claim of catastrophic warming their movement has made is not a total and deliberate lie.

Their argument, if I may digbify it with the term resolves to the claim that I wear underpants on my head. This claim represents the absoluter pinnacle of honesty to which any of the child murdering Nazis here ever aspire to, and by trend to which virtually all warming supporters anywhere do. By defibnition nothing any of you Nazis ever say, on any subject, can ever be credited by any decent human.

Perhaps shooting fish in a barrel but Militant Witchburner clearly has no idea what the hormesis effect he lectures on is. He produces no evidence that CO2 increase directly reduces fertility – and of course there is none as anybody with any honesty here will acknowledge 🙂 (no I don’t expect it).

He also displays his total ignorance (admittely no more total than that of the other Nazis here) in claiming that increased temperature “would reduce crop yields due to changes in temperature, rainfall etc. This would presumably explain cave paintings in the middle of the now enormously fertile Sahara showing that during the Climate Optimum, when it was up to 4C warmer than now, it supported lush vegitation, buffalo and hippopotami.

Or was it some extinct breed of hippo that didn’t need water? Idiot.

tresmal

The “underpants scenario” is Grey’s way of calling you a crank, a nutter, a loony. Compelling evidence (there’s that word again) for which is your obsessive godwining of everybody you disagree with while representing yourself as holding the moral high ground.

I think this is a textbook case of advanced Nazi Tourette’s.

If I were a “crank” no intelligent person here would have any difficulty giving an answer to my questions which would show I was wrong.

Instead we have Tres saying and the rest of the child murdering ecofascists agreeing that global warming is not nearly as bad as the Fukushima reactor “catastrophe” but that it is also so bad we should spend thousands of times (perhaps hundreds of thousands) simply to ameliorate it.

Obviously while this repersents the pinnacle of honesty to which any arlarmist here & presumably elsewhere ever aspires, it is impossible & could not, under any circumstances, be claimed by anybody who aspired to the remotest trace of honesty.

While accepting, Nava, that your claim that “everyone” here has “given honest and truthful answers” to these questions:

1 – Do you accept Professor Jones’ acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?

2 – Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has improved crop growth by around 10% & that the consequent influence on world hunger is more beneficial than any currently detectable destructive action of alleged global warming?

3 – Do you accept that the Hockey Stick, as originally presented by Mann and the IPCC contained calculations that were inconsistent with good science and that Mann’s refusal to make calculations and algorithms available for checking were inconsistent with scientific principle?

4 – Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side, from Al Gore’s claim that South Sea islands had already been abandoned due to rising sea levels and Pachauri’s claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was “voodoo” are wholly, completely and totally untruthful and would have to be openly denounced by anyone on the alarmist side who has any trace of honesty?

5 – Do you accept that there are a number of geoengineering solutions which arithmetically can be shown would work (including stratospheric dust, the geritol solution or even just replacing CO2 burning with nuclear power) which would work at a small fraction of the cost of the war against fire, or in the case of nuclear, at negative cost?

6 – Do you accept that the refusal of alarmists to denounce fraud on their side, or even its active support or covering up, detracts from the credibility of the entire movement?

7 – Of the alleged “consensus” – can you name 2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state, who support catastrophic warming & if not can you explain how something can be a consensus when no member of a subset of 60% of the alleged consenting, consent?

… represents the pinnacle of honesty of which you or any of the other thieving Nazi parasites here are capable the fact is that nonbody has done so. Anybody can see that. I grant 1 person claimed to be answering without actually doing so, none of the rest of you have even tried that much deference to reality.

Now if you have any evidence whatsoever that any of the alarmists on this thread can ever, under any circumstnaces, achieve any sort of behaviour infinitely more honesty than the very highest standard to which you child murdering Nazi animals, including Orac, ever aspire I will await seeing it.

I note that even under that standard Nava makes no attempt to pretend that, as previously acknowledged, the catastrophic warming scare is anything but a deliberate fraud.

I think it’s about time people started gettign worried about this!