Ten Worst Blog Posts: A Note from Cohenite
Posted by Cohenite, November 2nd, 2008 - under Humour, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
EVER since public computer networks burst onto the scene in the 1980′s, the subject of online content has been a controversial one, explained Mark Newton at e-journal On Line Opinion last week. A few months ago, 30 July 2008, John Stewart on Australian ABC television’s Lateline described online blogs as one of the few places where the science of climate change is still debated. Now, occasional blogger, Cohenite, has come up with the 10 worst climate blog posts on the basis, “they all represent a denial of not only the intrinsic transparency of the web but also the openness necessary for scientific debate and to this extent they reveal that at least part of this debate about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not about science, but its suppression.”
Here goes, the ten worst, according to Cohenite:
1. On April 16, 2008, at a blog called ‘Open Mind’, the prince of AGW, he who is known as Tamino, posted a piece entitled ‘Perjury’. Tamino’s basis for the charge of perjury was that someone had claimed there had been a temperature decline since 1998. The accused included two well known heretics, Joe D’Aleo and Australia’s own Dr Don Parkes. Two other well known proponents of AGW, James Hansen and Al Gore, have also demanded legal action against AGW opponents while simultaneously, in Gore’s case, advocating civil disobedience. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/perjury/#more-724
2. If Tamino is the prince of AGW, then Eli Rabett of ‘Rabett Run’ is the court jester. At‘Rabett Run’ blog, on 19 March 2007, his humour was neither embracing nor kind. Eli has taken a set against anti-AGW papers which argue against global indices like global average temperature (GMST). The Essex, McKitrick and Andresen paper (“Does a Global Temperature Exist?”) particularly gets up his nose. Essex et al state: “local equilibrium states in a field are defined at a particular location, r” (p 6); they also say; “the data are independent of the averaging rule used, therefore the sign of the derivatives are not intrinsic to the data, but a property of the averaging rule selected” (p 13); which means different methods can produce different results. Eli intends to prove them wrong but proves them right by changing the value of ‘r’. Well done Eli. http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/03/once-more-dear-prof.html
3. On the 6 March 2008, at ‘Open Mind’, prince Tamino encountered karma. It came about like this. Tamino has used the web equivalent of forests defending Mann and the Hockey-stick. In respect of Mann’s first paper and his use of a statistical method called decentred Principle Component Analysis (PCA), Tamino was so enthusiastic about PCA, that he invoked the authority of “one of the world’s experts on PCA”, Ian Jolliffe, to substantiate his representation that “PCA doesn’t change the data. It only changes our description of it.” Dr Jolliffe declined and noted that noone is sure what decentred PCA does; he also said it was crazy that AGW gave such prominence to the Hockey-stick and that surely the evidence for AGW rests on much more than the Hockey-stick. Well, not really. Tamino was left to ponder the difference between perjury and misrepresentation. All the links to this triumph of scientific integrity are here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3601#comments
4. Eli from “Rabett Run’ is helpful again on 15 March 2007. Eli doesn’t like regionalism because it tends to undermine AGW. Eli’s attack on Pielke Snr’s Stefan-Boltzman paper was repudiated by Lucia (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/spatial-variations-in-gmst-eli-rabbet-vs-dr-pielke-sr/). Earlier Eli had another shot at the Essex et al paper. Eli attempted to prove that Essex et al’s anti-GMST approach meant there is also no local temperature or LTE. Essex et al don’t say there is no local temperature (just the opposite in fact), but Eli proves them right anyway and also confirms Pielke Snr and Miskolczi. Well done again Eli. http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-local-thermodynamic-equilibrium.html
5. Kare Fog blog, January 2004 (updated): Is Lomborg really this bad? Many anti-AGW scientists attract vitriol; Roy Spencer, Vincent Gray and John Christy because they are alleged to be creationists; Christopher Monckton because he is a ‘mad’ peer; Beck because he is an underqualified upstart who makes sense; but Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It”, is special. He has his own hate website, set up by biologist Kare Fog, who compares Lomborg’s ‘mistakes’ with Gore’s. The introduction includes: “Lomborg is not a normal person.” http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
