Categories
Politics Science Skepticism/critical thinking

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

Dedicated to a certain commenter who thinks I’m an “eco-fascist” because I criticized Ann Coulter for abusing physics and biology for claiming that “radiation is good for you,” I present a video that succinctly describes everything you need to know about the “Climategate” affair:

I posted it on my Facebook profile, too, and already a certain Libertarian comedian with a monumentally poor understanding of science and a chip on his shoulder when it comes to scientists has been drawn to it like a moth to a flame.

Actually, I had been planning on posting this video anyway sometime during the weekend, mainly because, as usual, “greenman” has done an excellent job of dissecting more common distortions of climate science by denialists. Well done!

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

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

Al Gore usually gets the science mostly right.
Al Gore: Earth’s Interior ‘Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees’

GORE: It definitely is, and it’s a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy – when they think about it at all – in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ..

Off topic, but I thought you might find this interesting. The Simon Weisenthal Center is honoring Tom Cruise with their “Humanitarian of the Year Award,” which is ironic because the Scientologists indulge in a soft form of Holocaust denial. By blaming the whole thing on psychiatrists they basically let the Nazis off the hook. Also the Nation of Islam (Jews did slavery) recently merged with Scientology.

More

How come I never get a tribute. 🙁

Let me look up the definition of ecofascist real quick…

No, I don’t think that fits, but neoskeptic with extremist qualities might fit.

You know how the word neoconservative movement is an oxymoron? Well, yeah, you get it.

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).

lilady, there’s a link to a thread about the SWC award stuck in Orac’s spam filter.

Remember when Cruise was supposed to promote War of the Worlds, but decided to promote Scientology instead? He went on the Today Show and spent the whole time bashing Brooke Shields for seeing a psychiatrist. Then he went on Oprah and was all “Tone 40” on her couch. These antics did not go over well with the producer of WoW, Steven Spielberg.

The gossip rags described a “Hollywood war” between the two major powers in the entertainment industry: Scientology and the Jews. Slate touched on a piece of it (a staged protest of the psychiatrist treating a Spielberg family member). Other accounts are pretty ugly, with PIs hired to follow Spielberg’s wife and dig for dirt. Long story short: Spielberg came out on top and Cruise was booted from Paramount.

Spielberg is on the SWC board and will be present when Cruise is honored. Given the above back story, I find the affair creepy. The CoS has a history of “even the score” theatrics with perceived enemies (e.g., Cult Awareness Network, Bob Minton, Brooke Shields).

@ 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

Al Gore did what he thought needed to be done, he tried to make it understandable for everyone, to be the messenger that the public would understand. Since “the scientists” really had little say in it, and little interest in doing it themselves, Al Gore did it mostly on his own and got some things wrong.

So where does logic go after that? Nowhere, there just isn’t enough information to scream “Al Gore is fat” as if it were declarative of a greater fact, that climate science is “fat” as well.

The really interesting things with climate science, right now, is what have they gotten wrong? Surface temperature projections, for one. Using curve fitting techniques to the surface temperature rise through the 90’s was wrong, it was far more complicated than a simple slope calculation to continue the rise in temperatures. So how do you tell people that while they were wrong, global warming continues?

People don’t generally understand derivatives, so trying to explain “rate of change” to them may seem like a simple matter, it isn’t. In this case, the scientists are made out to be intellectual bullies and accused of power grabbing. There really is no way to disprove these shallow labels, so what can be done?

I think we need a new Al Gore, a celebrity with limited credentials that can understand the limited comprehension of the public and can still grasp the essentials of climate science and translate it, make it interesting, compelling and still get across the point that the regulations and changes are not going to be destructive to our entire way of life. After the treatment Al Gore received, however, who would want that crappy job?

‘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.

Thanks Harry, I needed you as an example of how people don’t understand first derivatives. Your timing was impeccable.

@ 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….?

You mean ‘notorious’ as in ‘attacked by failed alt-weekly publisher,’ why, yes, that’s me.

10,000 years or so ago, and ice has been retreating regularly, if not monotonically, since.

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.

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.

@ Harry: Why don’t you re-read my first sentence?

“…I may get up to speed about climate change.” I don’t claim any expertise about climate change…I am a naif compared to the scientists who are researching it at the IPCC.

