Mutant Climate Debate
Posted by jennifer, June 20th, 2009 - under Humour, News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change, Humour
Synthesis Report from Copenhagen March 2009, Now available
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/ downloads & videos here
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
http://www.nipccreport.org
Global Politics is being Influenced by Climate Contrarians
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25661632-5013457,00.html
That does not mean we should not try an dreduce co2. Just this morning I was urging my students to partake in a “grenhouse” game to cut co2 emissions from their households. I stressed not because the co2 matters, but because if you cut your co2, you save money!
Neville Nicholls seems to have spent the last 37 years studying things that may or may not be happening, which are of little consequence or use and about which nothing can be done.
Way to go!
Oh yeah,
He wasn’t a researcher for the BoM from 1970 on as he didn’t do the BoM Meteorology course until 1971.
I note that Monash puts climate science in the arts department, not science.
“arts department”; why Eyrie one of my degrees is in arts; it qualifies me to converse about everything and nothing in particular to a very high confidence level.
Well Eyrie – I guess “an attempt” at sledging – but a cursory examination would put your “comment” in the pig ignorant fuckwit class. So how long have you been a fuckwit now? Your comparable detailed publication record specifically on Australian climate history is what exactly?
But better still – Bob and Bill’s publication record on climate – that’s climate not geology is ….. gee is that crickets chirping again.
At least Plimer – has got a book out. Book – get it ? hahahahahahahahahaha
Sorry I meant science fiction novel. hahahahahahaha
Well whacker Walker you cant have it both ways either E&E is a credible source, or it isnt.
You were the one inviting people to take Nichols on, and I was, by using our own estimable criteria.
All you have shown above, is that it is entirely posseble that if one takes publications on their merits rather than their mast head, there may be credible material all around, including Nichols document.
Your previous proposition was that anyone, lets repeat that ANYONE, who publishes in E&E automatically lacks credibilty–so ipso facto….
Also if my memory serves me correctly it was you who took McLean to task for publishng his analysys in E&E which showed what a lie it was, that the IPCC was the work of 2500 scientits. When in reality it was not any more than approx 40 who were perpetrating a fraud on the public by self referencing themselves to each other.You werent prepared to read the material because according to you it wasnt worthy of being read by virtue of it being published in E&E.
Thats an extremist position on its own
Now I have real work to do .
Luke,
I am pleased as punch that your best climate scientist was able to show that in a century when temps rose worldwide according to generally accepted measuring standards, that temps rose in Australia.
And since E&E is associated with Cal Tech, and you are a rude, immature jerk, I will stick with E&E.
Luke, you are also as dim as dim as you are rude.
Your guys started calling their climate predictions warnings of apocalypse.
Or maybe you are just an intellectual coward behind your rudeness?
Probably both,and the net result is that you are boring, like most reactionary twits.
For a glimmer of just how dim you are, google ‘climate apocalypse’
You will get 1,100,000 hits.
In fact, the first article is a pro-AGW website knocking Hadley for not being apocalyptic enough.
Cheers, Lukie.
We are the guys pointing out that you true believer tools are lsoing precisely because you claim an apocalypse is coming, you all are unable (as you demonstrate daily) to engage on the topic, and your leadership is calling for police state tactics and civil and criminal disruption of lawful businesses.
That you keep, like SJT simply repeating your spew does not make you look smarter or more clever.
It only reveals you for what you are: pathetic.
Luke,
I thought Nicholls’s letter to the Australian was piss weak. Cherry picking, a non sequitur and some arm waving are the best a a bloke who’s been working in the field for 37 years can come up with?
Sorry Luke, I can’t take him seriously but then I was on the BoM met course with him.
Well Hunter – I followed your logic – if I Google “hunter dickhead” I get 52,300 hits. Surely proof beyond a doubt.
“your guys” – just who are “my guys” mate? You’d do well verballing in a police state.
And just who is “your leadership”?
Gee Eyrie if you were on the course with him how come you didn’t learn anything? The problem for you denialist drop-kicks is that his letter was precisely correct.
Luke,
You got me beat by a long shot:
When I google, ‘Luke is a jerk’, there are 413,000 hits.
You are an AGW true believer. That makes you part of the AGW community.
Sort of like UFO believers are ‘UFOols’.
The AGW community is led by Hansen, Gore, your Prof. Nicholls apparently, etc. etc. etc. They are the opinion leaders that publish nice things for you to quote and keep your faith in line.
You rush to their defense like any well self-trained fundie true believer.