6. Deltoid blog, 12 August 2008; more Lomborg. If Tamino is the (dark) prince and Eli the court jester of AGW, then Deltoid is the boy in the corner pulling wings off a fly. It seems Deltoid has a special loathing of Lomborg. His sins appear to be: he argues conditions are better than ever for more of us; interference with nature does not always produce bad results; and AGW preventative measures are a waste of time and resources; and he hates polar bears. This post really gives it to Lomborg with Stuart (“I was one of the plaintiffs”) Pimm at comment 4 setting the tone by referring to, with unabashed approval, Kare Fog. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/so_whats_wrong_with_lomborg.php#commentsArea
7. At BraveNewClimate blog, 14 October 2008 we see Barry’s premature celebration. Professor Brooks is chuffed that the Tropical Hot Spot (THS) has been found, proving the Global Climate Computers (GCM) correct, as shown in Santer et al’s paper. The Professor is also happy that new research shows volcanoes can’t explain Arctic melting. The Arctic ice is, of course, reforming; but Santer et al did find a THS; unfortunately it is only in the period 1979-1999 and requires a global weighting function, defining the tropics as 30S-30N and depends on GCM predictive skill to 0.0-0.5C per decade, which means the GCM’s will only be invalidated if temperature drops; which it has from 2001 onwards. A typical, one-eyed acceptance of anything, no matter how flawed, remotely supportive of AGW. http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/10/14/two-denialist-talking-points-quashed/#more-615
8. At Deltoid blog, 16 May 2008, Tilo bets AGW is based on certainty; the science is settled. A bet in favour of AGW would appear to be a sure thing. Tilo Reber, well known blogger, offers one at comment 13; the terms are simple and consistent with AGW theory. The next 111 comments, until Tilo is warned off by Deltoid, are remarkable for avoidance, obscurantism and pettiness. If AGW was a sure thing Tilo would have had his bet. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/05/pielke_train_wreck.php#commentsArea
9. At JenniferMarohasy blog on 7 April 2008, the BBC is shown to take a ‘flexible’ approach to the green viewpoint. There are many examples of mainstream media (msm) censorship to do with AGW. This is perhaps the most striking where a greenie, Jo Abbess, browbeats a BBC reporter, Roger Harrabin, into twisting the fact that no warming has occurred since 1998. “This is not an issue of ‘debate’. This is an issue of emerging truth,” pontificates Jo. The BBC has not denied this. I have included this even though it was an e-mail event because it was exposed on a blog; the pro-AGW msm didn’t touch it; and neither did the pro-AGW blogs. http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002906.html
10. At On Line Opinion blog, 2 July 2008, Clive Hamilton takes his ball and goes home! No list of the worst posts would be complete without at least one of the following: Clive Hamilton, anti-materialist; George Monbiot, roving reporter; James Lovelock, inventor of Gaia. Hamilton will do, demonstrating all the ego behind AGW. The cause of Clive’s hissy fit. John McLean and Tom Harris had the temerity to reveal the falsity of the IPCC scientific consensus and OLO editor, Graham Young, to publish it online. http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580
Honourable mentions to Tim Flannery and his many predictions – all wrong, David Karoly and Robyn “100 metres” Williams.
Cohenite lives in Newscastle, Australia.
Cohenite should have googled ‘Jo Abbess:’
UK:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=jo+abbess&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryUK%7CcountryGB
Is The Daily Telegraph (UK) not mainstream?
World:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=jo+abbess&start=10&sa=N
Anna V
apparently being a lady doesn’t stop you being patronizing.
I am well aware of what ppm means. As do I know it is irrelevant to what you said about having more CO2 only being beneficial. Your statement was stupid, that’s all. Maybe you’d like to qualify it?
“How can the Third World live in First World luxury? We don’t have the resources. Rio Tinto estimated earlier this year that by 2020 China will use over half the world’s resources…”
Current economic resources, NT. that’s a far cry from where you’re heading, which is that we don’t have enough resources to allow the 40% of the worlds population to live like you and I. We do. Anyone who attempts to jettison that needs to be tried for crimes against humanity (to use Jimmy Hansen term).