Some of us seniors are concerned with the future of the earth and the impact greenhouse gases from the unfettered use of fossil fuels, will have in years to come. We are stewards of the earth.

So, we do out little bit; fuel efficient cars, turning down the heat, lowering the thermostat, shutting off the hot water boiler and switching completely to CFL bulbs.

Apparently you have “expertise” so, I suggest you debate the subject with some experts…and I’m not one of them

I am the person beinmg tributed merely because I said elsewhere that Orac ran an “eco-fascist blog pretending to be scientific”. http://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?

OOOH! OOOH! I’m not a climate scientist, but these are easy. I’m not going to give citations since Neil Craig won’t, either.

1 – What kind of warming? There has been no statistical increase in ground based monitoring since 1998 (warmest year on record). Local regions, however, have continued to warm while other regions have cooled. The arctic has warmed, while the American NW region has cooled, for example. Excess heat appears to be going into the ocean.

2 – Yes, but warming isn’t about food. Sea level rise, increased droughts, floods and medical emergencies will kill far more people than starvation. This was a useless argument.

3 – Proof, please. You didn’t cite, but I’m betting I know who you’re talking about. All of the data and algorithms have been made available. Your gods of statistics were biased.

4 – Yep, Al Gore was wrong. Early science forgot to take into account black soot. New science has. How does this disprove global warming/climate change? Al Gore is fat.

5 – You want to play with geoengineering, but you think global warming is alarmist and fake? Can you make up your mind?

6 – What fraud? You didn’t provide any evidence.

7 – “Not paid by the state” How far back would I have to look to find where they have received no grants or public funding? This is another false attack with no basis, other than assumption that a vast conspiracy exists.

Unlike Neil, however, I’ll provide citations if anyone wants to politely ask. Neil, however, can go play with his strawmen in the corner.

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

‘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.’

Well. it’s easy enough to show that the rate cited by lilady is slower than the average rate over the past 10,000 or 20,000 years. That’s obvious.

What isn’t so easy to show is that a rate over any 30-year period means anything about climate, since it’s also been shown that the rate of glacial retreat/advance, while it shows some regularities on various time scales from a few hundred to many thousands of years, doesn’t show that any 30-year period predicts anything.

For sure, it doesn’t predict that the next 30-year period will be in the same direction.

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.

I’d encourage anyone curious about Neil Craig to visit his blog where he discusses the ozone hole with gusto and astounding ignorance. For instance, Neil Craig confuses the Arctic ozone hole (annual cycles) with the Antarctic ozone hole (CFC based). He doesn’t show any clue that the annual thawing of the permafrost is greatly associated with the Arctic ozone hole, nor of the releases of ozone depleting gases from said permafrost thaw (Zepp & et al, 2003).

DOI: 10.1039/B211154N, Paper

In short, Neil Craig indicates that he has little knowledge about that which he speaks, but he speaks about it a great deal.

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!

Skeptical science has answered these. I will refer to there just to keep my response simple.

1 – Do you accept Professor Jones’ acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995? http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm

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?
I have not heard this one, but see here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

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?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

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?

Per the Himalayan glaciers, I believe the printed estimate was 2035 (not 2025) and that this was an acknowledged error, it should have been 2350. http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Himalayan-glacier-2035-prediction.htm

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?

I wish geoengineering were so simple. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Three-studies-illustrate-significant-risks-complications-geoengineering-climate.html

How would you address ocean acidification?

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?

Heck, the video by Peter Sinclair effectively contradicts the notion of widespread fraud.

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?

I am not sure I understand this. Does the fact that a scientist is paid by the state make him or her an alarmist? What scientists are you referring to, only climate scientists? If you allege that the employer determines scientific results, where does that leave us, and why have a science blog web site?

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.

Nice citations, Harry. For a journalist, you really don’t know how science is done. You’ve continued to make an argument from incredulity, not from a scientific stance. I’ve also read a few of your other “writings”. Scientifically capable you aren’t. Why don’t you just whine about the MWP and get it over with?

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.