Yet you seem oddly shy about braying out your faith. Perhaps AGW needs a Council of Nicea to stomp out a credo your ilk can memorise, and not be so shy? Embrace your profits of doom. All the AGW fundies are doing it. You do, you are just too cowardly to admit it.
Eyrie,
If you haven’t noticed, arm waving, cherry picking and non sequiturs are the basis of AGW.
Luke,
What? You don’t support the leading promoters of AGW?
That’s a relief. Had me there for a bit.
And Nicholls not one of “your guys”??
But your mate Nicholls could have picked half a dozen warming periods closer than 125,000 y ago.
You must have lent him your picking pole. Man, it’s a long one.
“The AGW community is led by Hansen, Gore, your Prof. Nicholls apparently, etc. etc. etc. They are the opinion leaders that publish nice things for you to quote and keep your faith in line.
You rush to their defense like any well self-trained fundie true believer.”
There is no AGW “community”, conspiracy, the plan to ruin the world. It’s all just a result of research into a gas that is present in the atmosphere that appeared to be totally harmless that was started by the US military.
SJT:
“It’s all just a result of research into a gas that is present in the atmosphere that appeared to be totally harmless that was started by the US military.”,
Riiight………
sjt
“that was started by the US military.”
Now I got it, poor sjt, I now of a few forums you would feel right at home!
SJT,
You really do need to see a Dr. about your inability to admit that I have never, unlike AGW leaders, evoked a conspiracy to explain the stupidity of AGW.
And as for your military-led research into CO2, perhaps a bit of history will help you, to the extent that you can be helped:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Svante Arrhenius, big Nobel insider and promoter of eugenics, was a big pusher of the greenhouse effect of CO2.
“Racial biology
Svante Arrhenius was also actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology
Statens institut för rasbiologi
Statens institut f?r rasbiologi was a Swedish governmental research institute founded in 1922 with the stated purpose of studying eugenics and human genetics….
in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been planned as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute’s board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909. Swedish racial biology was world-leading at this time, and the results formed the scientific basis for the Compulsory sterilization
Compulsory sterilization
Compulsory sterilization programs are government policies which attempt to force people to undergo surgical sterilization . In the first half of the twentieth century, many such programs were instituted in countries around the world, usually as part of eugenics programs intended to prevent the reproduction and multiplication of members of the…
program in Sweden, as well as inspiring the Nazi eugenics
Nazi eugenics
Nazi eugenics were Nazi Germany’s Nazism and race social policies that placed the improvement of the Race through eugenics at the center of their concerns and targeted those humans they identified as “life unworthy of life” , including but not limited to the Crime, Degeneration, Gleichschaltung, feeble-minded, History of homosexual people in…
in Germany.”
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Svante_Arrhenius
So from the beginning AGW and eugenics have been together like choclate syrup and ice cream.
And here (for just how many times?) is the leader of AGW calling for the criminalization of thse who disagree with him:
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/23544/Hansen_Says_GW_Skeptics_Should_Be_Tried.html
For the military part, maybe you will update Hansen’s bio?
Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
But please do continue.
Well that’s the purulent sap that feeds denialist scum. Note how Heartland adds Pol Pot etc to Hansen’s quote. Then shonky-tonks Hunter cites it as fact. Shonk Hunter personally annoints Hansen as “the leader of AGW” –
Get off the blog you fraudulent clown.
Luke,
You are far too entertaining to leave just because of your coping problems.
Hansen is the recognized face and spokesman for the science side of AGW.
You are stuck with him, unless you have another name to toss in the hat?
In typical extremist reactionary fashion, you have to pretend that a group you dislike, Heartland, means that Hansen’s quote is not important. No one is falling for that.
I do note that you have nothing to offer about the history of AGW, and its deep heritage with eugenics. Nor were you able to help SJT recover from his silly assertions about the big bad military being behind AGW research.
Also, no one confusing your very good impression of a blow hard jerk with an informed position.
Hunter,
I’m also an AGW bah-humbug, but I think that the Arrhenius-Nazi ad hommies don’t really add anything to the discussion. That’s too luke-like. For today, you’re the clear winner of the Godwin’s Law Award. Display it proudly.
While I am always happy to win awards, I would ask you to point out where I ever mentioned anything about Nazi’s? I quoted, from a cited source, what they said about eugenics. My point was not fascism. My point was how bad science attracts bad science, even if the scientists involved are, as Arrhenius was, great and accomplished. It is a very good lesson, imho, that demonstrates that ‘great scientist’ does not always equal ‘correct science’. I am not certain how quoting from a well established biographical sketch and documented history could be construed as ‘ad hom’. I am, however, open to enlightenment.
Anything that treads into Luke-dom is to be avoided like eating with unclean hands, so I wll gladly make sure that I do not even give the appearance of treading into Godwin-land.
The US military did some research into the infrared properties of CO2 in the 1950s at altitudes up to 35000 feet. They did some more a few years ago. You won’t get to see the more recent stuff.
It was in aid of infrared sensors and missile homing (or prevention of) both times.
Comment from: hunter June 22nd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
“Eyrie,
If you haven’t noticed, arm waving, cherry picking and non sequiturs are the basis of AGW.”
Yeah I’ve noticed.
What everyone needs to realize is the psychological motivations of some meteorologists and climatologists regarding AGW. In the meteorology case nobody really takes weather forecasts all that seriously as they are so often wrong even for 24 hours ahead and there is little post analysis of why. Ever notice how the forecast for 48 hours ahead gets changed suddenly when there are only 24 hours to go, with no excuses? Except maybe in the case of tropical cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons etc when the “forecasting” is largely real time tracking and linear extrapolation and even then anybody even slightly likely to be in the possible path needs to batten down as cyclone tracks can change unpredictably.
Climatologists used to be meteorologists who weren’t working in operational forecasting. Plodders who compiled the weather data day by day into climate data by averaging it. In neither case can anybody do anything about the weather or climate. Your job and output isn’t highly regarded and nobody cares. Even so called “objective” forecasting aids such as the SOI aren’t very good.
So imagine when an issue (AGW) arises which indicates that people might be doing something to the weather or climate. Suddenly you are important, relevant, the media and politicians listen to you. Billions of people’s lives will be forced to change as a result of your pronouncements. Imagine the improvement to your self esteem. The ego boost. Not to mention the funding increases. Dead easy to become corrupted by this.
hunter wrote:
“Anything that treads into Luke-dom is to be avoided like eating with unclean hands, so I wll gladly make sure that I do not even give the appearance of treading into Godwin-land.”
Thanks.
Eyrie, thanks for suggesting I forward my post on Prof. Neville Nicholls’ Letter to the Editor Australian to that same outlet. In retrospect I wish I had, but I figured Bob Carter or some other member of the Famous Four would probably respond there. But I haven’t seen anything from them there yet. It’s probably too late for me to get involved in that action, I’m afraid. So I confined myself to posting a similar comment on Mike Steketee’s website in response to his pro-AGW piece in the same issue as Prof. Nicholls’ letter.
Sorry incidentally to Prof. Nicholls for misspelling his name with one ‘l’. We Vikings always had problems with writing things down. But we are improving. We are no longer illiterable. And I think I get the big picture of how to save the planet. Burn, then cover up carbon footprints . . .
Louis: ““It’s all just a result of research into a gas that is present in the atmosphere that appeared to be totally harmless that was started by the US military.”,
Riiight………”
For once Will has a point the military were interested in track aeroplanes with their missiles in order to shoot them down and also of course findings means to fool the other guy’s missiles.
Think about it a moment!
Tracking emissions, from a hot gas, that the atmosphere is opaque to can be a real pain. I would be very surprised given all the heat seeking missiles that they’ve built that they didn’t do the research. I don’t think however that their research was at all related to climate,
David Elder: LOL! Burn then cover up carbon footprints…..
Jan Pompe: Early infrared missiles used higher frequency infrared and needed to see a hot jet exhaust or piston engine exhaust to get a lock. For the last 30 years or so the emphasis has been on “all aspect” missiles which can home on nacelle or fuselage heat (the US gave the Brits the latest model AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles for the Falklands campaign which had this capability) and don’t require you to manoeuvre into the bad guy’s “six” to get a lock.
I haven’t seen any information on the absorption spectrum of CO2 at other than naturally occurring temperatures in the Earth – atmosphere system. It wouldn’t be smart to make your missile sensor most sensitive in an opaque region and all aspect missiles work with lower temperatures closer to ambient which might just be getting to be of interest to climate. Later missiles even use two or more “colours” of infrared to better discriminate against decoys or flares.
Eyrie I was still in school when the first missiles were made it’s only much later that guidance systems became a topic on interest. My point was that the air forces research (regardless of country) will have had to do with weapons systems and defensive measures. climate change would have been of no interest. It’s my understanding that HITRAN which is a spectral database that I like to use was originally inspired by the need for such research. I don’t really know whether it is.