Paul; as I said above; the reason I selected Jennifer’s presentation of the BBC/Abbess scandal was to illustrate the bias of the majority of the msm in depicting AGW; and secondly, that any exposure of that bias wasn’t going to be shown anywhere except in the anti-AGW blogs; I must have missed the Telegraph run and I couldn’t find it in your link; have you a better one? I must admit I’m not interested in Abbess other than as an example of how conniving the pro-AGW side can be.
I note Deltoid is lambasting my prior inclusion of the Chilingar paper in the top 10 best papers; trouble is they are criticising the wrong paper.
I rather liked that bit about the cowardly Rabett being braced by the brave snake but you can’t take my shiny trophy away.
More seriously, Anna V. misses the point about the dose making the poison, so while a small increase in the CO2 mixing ratio from the base 280 ppm level might make things slightly better, a large increase to > 450 ppm will make things much worse and dangerously so. Does this mean that life will disappear from the earth, no, but you and yours might do so on an accelerated schedule.
This new found concern for the poor would be more impressive if it was not so new and shiny, however there is a truth to the point that under no circumstance are there enough resources for all nine billion or so people on the earth to live as those in the developed countries. What that means ethically is that we have to find more efficient ways of using the resources that we have, not that we have to burn every gram of coal. Before recommending that Jim Hansen be burned on a coal pyre, I would suggest that people thinking along this line improve themselves if at all possible.
As to the bit, about humans evolving at a time when CO2 mixing levels were much higher that is classic misdirection, as humans were a) either created by God 6, 8 or 13000 years ago or b) evolved from unicellular organisms. So the question really is what period was cohenite talking about and what was the state of life on earth then. CO2 mixing ratios have NOT been much higher than today when homo sapiens was around
‘As do I know it is irrelevant to what you said about having more CO2 only being beneficial. Your statement was stupid, that’s all.’
Hear hear.
Conehite
I note Deltoid is lambasting my prior inclusion of the Chilingar paper in the top 10 best papers; trouble is they are criticising the wrong paper.
Do you actually think Lambert cares whether it’s the wrong paper being dissed? Accuracy and honesty has never been Lambert’s objective on any issue he’s ever been involved with. If he can get away with it he will. He is the most dishonest blogger in Australia.
I rather liked that bit about the cowardly Rabett being braced by the brave snake but you can’t take my shiny trophy away.
Eli Rabbet the link you provide shows an uncharacteristically brave rabbit. You are not genetically so disposed otherwise you would have had something to say about your former unhinged mentor wanting to jail skeptics. Therefore the label of coward is an accurate portrayal unless you can show us that you parted ways with that sort opinion. This of course assumes you don’t actually agree with that prescription which of course would make that assertion redundant and an entirely new ball game.
It’s late and I don’t feel like getting into a Jaworowski/Oeschger standoff; but a couple of points; Berner’s graph shows MUCH higher historical CO2 levels than today with no correlation, let alone a several 100 year lag, with temperature; in the more immediate bya (650000-800000) the Luthi paper shows CO2 levels of between 172-300ppmv with a significant lack of correlation between temp and CO2 level; in the period 12000-15000bya Sage’s thesis becomes salient; he surmises that a rise in CO2 from 200ppmv to 270ppmv was not only sufficient but essential for the developement of modern agriculture and therefore modern society. There are 2 issues here; the first is an agreed history of CO2 movement; and secondly an agreed description on what is an ideal CO2 level for humanity and more importantly (it seems), a vision of nature; the second part of the second issue seems to be dominating.
On a different tack, would eli explain again the antithetical quality between the Chilingar paper on adiabatic convection and the Miskolczi semi-transparent atmospheric model?
Rabbet says:
Mom taught Eli never to mess with the unshaved nut in the corner mumbling to himself, but over time the bunny has had a lot of fun playing them. The bit about economies of scale assumes that decentralized alternatives are not linked to each other. Decentralized alternatives also have the advantage that they can be designed to avoid critical failures, a danger inherent in any centralized design.