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

Wow, right off the bat he blows any presumption of good faith and basic competence he might of been entitled to. Statistical Significance, like “theory” has a technical meaning quite different from its popular meaning. I encourage everyone to click on the first link provided by Peter Bellin. Essentially Statistical Significance is a means of determining the probability that an observed trend is real as opposed to being due to random variation. In other words “Professor Jones said no statistical warming” is the denialists equivalent of “Even Darwin said the eye couldn’t evolve.”

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!

As I said “I’m betting you can’t answer even 1”

Orac has the sense to run away. Others haven’t.

Jayk accepts 1,2 & 4, refuses to answer 3, 5, 6 and cannot answer 7 (which should be particularly easy if this isn’t fraud). On 6 he asks for citation of fraud – I point you to his own answer to number 4 where he acknowledges Gore lied. Perhaps in the citations he promises to give in response he will show where prominent members of the eco-fascist community publicly called Gore a liar – obviously all those with a respect for real science must have done so – eh Orac.

Jayk’s contention that no eco-fascist has ever suggeasted Ozone loss by CFC played a part in the Arctic Ozone hole is, of course, a lie.

Peter doesn’t even attempt to answer any of them except to claim that there is no need to criticse alarmist fraud because there has been none and even the Hockey Stick is as originaly promised. Clearly Peter is wholly and completely corupt in the eco-fascist cause and will be denounced by every single member of that movement who is not wholly corrupt. My guess is that will prove to be none of them.

Doktor doesn’t understand English. By the way he was the liar who criticised me for calling Orac an eco-fascist on the grounds that, he claims, Orac never publishes environmental stuff like this thread. Good to know that you were not lying out of ignorance but lying because you are a wholly corrupt Nazi who does it automatically. If you wished to pretend to the remotest trace of integrity you would apologise.

Yresmal effectively admits there has indeed been no significant warming and also pretends to get lost in grammar. Obviously he cannot make even that dispute on the other 6 points.

Case proven.
If even one of these could not be answered in a way supportive of the catastrophic warming lie then it is proven a lie.
All 7 of them can’t and every prominent eco-fascist, here and elsewhere, knows it, proving that every last one of them, including every single “green” politico, is a corrupt lying, murdering, fascist, parasite without the most remote trace of integrity or, obviously any right to attempt to clothe themselves in the name of “science”.

Consider your tribute matched Orac.

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

I’d say Neil is by far the biggest liar. I never said “Gore lied”, I said he got it wrong because there was little recognition, at the time, of black soot and its larger role in glacier melting. In fact, there are multiple scientists that have acknowledged that Gore got it wrong, most of them came out within 2 weeks of the release of Inconvenient Truth and said that there wasn’t enough evidence of climate change affecting Himalayan glaciers. Gavin Schmidt acknowledges this error in both the IPCC 4 report and Al Gore’s video in February of last year. I can find a number of climate scientists that have publicly stated that Al Gore and the IPCC4 report were incorrect on Himalayan glaciers. So what?

Neil also failed to notice that I provided proof that the heat is going into the oceans. I suppose that was too inconvenient for an ignoramus like him.

Neil Craig, in short, is a weasel with all of the intellectual capabilities shown by a 9/11 truther or an anti-vax blogger. He should have taken the non-fools’ route and stopped digging.

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

Oh, poor Henry, did I not answer your loaded question?

Here, I’ll just let this citation do it for me:
DOI: 10.1126/science.1107046

Don’t hurt yourself on the sharp corners, Harry.

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

Loaded? It’s an observational question. What’s the rate?

I agree with you 100% that you and I have different views of what science is. I prefer observations.

Of course, as Edwards Deming used to say, you’ve got to have a theory. Without a theory, how do you know when you’re wrong?

The alarmists have a theory. And we have some observations. Not a lot, not the kind we’d like to have, but observations. The observations don’t offer much support to the theory, and none at all to concerns about glacial retreat.

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?

I read the report. It’s a good example of why, when I bring up the subject of climate change with the national academicians on my contact list, they roll their eyes and mouth the words, “Junk science.”

Although i read it, you didn’t, since the author denies using proxies.

It’s crap. It stops at 1700 and claims there are no data earlier. There are, and direct observation, too. 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 he knocks Mann cold, too, but we already know you disbelieve in the MWP, although Le Roy Ladurie demonstrated conclusively that it existed. Supplemented by Reid Bryson’s proxy studies. You can say I’m not a scientist, but you cannot say that about Bryson and Le Roy Ladurie. Bryson used to be a hero of the environmentalists — he started the environmental lab at Wisconsin — until his studies punched holes in Hansen’s alarmism. Then they burned his books. Well, not literally burned. But pulped them. I saved my copy.)

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.

Geoengineering solutions actually *do* make a lot of sense, at least as a stop-gap: there’s *already* a lot of excess CO2, and no realistic hope of cutting emissions much (given political/economic realities) for quite a while. So even given that geoengineering solutions would have bad side effects and that emitting less would be *better*, it’s still quite likely that geoengineering will be the best we can *feasibly* do. (I don’t really think there will be much interest until we start seeing really major harm, at which point it’ll be too late for emitting less to help much). Of course, nuclear, useful (not corn!) biofuels, solar, and other renewable sources are the real solution.

But that’s not really the same question as whether global warming is happening (it is) or is anthropogenic (the evidence certainly leans that way). If people don’t believe the problem exists, then talking about solutions is premature.

It is related in a sort of back-door way, however. There’s an uncomfortable strain of anti-technology-ism mixed in with *some* modern environmentalism (a feature of its becoming essentially a “left/liberal” issue, for reasons which are historical rather than actually making very much ideological or philosophical sense) … observe the history of anti-nuclear activism despite nuclear power actually being far better for the environment than the current setup …, and a general politicization which makes a lot of ‘environmental’ stuff driven more by politics than actual science (for example, the corn ethanol stuff, which is actually probably *worse* than fossil fuels) and I think this makes some people on the ‘right’ less willing to listen than they otherwise would be… so, if people who talked about AGW also talked about technological solutions, they’d probably get less opposition.

The Medieval Warm Period was real, but IIRC mostly European, and European climate is weird and a really bad proxy for global.

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 Craig, in short, is a weasel…”. Hey! Don’t be insulting weasels! They are beautiful, elegant, smart little mammals, nothing like Neil Craig.

@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.

To Luna’s comment I would add that GISTEMP already shows statistically significant warming from 1995. Indeed, it did back in early 2010, when Jones was first asked the question.

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.

So Neil & Harry show up, full of themselves and other things, and barf up in the comment thread without a single link/cite to evidence supporting their assertions and JAQ-offs.

And they expect us to take them seriously? Please.

(In case anyone tries to claim “victory” because of ad hominem, please be advised that this post is 100% ridicule and not an attempt to make an argument.)

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.

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

Wow, are you barking up the wrong tree! This sort of thing may play for the rubes, but you’ve got a scientifically literate audience here. Just about everybody here knows what statistical significance actually means, so phrasing the question in that way marks you as either extraordinarily ignorant or intentionally deceptive. Since you have apparently been at this for some time, and since information on the meaning of statistical significance is widely available, that means that you almost certainly fall into the latter category.

Virtually everybody here already knows that “no significant warming” does not equal “no warming,” and also that the slope of any linear regression will fail to meet statistical significance if the interval over which the data is analyzed is made short enough. So your arbitrary choice of 1995 when everybody knows that we have temperature data for much longer immediately marks you as somebody who is trying to con your audience.

Of course, if a real scientist wanted to make the argument that global warming had ceased over the last 10 years, he would not argue that there the slope is not significantly positive, because that is “absence of evidence” not “evidence of absence.” So to show that the global warming has stopped or slowed, one would have to calculate 95% confidence limits on the slope over the last 10 years, and show that those confidence limits did not include the extrapolated temperature trajectory based upon measurements over a longer baseline or predicted from theoretical climate models. But of course, no real scientist would claim that, because it isn’t true.

But to answer your question, I don’t agree with Phil Jones’s statement, because while Jones thought that global warming over the last 10 years just barely missed the 95% certainty level required for it to be described as “statistical significant,” a more sophisticated analysis that corrects for “noise” arising from known perturbing factors such as El Nino and volcanic eruptions finds that in fact warming since 1995 is indeed statistically significant–in fact, warming since 2000 is statistically significant.

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.

“I’m betting you can’t answer even 1.”

Oh dear, talk about asking for it…

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

There has been plenty of warming since 1995. 0.12C per decade.

Read up on what statistically significant means, by the way. When the statement was made, the gradient was 0.12C per decade and this was significantly different from a flat trend to the 94% level.