It is somewhat ironic that the claim that commoditized production is by definition more efficiently done centrally is being made on the INTERNET, as system which derives much of its dominant strength from decentralization.
1. No Eli, you economic illiterate. Activities such as electricity production lends itself beautifully as an example of economies of scale working towards reducing marginal costs. Reduction of marginal costs is what large scale energy production has been able to achieve and one of the reasons why it is so cheap. In fact economies of scale are ALL about marginal cost reductions. Ask an economics professor at your university if you choose not to believe me.
You can achieve a semblance of economies of scale through the first example you gave but it reaches nowhere near the advantages of large scale centralized energy production which incorporates a high gamma or baseload (which is the term they use in the trade). We would be seeing seeing it compete now without the need for a mitigation tax. Do you have one example currently operating that would prove my assertion incorrect? Thought not. Please don’t argue solar and wind are (soon) up to it as we have been valiantly waiting for those Gogot’s for 1/2 a century.
The internet was never meant to be a centralized system of communication (or in your case entertainment), Eli. It therefore is a silly analogy. The internet is all about individualization. However there are of course some elements of diffuse economies of scale such as having large ISP networks through which large scale traffic operates allowing for marginal cost reduction making for cheaper connectivity. There are also examples of server networks.
So sorry, Eli but you crashed with both examples.
Ra
“1. No Eli, you economic illiterate. Activities such as electricity production lends itself beautifully as an example of economies of scale working towards reducing marginal costs.”
this didn’t work too well in WA earlier this year. The Varanus Island gas explosion demonstrated here that a decentralised system would be advantageous.
“We would be seeing seeing it compete now without the need for a mitigation tax. ”
Thus the myth of the level playfield continues…
these are the links that did not come through for Slim.
Why the 30 year heating since 1970 and the cooling/stasis the last ten is a natural cycle, one of the many possible links:
figs 2 and 3 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
CO2 is rising merrily and not stopping the stasis
scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/images/graphics_gallery/original/mlo_spo_record.pdf
and how CO2 follows temperature rises and not the opposite, i.e. it is the heat that boils it out of the sea and ground:
joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/
It is instructive to look at the breathing of the planet as recorded by the AIRS project:
airs.jpl.nasa.gov/story_archive/Measuring_CO2_from_Space/
if you search you will find animations.
Cohenite
You keep repeating the same nonsense
” Berner’s graph shows MUCH higher historical CO2 levels than today with no correlation, let alone a several 100 year lag, with temperature; in the more immediate bya (650000-800000) the Luthi paper shows CO2 levels of between 172-300ppmv with a significant lack of correlation between temp and CO2 level; in the period 12000-15000bya Sage’s thesis becomes salient; he surmises that a rise in CO2 from 200ppmv to 270ppmv was not only sufficient but essential for the developement of modern agriculture and therefore modern society. There are 2 issues here; the first is an agreed history of CO2 movement; and secondly an agreed description on what is an ideal CO2 level for humanity and more importantly (it seems), a vision of nature; the second part of the second issue seems to be dominating.”
What is Berner’s assesment? http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/292/5518/870
gsa.confex.com/gsa/2008AM/finalprogram/abstract_146199.htm
www-geology.ucdavis.edu/~GEL108/examples/Example%231.pdf
Seems a little different to yours… Do you not feel uncomfortable promoting Berner’s data in a different light than he considers it?
Luthi doesn’t agree with you either
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Natur.453..379L
Why do you persist in presenting data and pretending that they are in agreement with your personal opinion.
Are you not misrepresenting them?
NT; be consistent with the links; I just leave out the // if they won’t post; my Berner links are;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5525/2310
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
The Berner derived graph is based on this paper; I’ll post it subsequently.
Thus the myth of the level playfield continues…
Nt you don’t know anything about economics so stop pretending you do as you will come out sounding sillier than Rabbet.
NT; that Berner link is too long; here are the details;
Dana L. Royer, Robert A Berner, David J, Beerling; Phanerozoic atmosphere CO2 change: evaluating geochemical and paleobiological approaches. Earth-Science Reviews vol 54, Issue 4, August 2001, pp 349-392
As to Luthi, here is the link; how am I wrong?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html
Cohenite
You are using their data to claim something that they don’t support. You are claiming that there is a tenuous link or no link between paleo CO2 and paleoclimate. Both Berner and Luthi find otherwise, that is they find a link between Paleo CO2 and Paleoclimate.
Luthi
“From previously published data1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and the present work, we find that atmospheric carbon dioxide is strongly correlated with Antarctic temperature throughout eight glacial cycles but with significantly lower concentrations between 650,000 and 750,000 yr before present. Carbon dioxide levels are below 180 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) for a period of 3,000 yr during Marine Isotope Stage 16, possibly reflecting more pronounced oceanic carbon storage. We report the lowest carbon dioxide concentration measured in an ice core, which extends the pre-industrial range of carbon dioxide concentrations during the late Quaternary by about 10 p.p.m.v. to 172–300 p.p.m.v.”
Berner
“On time scales of tens of millions of years, climate is known to undergo massive changes. Previous evidence has suggested a link between natural atmospheric CO2 variability and these long-term climatic oscillations, but some recent studies have found discrepancies. In their Perspective, Crowley and Berner assess the evidence. They conclude that the CO2 model is valid for high-latitude glaciations but that for low latitudes, altered tectonic settings and problems with interpreting climate indicators complicate the picture.”
“The first-order agreement between the CO2 record and continental glaciation
continues to support the conclusion that CO2 has played an important role in longterm
climate change. The Veizer et al. data, if correct, could be considered a
Phanerozoic extension of a possible dilemma long known for the early and mid-
Cenozoic.”
“Understanding the link between the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) and Earth’s temperature underpins much of paleoclimatology and our predictions of future global warming. Here, we use the inverse relationship between leaf stomatal indices and the partial pressure of CO2 in modern Ginkgo biloba and Metasequoia glyptostroboides to develop a CO2 reconstruction based on fossil Ginkgo and Metasequoia cuticles for the middle Paleocene to early Eocene and middle Miocene. Our reconstruction indicates that CO2 remained between 300 and 450 parts per million by volume for these intervals with the exception of a single high estimate near the Paleocene/Eocene boundary. These results suggest that factors in addition to CO2 are required to explain these past intervals of global warmth.”
Both authors fully support the notion of the Greenhouse Effect and CO2′s role in paleoclimate.
NT; the last sentence of your second last paragraph?
Luthi; You need to read more than the abstract; p2; “It was suggested earlier that there is a strong stationary relationship between Antarctic temperature and CO2. But our data reveal a significant devaiation from this behaviour.” They go to say this is a robust feature and not a measurement artifact; they go to look at AIM and Dansgaard-Oeschger events and a regional effect may slew the records. I don’t think there is clear-cut CO2/temperature correlation in either of these 2 sources. Generally you can’t be seriously suggesting there is a historical CO2/temperature correlation? Here are a couple more graphs while you are composing your thoughts;
http:www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/11/06/science/earth/20061107_CO2_GRAPHIC.html
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html
Cohenite, you are either being deliberately stupid or just have no ability to understand.
Both authors clearly stat in these papers and in many others that they have written that they use CO2 as a major driver of climate.
Luthi even uses GCMs
“I don’t think there is clear-cut CO2/temperature correlation in either of these 2 sources. Generally you can’t be seriously suggesting there is a historical CO2/temperature correlation?”
Huge strawman, as it has been xplained manytimes by me and others that you can’t expect one over geological time.
Stop misrepresenting people’s results.
“you are either being deliberately stupid or just have no ability to understand.” Can’t I be both?
We bunnies get a good press, but don’t mess with us.
[...] Jennifer Marohasy posts Ten Worst Blog Posts: A Note from Cohenite [...]
Mirth.
I am not sure who the bigger moron is, Cohenite for coming up with this drivel or you for posting it.
Neither; the biggest moron is you for making your pointless comment.