It was less than 6% likely that there was no trend upward.

“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?”

Nope. Fertilizers and modern farming techniques did that whilst the effect of warming from CO2’s effect in the atmosphere has reduced crop yields by 20%.

“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?”

No, nobody knows that since you’ve made it up.

In fact the only attempt to show the maths incorrect was shown itself to be far more false than Mann’s paper. Subsequent papers using different maths show statistically identical results to the original.

“4 – Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the alarmist side,”

You mean the denialists who insist that any mitigation will cost trillions and end the capitalist system in the west, cause massive famine and deaths?

No, I don’t accept any of their claims.

” and Pachauri’s claim that any dispute that the Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2025 was “voodoo” are wholly,”

Don’t you mean 2035? And that was a transposition error when the report said 2350.

At least THEY got the right figures. You couldn’t even manage that!

“5 – Do you accept that there are a number of geoengineering solutions which arithmetically can be shown would work (including stratospheric dust,”

Nope, you see the cooling effect is proportional to the volume of dust whereas the warming effect for GHGs is cumulative.

And dust rains out.

“even just replacing CO2 burning with nuclear power)”

Can’t. Uranium is the ultimate fossil fuel,. Only created naturally by the extremely rare supernova.

Oh, and terrorists would love nuclear power: plenty of opportunity to steal for a dirty bomb.

“which would work at a small fraction of the cost of the war against fire, or in the case of nuclear, at negative cost?”

False false and false. Nuclear has had 60 years of subsidised work on it and failed to produce any safe, let alone cheap, power. And according to the Stern report (by an economist) says AGW action would be a net positive.

“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?”

Yes, when ARE you going to take the denialists to task for making shit up about it cooling since 1995, being a member of the house of lords, saying you were paid about 4% from fossil fuels, oops sorry, 40%… and so on.

When?

“7 – Of the alleged “consensus” – can you name 2 scientists, out of the roughly 60%, worldwide who are not paid by the state,”

Name two people who are not paid by the state. Why is this a necessary requirement anyway? When Shrub was in power, he paid scientists. Yet he denies AGW and fought violently against action. He also put Pachuri in charge of the IPCC panel.

“who support catastrophic warming”

the only supporters of catostrophic warming are the Rapturists.

“if not can you explain how something can be a consensus when no member of a subset of 60% of the alleged consenting, consent?”

Uh, they do consent.

“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”.

Wow has put up what everybody with any knowledge of the subject will know to be 6 total, obvious and deliberate lies in answer to my 7 questions.

Any ecofascist with even the remotest respect for the truth will be eager to dissociate themselves from these lies.

Therefore, by definition, any alarmist who doesn’t proves themselves to be wholly and completely corrupt lying fascist charlatans. That aplies not only yo Orac and friends but any alleged “scientist” in the field who would thereby probe themsleves to be merely confidence tricksters pretending to be scientist.

I will leave it to Orac and friends, for the time being, to show whether they are total fascist charlatans or not. I ask sceptics to stand aside and not give them cover.

We will see if the entire ecofascist movement put together contains as much honesty, integrity and human decency as my toe nail clippings.

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

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, when and where did you actually refute the overwhelming science demonstrating AGC is real?

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

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

So Neil Craig confesses that he hasn’t refuted the overwhelming science demonstrating AGW is real.

It is also the reason that he is unable to support his own 7 claims, demonstrating any validity to his 7 “questions.”

The “just asking questions” tactic is part of the methodology of all denialist movements including the climate sceince denial movement to which Neil Craig belongs.

Most recently, it has been a favorite evasion of the 9/11 Denial Movement, who demand answers to “questions” they deem have not been answered, and whose validity are bogus. For instance, a few favorites:

“The twin towers fell just like in a controlled demolition. Prove that they did not come down by explosives.”

“The twin towers were designed to withstand the collision of a Boeing 707. They didn’t. Prove that they did not come down by pre-planted explosives.”

Neil Craig’s denialism is explained very well in another ScienceBlog site, the Denialism Blog:

“What is Denialism”

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

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.

Milirant True Believer makes no attempt to dispute that he lied about the sole alleged example of any independent scientist, anywhere in the world who supports the warming alarmist fascists and that the gentleman doesn’t.

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.
Over to you Orac.

PS I don’t believe your claim about not working as an eco-parasite and ask for evidence that your claim is more than 10,000 times closer to honest than an obscene animal like you is capable of.

Bjedwards far form such questions being a “denialist” tactic it was derived specifically in response to a set of 5 questions that eco-Nazi Simon Singh asked. His questions were answered, very effectively, in a manner which the child murderers here are, without exception, incapable of. Singh himself, was, of course, incapable of even attempting to answer any questions matching those he had put.

Obviously learning this Bj, you will wish to apolodise for criticising sceptics for this tactic (without producing any examples) and to denounce the entire eco-Nazi movement for this tactic. Alternarely you will have proven yourself to be personally a hypocritical disgusting, wholly corrupt, child murdering Nazi animal incapable of the remotest trace of honesty. What I have said has not been ad hom but precisely on the point.

8:Nil

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.

Neil Craig: “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)”

Even a small rise — short of the ice caps melting — might well be quite damaging if it led to tropical diseases (mosquito-borne, etc.) spreading north. Also, droughts and similar weather disruptions hitting agriculture in the ‘third world’ — places too poor to do it largely by irrigation.

If either Greenland or West Antarctica melts (much less both), we lose a good chunk of the coastal cities — it would be slow enough to evacuate people, but the economic/infrastructural loss would be almost incalculably more than the costs of converting away from fossil fuels, or of any of the geoengineering solutions.

“I also agree with you about nuclear – it is obvious that, nuclear being the only system that can produce mass power without CO2,”

Wait, wait. I didn’t say it was the *only* system – it’s not (the good biofuels — not corn — also could; solar probably could, but would be really expensive). But it’s proven, well-understood, and easily used to produce enough power. *Best* option, not *only*. (In fact, I think in the longer term – decades – the best option is a combination of nuclear, sensible biofuels, and solar – including space-based solar. But the nuclear infrastructure can be built *now*.)

But yes, nuclear opposition among environmental groups is counterproductive. But it doesn’t prove anything about the science of climate change — rather it proves that much of modern environmentalism (as a *political* movement) isn’t science-driven, or at least has a tendency to compromise science to ideology.

“” 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?

Milirant True Believer makes no attempt to dispute that he lied about the sole alleged example of any independent scientist, anywhere in the world who supports the warming alarmist fascists and that the gentleman doesn’t.

It’s pretty absurd to demand an “independent” scientist, since all scientists are dependent upon a source of funding for their research, and for basic research such as climate research, virtually the only sources are (a) publicly funded institutes such as NSF and NASA, and (b) “think-tanks” funded by industry to support a point of view that favors their sponsors. So it is a safe bet that almost all competent climate scientists will have received public funding. It is worth noting that the point of view of scientists who are publicly funded or who work for US government agencies has been no different during the Bush administration, which was openly opposed to strong international action to curb global warming, and the current administration, which has been more supportive. So the facts do not support the implication that publicly funded climate scientists are somehow “under the control” of the government.

But let take James Lovelock, a very rare example of a scientist who, while not an expert in modern climate science, has some real accomplishments in relevant fields and is not publicly funded. Do you really want to embrace his views? For example,

I think the sceptic bloggers should worry. It’s almost certain that you can’t put a trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere without something nasty happening. This is going to resolve itself and global heating is going to come back on stream and it’s these bloggers who are going to be made to look weird when it does.

It is worth noting that while Lovelock doubts the reliability of global climate models, he reacts as a true, rational skeptic would to heightened uncertainty, realizing that if there is uncertainty in the projections, it is on the high end as well as the low end. As a result he’s worried that the impact of global warming could be greater than projected, and that climate scientists may be underestimating the risk of near-term climate catastrophe:

Are our sea defences adequate? Can we prevent London from flooding? This is where we should be spending our billions.

And he’s very worried indeed:

We need a more authoritative world. We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can’t do that. You’ve got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.

But it can’t happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What’s the alternative to democracy? There isn’t one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.

So tell me, Neil, are these really the views that you wish to endorse?

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.

NC:

Even my 5 year old daughter can understand the concept of a hypothetical question. Perhaps some remedial reading comprehension classes are in order?

6:nil to me.

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.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: