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.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I would argue that Deltoid’s owner is the clown in the cohort and Brook the huckster looking for a handout from government coffers.
Lambert of course lied about Lomborg.
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/
BJORN LOMBORG LAMBERTED
Computing teacher Tim Lambert sums up The Skeptical Environmentalist:
Have you noticed that Lomborg wrote a book where he said that while there had been been some environmental problems in the past, we had solved them all and nothing further needed to be done.
This is another of Lambert’s lies; here’s what Lomborg actually wrote under the heading Things are better – but not necessarily good:
Mankind’s lot has actually improved in terms of practically every measurable indicator.
But note carefully what I am saying here: that by far the majority of indicators show that mankind’s lot has vastly improved. This does not, however, mean that everything is good enough. The first statement refers to what the world looks like whereas the second refers to what it ought to look like.
“Scientist” Lambert is not to be trusted, ever.
It’s ironic that lambert gets a gig at scienceblogs when he isn’t a scientist and has never written about the subject himself other than trying bring people down by lying about them.
He would have to be the most dishonest blogger in the Australia.
I’m surprised Karoly isn’t in the top. But then again he had a lot of competition from the other lunatics and mentally deformed pygmies.
Could we say he came in 11th?
Flannery has been so discredited it’s no longer fair to poke fun at him as it’s like killing a defenseless kitten.
OK I kacked … LOL LMAO and ROTFL – classic …
Cohenite must be on the IPA payroll …
but let us not forget the “WORST climate science paper ever of all time anywhere”
by your good lil’ mate Dave (who I know you all support fully – LOL)
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
or the McLean ream out/rant of myself
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/12/show-me-credentials.html Makes Birdy look like an amateur.
Golden moments Cohers – golden moments.
luke; David Archibald’s data selection was impeccable; someone did a wider search and found the vast proportion of rural temp records were similar; of course your mate Warwick Hughes has done something similar here in Australia, confirmed by Steve McIntyre; which makes the claims of temperature increases even more miraculous. Poor Courtney.
Cohenite,
What a stupid pointless post. You should put your “Ten Worst Blog Posts” at the top.
What has become of thee? You used to be such a gentle soul… And now you are reduced to writing about poor blogging? That’s SAD.
Eli has made you mad hasn’t he? Well if you write dumb things you can bet people will notice and laugh at you, it’s the modern way. Take it on the chin like a man, boy.
Oh Cohenite…
“The Arctic ice is, of course, reforming;”
Ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Yeah, of course it is… It does each Winter. Remember?
Hey why don’t you write about something close to home. Let’s try the top ten worst Judgements of all time. Why don’t you list the ten worst judgements you have ever seen in your years at Court. Now that would be ace.
Conehite
How long before David Archibald’s Solar Cycle 24 is shown to be wrong?
I reckon by this time next year…
You are part of the Lavoisier Group, aren’t you…
David Archibald’s data selection was impeccable – hahahahahahahaha – oh it hurts …… LOL to the nth power…… hehehehee –
You are part of the Lavoisier Group, aren’t you…
It’s always the attempted insults with these idiots. They can’t quite take what they themselves dish out.
Tell us exactly why these aren’t the top worst threads, NT? If they aren’t, which are then?
get ender to help you sort them out. (Ender the hamilton follower)
Cohenite,
David Archibald says:
“then solar minimum will be on or
about July 2009.”
Ba Boowwwwwwwwwwww (the sound effect from Family Feud – remember that?)
Yeah, he didn’t go so well with that did he… Looks like activity is picking up now…
David Archibald:
“The 50% increase in plant growth rate due to a 300 ppm increase in atmospheric carbon
dioxide can be expected about the middle of the next century. What a wonderful time that
will be.”
Yes, what a wonderful time!! Ohhh joy will abound.
Why doesn’t David Archibald get into your worst Blogs?
Ra, now come on…
Why would asking someone if they’re part of the Lavoisier Group be an insult?
Are you saying the Lavoisier Group is… A joke? Or Bad? Or Insane? What are you saying?
This would have to be the worst:
http://www.hartlod.blogspot.com/
NT: David Archibald was slightly premature, predicting 2009, when it is happening now, with lowest sunspot numbers in July and August since 1913. BTW, so far as I know he doesn’t have a blog, so you can’t even get that right.
More generally Cohenite inexplicably omitted John Quiggin’s Blog from his listing, so bad that even Richard Tol eventually despaired of him and it, opining he wasn’t fit to teach economics. JQ still goes on about peak oil being long past.
How come Ra only reappears when Birdy is back. Maybe they live together?
NT & luke; David Archibald is not on my list; NT; the 10 worst judgements is a chimera because a bad judgement is basically one which misapplies the law, or is corrupt; there have been too many of those; with AGW it is easier; AGW has defined itself and established clear indications; I can’t help it if the theory has been a dismal failure; I don’t see why AGW supporters have to resort to amphigory and diatribe; btw, I’m not a member of Lavoisier, but I know someone who is.
Cohenite.
You know David Archibald? Can I get his aiutograph?
you better speak to Ra though. He thinks very low of the Lavoisier Group, did you see what he wrote? Naughty errr… Person.
Tim, don’t get me wrong, David could still be right about Solar Min… Unlikely though. And even NOAA think that Solar Cycle 25 will be the lowest for a while. Yep, time to fire up the coal powered stations!
On another note, yes I am changing the topic because top ten worst blogs is pretty dumb, I heard it would be a remarkably easy thing to avert the next ice age. Apparently we would just need to create a bunch of Fluorocarbons (or was it SF3?)… Anyway, piece of cake. Isn’t that lucky. Of course Cohenite won’t believe it – no Greenhouse for him. Which means we can’t save ourselves at all, no way for him to avert an ice age.
NT and Luke are not joined at the neck?
Spot on Cohenite.
Just filing this here: http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003415.html . Clive Hamilton confused again.
Can you guys tell me why the magazines Newsweek ( and another giantic magazine ) run headlines this week like ” The Green Rescue” ( why Obama , Brown and Sarkozy and other world leaders are pushing a green solution to the economuc crisis).
Don’t know anything about the group, NT. I took the cue from you though that it was an insult. it was obviously meant to be an insult, right?
I suppose it couldn’t be worse than say actually signing up for one of barry Brook’s classes on neuroscience… oh wait no, I meant global warming. Can you imagine that huckster is getting paid by the taxpayer, because I certainly can’t. It makes me angry just thinking about it.
So which is worse, NT? The Laviosier group which is private group and privately funded or Brook sticking his hand in the taxpayer cookie jar as he tries to scare the kids?
Where’s
Louis – The earth is a massive homopolar motor. It has to be, otherwise why does it keep spinning?
Jen – This forum serves the purpose of presenting Socratic Ignorance to the world.
David Archibald – trying to be pals with Svensgaard on CA and being told to nick off.
Norwegian media writes ” record high melting of sea ice in the Arctic ” despite not so warm weather than in 2007 and ” unormaly thin ice”.
As Grist blog writes 🙂 ” guess the Norwegians are aspiring for a world take over and conspiracy” :)))))) ( ironically meant for the neo cons)
Don’t know anything about the group, NT. I took the cue from you though that it was an insult. it was obviously meant to be an insult, right?
I suppose it couldn’t be worse than say actually signing up for one of barry Brook’s classes on neuroscience… oh wait no, I meant global warming. Can you imagine that huckster is getting paid by the taxpayer, because I certainly can’t. It makes me angry just thinking about it.
So which is worse, NT? The Laviosier group which is private group and privately funded or Brook sticking his hand in the taxpayer cookie jar as he tries to scare the kids?
Ann, I reckon you should grab a Gravator!
Luke, I reckon you should change your Gravator. I never liked your James Hanson look. The current is disingenuous. I like the rocker with the afro – could you please revert?
The link in 10 is malformed. I think you meant http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580
Thanks TDK. Link fixed.
Just filing this here: http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003415.html . Clive Hamilton confused again.
Clive Hamilton back to his old tricks again.
Didn’t he try to smear some big retailers who then threatened him with a law suit.
It’s side splittingly funny how after the legal threat Clive quickly became a professor of ethics.
This is like watching a badly done horror movie unfold and morph into a comedy with Clive at first appearing as the main character playing the scary guy and then morphing into the clown with a big stupid red nose stuck on his face.
There are no rakes in the field Clive will avoid stepping on.
Clive reminds me of that old Grouch Marx line:
He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot.
We are honored.
No post from RC included? Too many to choose from I guess. The RC support for the Goron’s AIT would have been a good one – that even exasperated Bob ‘consensus’ Ward:
“I am disappointed that RC has not been more constructively critical of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. Whilst the film may be “broadly accurate”, in the sense that it acknowledges climate change is being driven by greenhouse gas emissions, it clearly has exaggerated the immediacy and magnitude of impacts. Here are two examples. When the film discusses the melting of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica, it shows an aerial photograph of Manhattan showing it being gradually inundated. Whilst Gore does not mention timescales, the sequence clearly gives an impression of sudden flooding, rather than encroachment over centuries and millenia. Indeed Gore even says “They can measure this precisely, just as the scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levy in New Orleans”. You can try to argue that the statements are not explicitly inaccurate, but they are clearly, and probably deliberately, misleading. The second example is the sequence on infectious diseases. The accompanying slides refer to SARS, antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis and avian influenza. If there is a link between climate change and the spread of these diseases, it is not very direct and there are other factors that are far more important. It gives a misleading impression of what is driving the spread of these diseases.
There are other examples. The images showing Katrina are clearly designed to make the audience believe there is a connection to climate change, even though this cannot be proved. It is a tactic that has been used to great effect in the United States, such that the majority of the public now appear to believe that the two are connected.
The scientific evidence on climate change is clear enough without the need for exaggeration. ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ misleads about several aspects of the science, and RC should be willing to acknowledge these rather than defending them as ‘technically not wrong’.
And before anybody tries to cast doubt on my motives, I am definitely not in the ‘denial camp’ (see http://www.climateofdenial.net ).”
The BBC Jo Abbess/Roger Harrabin debacle was a Marohasy exclusive that saw a record 60,000 Marohasy blog hits on the day. The BBC filmed an interview with Roger Harrabin as a response and mentioned an ‘Australian blog.’
The BBC never replied to my complaint and request to see documentary evidence that the story was changed in response to the WMO rather than Abbess.
I’m baffled as to why this makes the top 10 worst blog posts.
Paul; after the Weart piece, “A Saturated Gassy Argument”, I sort of gave up on RC, and I have already included the Weart cracker in my 10 Worst AGW papers so I just assumed that people would understand RC was there in spirit. Jennifer’s post about our Jo is for its content which is the post in question, not Jennifer’s presentation of it.
Eli
Stop pretending that hanging around with Lambert disguises the fact that you’re aren’t washed up college professor.
Ann Novek “…why Obama , Brown and Sarkozy and other world leaders are pushing a green solution to the economuc crisis”.
Obama’s not quite a world leader yet. The next thing is that Newsweek were responsible for starting global warming hysteria circa 1988. They amplified the words of James Hansen out of proportion, that we were headed for climate disaster and started the notion that a vast majority of scientists agreed. Anything they print has to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Gordon Brown has made a fool of himself in Britain with his narrow-minded approach to global warming. This guy is a sucker for pseudo-science. He has recently been credited with an economic recovery plan that has been adopted by unlikely allies like the US, and it has revived his sagging career. I think he’s going to be very careful about tying his lot to the green movement after that reprieve. Of course, he has to pay lip service to the green movement but EU powers like Germany have indicated global warming is not so important anymore. I think Newsweek is sucking for a story to back their world view that global warming is a big issue.
Eli is pleased to accept his award.
Eli of course is busy doing research right now like any good dedicated professor. He wouldn’t think twice of running around blogs trying to protect his washed up reputation with silly put-downs that aren’t funny. No siree. Oh hang on the the washed up professor just did that.
What we’ll get now is a round robin of cat calls from Eli and the rest of the ghouls claiming they are happy to receive the award.
But what they’re not doing is defending why their posts shouldn’t be on the list of the worst threads award.
Now that’s what i call funny.
I see that this blog has completely lost the plot. Look like the strength of AGW science has simply overwhelmed the kids in the remedial class and they’ve taken to burbling and blowing saliva bubbles if the above post is anything to go by. Quite amusing to watch but we shouldn’t let it go on too long, they may damage their already fragile egos.
byeeeeeeeee
Ra, no I didn’t mean it was bad to be in the Lavoisier Group. It was more of a “Oh I get it now” moment. A moment when it all made sense.
As to Brooks getting Govt Funding, so what? I thought the main push round here was to make it seem like we don’t have enough information to be sure. Doesn’t that require us to spend money on becoming more sure?
I like the realclimate post where the incumbents try to play down the 800 year lag by saying ” you can barely see it on the graph.” This is hilarious. Because its co-written. Even peer review could not hold back the stupidity of it all. But beyond that these clowns put it under their HIGHLIGHTS.
The level of dumb just never bottoms out at realclimate.
Patrick; the strength of the pro-AGW science? You mean Mann, Sherwood, Fu, Santer and the great white hope, Dessler? Please elaborate if otherwise.
Eli; that is the most animated tamino has ever been; usually he is all business, cold and supercilious; I feel somewhat churlish; however this is a serious business; a business aquaintance of mine who has a large conveyancing practice has noted spivs bothering elderly people with waterfront properties, trying to convince them to sell on the basis of rising sea levels; I find that annoying, along with the other unsavoury aspects of the pro-AGW band-wagon. In respect of your award for 2nd placed know-it-all; Im reminded of the David Niven anecdote about when he was working with Flynn on the Michael Curtiz production of “The Charge of the Light Brigade”; Curiz had limited english and was taunted by Niven and Flynn until one day he snapped; “You swine” he shouted, “you think I know f..k nothing, but, I tell you, I know f..k all!” Enjoy your award.
Cohenite, you are being ridiculous
“I feel somewhat churlish; however this is a serious business; a business aquaintance of mine who has a large conveyancing practice has noted spivs bothering elderly people with waterfront properties, trying to convince them to sell on the basis of rising sea levels; ”
You are blaming AGW for someone being dodgy in business? AGW has nothing to do with dodgy real estate agents. If your business aquaintance is taking advantage of people, that’s hardly the fault of AGW. He would have used some other ploy if AGW didn’t work (or didn’t exist). Sounds like he’s just using Free Market economics to me… As you say it’s serious business and if he can swindle people, you should be congratulating him right? He’s just trying to make a buck after all. I thought you’d be championing Capitalism, not trying on some Socialist agenda where business people have to be kind to clients and not attempt to get as much money as they can.
This whole post has no real point, all you are doing is giving your own personal opinion, which is pretty worthless. That’s why people are laughing at it. You have set yourself up for a fall. Do you think anyone would take me seriously if I wrote a post on “The Worst 10 Posts by Cohenite of all Time”?
NT
As to Brooks getting Govt Funding, so what? I thought the main push round here was to make it seem like we don’t have enough information to be sure. Doesn’t that require us to spend money on becoming more sure?
Sgt Brook is a political activist earning his keep off the government tit. He isn’t a climate scientist, has no formal qualifications in climate science and thinks that stopping cow farts will somehow make us better. In other words the Professor is a huckster. In fact his word games by calling himself a global warming professor instead of prof. of climate science shows just what a huckster he is.
Your suggestion that Brook would somehow add to human knowledge is about as laughable as suggesting Clive Hamilton is a serious economist and could one day be awarded the Nobel prize or that Eli isn’t a washed up professorial hack who like his former mentor thinks that jailing people for not believing in AGW is a great idea..
Brook is basically a human leech sucking a large amount of money from the taxpayer. In fact it seems this whole thing has become a “leech nest”.
No NT, I’m not blaming AGW for the failings of capitalism, such as they are, and I’m a fan of caveat emptor, mitigated by the legal concept of unconscionability; but you are blurring things here; AGW is at least partially sponsored by anti-capitalist ideology which is why I included that sanctimonious elitist Hamilton in my list; without wishing to become conspiratorial, there are agenda’s here, ideological, personal and aquisitive, which are both driving AGW and capitalising on it; at law if you create a circumstance where someone is injured or financially disadvantaged you may be liable for negligence if the ‘reasonable man’ standard of foreseeability applies; I think it was foreseeable that opportunists would make hay out of AGW, whether it be buying rural land to become fallow and wild and therefore earn carbon credits, or spiving naive, asset rich seniors; btw, it’s not my aquiantance who is doing the conniving. The problem with the AGW crew is that from their morally ascendent position no wrong can accrete to their holier-than-thou persons; which is a typical hypocrite and fanatic position.
Cohenite
“AGW is at least partially sponsored by anti-capitalist ideology which is why I included that sanctimonious elitist Hamilton in my list;”
Rubbish. If this is what you think, then it doesn’t matter what I say you won’t believe it. It is an ideological opposition you have and so cannot be refuted by rational argument.
Ra,
Actually I have no idea who Brooks is, so I can’t defend him. Nor am I going to waste my time defending Tamino or Lambert. This would be akin to use debating which football team is the best (or worst).
SJT prefers Newton’s laws of motion and the standard model.
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/Flash/Chaos/ThreeBody/ThreeBody.html
According to SJT the 3 body problem is not a problem for the solar system – and of course assuming that the earth has been rotating continuously since its creation without any energy input is nothing other than a perpetual motor.
BUt then SJT is a computer programmer in the AGO and seems to live in another world.
Great quote cohenite, I’d forgotten that one.
There is another, from the same production which appeals to me, as a blobe who spent a fair bit of time in my youth, horsing around, then more with my kids, & their show jumpers.
One of the scenes, symbolising the carnage of the charge, showed a lot of riderless horses. When it was time for them to appear arrived, he called for the crew to”bring on the empty horses”.
Reminds me of the arguments of the AGW brigade, & the heads of the media types, who fall for them.
Cohenite
“without wishing to become conspiratorial, there are agenda’s here, ideological, personal and aquisitive, which are both driving AGW and capitalising on it;”
Too late mate.
NT: “Too late mate”
Admission finally that AGW is pseudoscience deployed for political purposes.
BUt then SJT is a computer programmer in the AGO and seems to live in another world.
It’s interesting to note how a decent swag of these warmers are mostly in government stipend type positons. Enough to make a dent at any rate.
Ra
“You dishonest sack of shit, NT. You come on this thread and then can’t even openly defend what you’re supporting when asked to do so.”
Wow… That was… uncalled for?
I think Jennifer should have a word to you…
I was actually honest though. I admitted I had no idea who Brooks was. And I don’t…
Nor do I have to do what you ask. I assumed your use of Brooks’ name was to attempt to say that climate scientists were in it for the cash, so I adressed that point by saying that this blog tends to work off the assumption that we need more data, which would imply that this blog supports spending more Govt dollars on research before acting. My mistake, turns out you used Brooks’ name when he isn’t a climate scientist… Or is that just something you made up? Why did you bring up Brooks’ name?
Seriously though. I have not advocated support for any blog here, nor do I need to. As I said earlier it’s meaningless and useless. Who cares what blogs I support. The point I was making was that this whole post is pointless.
NT; the whole post is not pointless, although I would have preferred eli discuss Dessler, if not Essex, instead of accepting the ‘award’ with a subtle inversion of de-emphasis; the point of my 10 lists has been two-fold; firstly to demonstrate that there is a legitimate body of science opposing AGW; and secondly to show that the science of AGW is anything but settled; the fact that I chose tp present those aspects in palatable form (I’m hoping for a mini-series on the ABC) is also indicative of the fact that 99% of this debate has been outside the reach of the public, and that, accordingly, some fast and shifty non-science mantras have gained currency.
Cohenite
“although I would have preferred eli discuss Dessler, if not Essex, instead of accepting the ‘award’ with a subtle inversion of de-emphasis;”
Yes, exactly, because if someone random says to me “Your post is the worst” , I am going to discuss it… You are smarter than this Cohers. If you want to have “your side” taken seriously then they must engage seriously. Like McIntyre, he has interesting ideas and is thorough, but has decided that a blog is the best forum for his discussion. It’s just a poor choice and it’s little wonder scientists are reluctant to engage with him.
“is also indicative of the fact that 99% of this debate has been outside the reach of the public, and that, accordingly, some fast and shifty non-science mantras have gained currency.”
Most science is… It’s just the way the world is.
And again all you are doing is reflecting your own conpsiracy theories that you engaged with earlier. This is about your ideology, it has naught to do with science.
“palatable form”? What does this mean? Your top ten lists are ‘palatable’?
Jennifer
Cohenite’s post (and his rancid comments) does not do your cause any good.
There has to be some kind of irony in that, Socratic or otherwise.
Palatable; accessible; hopefully to extend the debate.
David; which comments are rancid, as in smelling or tasting like rank, stale fat? I can’t smell anything; are you sure you are not a contortionist?
Cohenite,
But there is no debate for you… You already said AGW was part of some ‘anti-capitalist’ plot or something… It’s not about debate for you anymore. Would appear to be more about spreading your message. Not debate.
NT
I’m still waiting for you to show one of the 10 Cohenite got wrong. One.
Who’s Brook, you ask? Just another snake oil salesman trying to sell hair tonic that hasn’t worked on him.
Ra
“NT
I’m still waiting for you to show one of the 10 Cohenite got wrong. One.”
Umm… There is a big flaw in that statement.
You obviously can’t help it Cohenite.
“which comments are rancid, as in smelling or tasting like rank, stale fat? I can’t smell anything;are you sure you are not a contortionist?”
Charming.
Ra “ignorant dipshit, rancid bedwetter … fuck off”
Yeah right, how to garner support – Not.
DavidK
The only rancid smell I’m experiencing is your words at this site. Have you found anything wrong with any of the top 10 , genius?
I have, with all 10 in fact (some are conspicuous by their absence).
But as you think my words are obnoxious to you, no matter how correct they may be … why should I bother.
Btw, I criticise all sites that would stifle debate – you demonstrate that this site is no better.
“Genius”? They are your words, not mine.
Have a nice day.
It is obvious from the discussions here that which side you come down on depends on your personal ideology. If there was sufficient scientific evidence to decide definitively in favour of global warming/cooling there would be no need of further debate. So instead people argue from their preferred positions, seeking whatever news/research papers support their particular prejudice. Witness the pathetic use of weather reports to give weight to the argument, or the premise that AGW is creating new avenues for dodgy estate agent spivs to exploit the vulnerable. Yeah well that’s gonna do it!
I suspect that the world will continue to move towards carbon abatement, irrespective of any arguments presented here. The US is committed, Europe is acting, China and India are favourable. So the interesting question for me is why do people hold such entrenched views, regardless of the science?
To be fair to Jennifer and her scientific training, she probably knows full well that the science favours the AGW case (albeit not unanimously or without some doubt). However, she is employed by the IPA to act as a contrarian on behalf of their corporate interests. Think tanks operate on the Overton Window principle – skew the debate as far as you can so that the eventual outcome is closer to your preferred position. Jennifer’s clients, while prepared to accept the inevitability of carbon abatement schemes, employ think tanks to push the envelope as far as possible in their favour and interests. I suspect that climate change will not be JM’s most frequent topic once the Australian scheme is actually legislated and implementation has begun.
Where does that leave the rest of us and our entrenched commitment to our respective side of the climate change divide?
People like me are concerned about the health and sustainability of the world we live in and are prepared to pay the price of reducing the amount of pollution we create and modify our lifestyles as required. To me, the 10-percent-growth-per-annum-forever path to prosperity and peace defies logic and is sorely testing the limits of our planet – we even fight illegal wars in pursuit of petrochemicals. We see financial opportunities for Australian business in new energy technologies.
Others, such as many of the regulars here, are quick to assure us that there is no problem with high carbon emitting energy production that nuclear energy and a global free-market financial system cannot fix. We need do nothing to reduce our environmental impact – certainly nothing involving modifying our lifestyle or our personal convenience.
Whichever side of the divide you are on, no amount of point scoring and argy bargy on a site like this will change one person’s mind. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
Hopefully the science will be clearer in another decade. In the meantime, apart from Jennifer (it’s her job) I guess it’s simply some kind of mildly amusing masochistic sport we all engage in here.
Enjoy!
Good one DavidK. You’re offended by my comments and use that as an excuse to avoid the obvious- that you can’t argue against the top 10 because cohenite is right.
You on the other hand find your own comments:
“Cohenite’s post (and his rancid comments) does not do your cause any good.”
Perfectly fine.
Notice however that even before I laser beamed on your silly comment you still didn’t have any criticism of his choices for the top 10.
Coward. Shirker.
Well Slim, NT has done a Hamilton and David again proves he can dish it out but not take it; you seem to have a Lomborgian view; you will notice that I included two blog posts which were vicious in their treatment of Lomborg; after reading all the ‘facts’ offered at Fog’s website and Deltoid plus at others including tamino’s and Eli’s, I am left with the unavoidable conclusion that there is a monolithic mindset about Lomborg operating in PARTS (I emphasise for NT’s benefit, who seems to be very selective in what he reads) of the AGW crew; Lomborg, after all, is a warmer who accepts that CO2 is warming; he just has different priorites to the AGW crew in terms of how resources should be allocated; but most damning for Lomborg is the fact that he does not prioritise nature; he is clear in saying that techological progress has benefited humanity, not least because it has mitigated the cruelties that nature offers; the antipathy to this aspect of Lomborg dovetails with the misanthropy that a lot of prominent AGW supporters enunciate (click on the Robyn Williams link at the end of my list for an example); until the AGW supporters address these issues then, as far as I am concerned, their hypothesis deserves all the criticism it gets.
Cohenite
“NT has done a Hamilton and David again proves he can dish it out but not take it;”
What the? Was I dishing it out to Ra? Ra sounded a lot like Bird, don’t you think? I think there’s a strong case for him to get snipped. Jennifer doesn’t moderate this site very well. you look at other ‘skeptic’ sites. Would they have tolerated that behaviour?
“Lomborg, after all, is a warmer who accepts that CO2 is warming; he just has different priorites to the AGW crew in terms of how resources should be allocated;”
This is actually an interesting point. It’s a reasonable thing to debate how resources should be allocated, and Lomborg is entitled to his opinion.
But why is it that you don’t take him to task over his CO2 warming? This is because, for you, it is a political debate. Lomborg is a political scientist, no? It’s not about science, it’s about trying to mould opinion and perspective. It is because, as you said before, that you are concerned about the ‘anti-capitalist’ aspects of AGW. A statement that you now seem to be running away from.
Did you look at the criticism’s levelled at “The Skeptical Environmentalist”? Are you saying that all the criticisms are wrong?
” their hypothesis deserves all the criticism it gets”
As do your pointless posts about your own opinion. That’s why Eli and others mocked you.
Not sure what a Lomborgian view is, but I’m glad you found a category for me.
Do you really think that only AGW supporters have entrenched positions, that only AGW supporters must answer to criticism?
Either way, I reckon it’s too late. AGW policy making is going to keep developing throughout the world. I suspect that sites like this are mainly serving to negotiate the final deal.
That’s why Eli and others mocked you.
Eli’s mentor was the guy that thinks people should be jailed for not ascribing to AGW. Eli’s mentor- Jim Hansen- is a very sick man. Yet Eli is too much of a coward to either agree with him or stand aside from Hansen’s views. In short Eli is basically a washed up coward who’s only claim to fame these days is trying to joust around blogs and hang around with distasteful individuals like the truly dishonest and despicable Lambert. Eli is not a serious scientist in any shape or form otherwise he would run a mile from such people
Regarding Lomborg:
The reason he’s hated is because he argues like a lot of people that allowing GDP to accumulate at an unmolested rate will offer a better return than to mitigate and wipe out a large portion of GDP growth which over a century compounds into an enormous sum.
Lambert was recently criticizing Lomborg or allowing criticism of lomborg’s credentials at his site which is pretty amusing seeing Lambert himself is a hugely underachieving academic.
NT; good to see you back; in regard to Lomborg, I have given you Kare Fog’s website; pick an issue he raises and convince me he has a case against Lomborg; I have spent a fair amount of time looking at Fog’s complaints and there are some minor statistical issues with Lomborg but no substantial ones sufficient to justify the vitriol he receives, ergo there must be other reasons for that; I have given you my thoughts on what those reasons are with examples to back them up; I don’t see, therefore, that claims of subjectivity can be fairly leveled at me.
Slim; science is based on the paradigm that no hypthesis is completely proved no matter how many verifications occur; conversely one contradiction is sufficient to disprove a hypothesis; by golly there must be some very close contradictions with AGW which even you would scratch your head over; or do you think all the evidence has been conclusive and positive in support of AGW?
Good point Cohenite:
This was what the most dishonest academic wrote about Lomborg linking to Fog (brain)
For comparison, Fog lists 110 errors and 208 flaws in Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist”.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/lomborg_beats_gore_110_to_2.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link
I took a look and the issues are minor or a big fat zero yet Lambert infers that the work is materially wrong. It’s simply dishonest, so no wonder Becks suggestion is right that he can’t be trusted on any issue.
Cohenite – I understand the paradigm. However, in the case of an emergent science, with something as complicated and complex as global climate, we are still far from any hypothesis killing contradictions.
Besides, apart from the inconvenience of doing anything about it, it is simply not a good idea to be growing global carbon emissions while burning up reserves of fossil fuels which can be used for far more beneficial purposes than a quick shot of energy release. What is intrinsically wrong with reducing carbon pollution in favour of decentralised alternatives – apart from the inevitable decline of fossil fuel corporations?
Well Slim, do those alternatives include nuclear and in particular thorium? And can we lay off the ‘carbon pollution’; my brother in law has green-houses; he gets a bit irate at the term.
Besides, apart from the inconvenience of doing anything about it, it is simply not a good idea to be growing global carbon emissions while burning up reserves of fossil fuels which can be used for far more beneficial purposes than a quick shot of energy release.
Industrial civilization runs on cheap energy. The question of convenience or inconvenience is a silly comment because if there were a cheaper alternative it would have come on stream now. The fact that one hasn’t other than nuke means you comment is redundant
What is intrinsically wrong with reducing carbon pollution in favour of decentralised alternatives – apart from the inevitable decline of fossil fuel corporations?</i
Decentralized alternative are by definition inefficient compared to centralized power generation and distribution. You may not like that fact, but that’s how it is.
Cohenite, why don’t you just do a post on Lomborg instead?
I see Jennifer has resurrected Cosmic Rays! Hooray!
Trained in Biology as I was at a tender age, the nuclear/thorium alternative worries me from a risk perspective. We’ll be exchanging carbon pollution for isotope pollution. From an ecosystemic perspective, they are both pollutants when present in excess. Certainly carbon is beneficial (essential as carbon-based life forms), but since the industrial revolution we have been producing CO2 at a prodigious manner. It must affect the dynamics of the system some how. Same thing with radio isotopes. Sure, they’re natural and cycle through the system, but adding prodigiously greater amounts must again change the dynamics – probably in deleterious ways. Yep, there are well-reasoned arguments to be presented for safe storage, but we are dealing with the risk of profound genetic damage in the case of a cataclysmic event, say in 10,000 years time.
Equally there are well-reasoned arguments for diversified energy networks, with the potential to meet our energy needs sustainably (or less wastefully) through micro-distributed energy networks – solar, geo-thermal, etc. The novel and radical idea that each house and community can be predominantly responsible for their own energy generation thus reducing the dependency on global energy corporations sucking a 15% annual dividend out of it. More small enterprises, employment, educational opportunities, export opportunities. Like an ecosystem, diversity brings stability.
Meanwhile debates such as this one have people at loggerheads over whether carbon pollution causes global warming or not, when really the issue is a political/ideological one. Are we part of an inextricably intertwined system of infinite complexity or are we masters of our own destiny?
Not being a testosterone charged hairy chested warrior, I subscribe to the system view.
Cohenite,
You know you didn’t actually say what was wrong with number 1. Did it not fit the legal definition of Perjury? Or was it because other people wanted skeptics arrested?
“Decentralized alternative are by definition inefficient compared to centralized power generation and distribution.”
You have a citation for that? How is central power distribution inherently more efficient than than distributed networks? Infrastructure is required by both – in the case of centralised systems massive concentration of capital – in the case of distributed networks the required capital is dispersed. You’d really have to do the math to draw such a glib conclusion. The newly emerging network science is developing some rather profound understandings about the physical and interactional dynamics of networks. The science of the 21st century, some are calling it.
But you are right, industrial society has run on cheap energy. And therein lies our present dilemma. It’s getting more expensive and more people are competing for it. Hey we even have wars over it. I can’t see any long term solution out of more of the same. Reduce our dependence on global corporations and we’ll reduce the rate at which we deplete the earth of valuable resources. If there is a way to live both prosperously and peacefully then it’s going to depend on sustainability, not profit-reaping growth forever.
NT; there are 3 things wrong with no1; firstly Tamino is a smart guy but he is prone to fudging and being so smart one has to wonder why he fudges; for example, a confidence level with temp stats is basically to do with the end point of a series; IPCC estimates of temp trends are based on end point series which is wrong as these graphs show;
http:woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1978/to:1994/trend/plot/uah/from:1978/to:1994
http:woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:1995/to:2000
http:woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2009
Note the trends, yet Tamino and others claim there is an overall increase in temp over the 20ThC; remember the little discussion we had with Bob Tisdale and the internal temp trends of PDO phases? The point is there are many ways of arguing temp data and trends; the people who Tamino alledged were guilty of perjury had a legitimate view. The second thing is that leading advocates of AGW are promoting civil disobedience; this is gross hypocrisy with, on the one hand people like Tamino pushing for legal sanction while his allies are promoting law breaking; but hey, when you have morality on your side you are above the law or at least logic. The third aspect is discussed in item 3 of the list; namely Tamino is far from perfect, so he shouldn’t be on his high horse.
Hi slim:
“Decentralized alternative are by definition inefficient compared to centralized power generation and distribution.”
You have a citation for that? How is central power distribution inherently more efficient than than distributed networks?
commoditized production is by definition more efficient done centrally than otherwise. the reason is that we can get economies of scale that allows decreasing marginal costs. It’s simply a fact based in economics. In other words it is always best say to make one size of shoe (like electricity) in massive runs as marginal costs begin to fall with each pair produced.
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.
Good selection. Now lets see the “10 most foppish trolls”. Nearly half of my nominations frequent (afflict) this site.
Slim,
I do not think that any educated person would object to good husbanding of resources and keeping enough oil in the ground for the generations to come.
This is one story, and anthropogenic CO2 is another. I am a retired particle physicist and have started studying this subject since last november. Before that, I had assumed that the “experts” knew what they were talking about, as I knew what is what in my field. I was surprised by some of the IPCC claims, particularly of the disappearance of the Medieval warm period, of which I had some incidental knowledge, and started delving into AR4. I was horrified at what was being pushed as science:spaghetti plots of educated guesses by modelers, projections and scenaria. Particularly as in chapter 8 it is blithely admitted that the errors depend on the experience of the modelers because no hard measures of likelihood have been developed for climate models. The “fits” of the models to data other than temperature were terrible. A total mess, in my not so humble opinion.
After that I started reading up on the objections to what was being served as a scientific consensus. I am sure if more scientists took the trouble to read a bit, and not trust the scientific integrity of the IPCC modelers they would join the skeptics in droves.
So the real question is not whether one wants a sustainable environment or economy or what not. The real question is since CO2 can only be beneficial for the world, ( the warming being just a scarecrow based on bad science) what will be the cost of following these idiotic sequestration and cap and trade plans, not to us comfortable middle class scientists and dilettantes ( let us eat bread instead of cake) but to the third world that lives on 1$ a day and already, after the ethanol fiasco, is at the brink of starvation.
With no effect on the climate ( temperature it is in stasis now and there is a good probability it will cool further even though CO2 is climbing merrily), millions will die because energy will become too expensive for them, because the west will not buy their food and flowers, but only their carbon credits leaving them in the mud for ever. Alternative energies cannot fulfill the needs in energy of the west, and much more cannot fulfill the needs of the third world. Wind, solar, tides, need huge reservoirs to give energy back for when there is no wind and sun, and technology has not been developed yet for this.
It is ironic that the only energy that can fulfill the agenda of the AGW crowd is nuclear. If we wait 50 years, fusion will come on line with clean energy for all, but at the moment one has the known reactors which also help proliferate bombs ( think of the fuss with Iran). That is what will happen when push comes to shove, because the world must have energy, if not from coal then from nuclear.
Thanks Gary; I’ll probably leave that one to a braver person; and thanks to all others who attempted to meaningfully discuss the list and didn’t lapse into reflexive opposition; and a perceptive summary from Anna v to finish up.
A final point; Mr Arthur Smith has made a comment at eli’s blog; to wit;
“The typically incoherent Mr Cohenite has actually collected a nice sample of good denialist debunking there, For example, his objection in Eli’s case (#2) seems to come from his not realizing that a mathematical symbol (in this case ‘r’) may be used in several different ways in the same paper. Eli’s article was perfectly accurate in discussing the issue of different valus of ‘r’ given the introduction of that as the power-law for averaging in the original “GMST’ article on p. 15:
“The raw and derived data are related by y=x^r for positive r..”
Actually I do realise that, which is why I referred to Essex’s definition of ‘r’ in my post:
“local equilibrium states in a field are defined at a particular location, r” (p6)
Essex et al deal with a lot of values of ‘r’ and their conclusions are graphed on p 21; the value of 3 which eli gives ‘r’ is one of the few which produces a+ve anomaly, but all different values of ‘r’ produce different results; as you’d expect if the value of ‘r’ corresponds to different local equlibriums; since different equilibriums produce different results this rather tends to prove Essex’s conclusions rather than eli’s.
“commoditized production is by definition more efficient done centrally than otherwise. the reason is that we can get economies of scale that allows decreasing marginal costs.”
This assumes that the only cost is money and doesn’t account for utilisation of local energy sources, or for unemployed local cobblers for that matter. If AGW is found to be true then there will be many hidden costs that aren’t factored in. What to speak of the enormous costs associated with securing oil supplies through the invasion of Iraq, for example.
“The real question is since CO2 can only be beneficial for the world”
Not sure how we leap from there are issues and uncertainties with the science to CO2 emissions can only be beneficial. Sounds more like a leap of faith. That just underscores my point – we all tend to believe what we prefer to believe, and use the lack of consensus in the science to shore up that belief. If one thing is certain about climate science and AGW it is that we don’t actually know beyond all reasonable doubt. It’s still an open question, and one on which we should act with caution to minimise risks.
The suggestion that we are honour bound to continue with our economic growth just as it is in order to save the third world from poverty sounds noble but is a crock. We’ve been promising this for decades and it hasn’t happened. If anything, in the balance, our Western prosperity comes at great cost to the Third World. We’ve also been promised for decades that while we agree there are environmental issues of concern to us all, we can really only do something about it when we have a prosperous economy. Well we’ve been an unprecedented period of prosperity and apparently we still can’t afford to do anything about it. Now we have a crisis of faith in the global free market economy and obviously we can’t afford to do anything about it now.
However, events will overtake us. The neocon dream is in its death throes. The old certainties are no longer certain. We have to look beyond the old systems as being the only way to peace and prosperity.
“If anything, in the balance, our Western prosperity comes at a great cost to the Third World.”
Now, this is one of the foundationstones of what I descibe as the anti-materalist, anti-consumerist, pro-nature opposition to AGW, championed by such people a Hamilton and, most hypocritically, Gore. It is one of the specific issues which Lomborg looks at in The Skeptical Environmentalist; it is simply wrong; it is even wrong from an environmental conservation viewpoint because better farming methods, including GM application, means there is less stress on forests and the diversity they contain; the irony is, it will be pro-AGW measures, such as the ethanol debacle which impact on third world countries more than prosperity; it is an established fact that it is only when people feel prosperous that the birthrate declines (Islam is an exception, but religious edicts are also constrained by relative prosperity), but even without a decline in birthrate the benefits of globalisation and exported prosperity are unquestionable; the key is energy; you, as with every other exponent of alternative energy source and sustainability (Slim life is not ‘sustainable’; everytime I hear this inane word I feel like screaming entropy you dopes!), always point to potential and what is too come; the fact is there are no alternative energies running in the world today in a way that would suggest they can replace conventional energy sources; for example look at Germany, the bastion of alternative energies; they get nothing, in practical terms, from wind or solar, and have to import dirty energy from Russia and make substantial use of Nuclear. Ditto for California.
Cohenite
This is where you get your data?
“It is one of the specific issues which Lomborg looks at in The Skeptical Environmentalist; it is simply wrong;”
That’s really good Cohnite. You get your data from some book written nearly a decade ago? Or did you get an updated version?
Again, all you have is some weird conspiracy theory coupled with this ‘AGW is anti-Capitalism’ sentiment. I am glad this has surfaced, that you are finally able to announce the true basis of your skepticism.
“(Slim life is not ’sustainable’; everytime I hear this inane word I feel like screaming entropy you dopes!)”
Ha ha haaaaa, Life is not sustainable! so when will it end? In around 4 billion years time? It’s done pretty well so far though, lasting around 3 billion. It’s funny how you declare life is not sustainable, but that perpetual growth is. Can you not see the arguments are mutually exclusive?
And by the way, what is wrong with being “anti-materalist, anti-consumerist,”? Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Using less… Consuming less… Why is that necessarily bad?
Cohenite:
Lambert wrote a dishonest post about this thread. Maybe you ought to do an update with particular emphasis on how he’s trying to distort the lies he posted on Lomborg in the link you cited. He deserves as much scorn as you could possibly offer.
You’re not the only one to pick up on Lambert’s dishonesty. The editor of On Line Opinion has described him as the most dishonest bully in Australian blogging.
It’s amusing how how Lambert walked away from a bet on a topic he implies is a sure thing. What’s even more amusing is some time ago Lambert was mocking sceptics that wouldn’t take bets.
I would add to the Editor of ONO’s comment and suggest like all bullies Lambert is also a first rate coward.
Look at what lambert wrote about your link to Tamino’s post.
Cohenite doesn’t seem to understand conditionals. Tamino is accusing them of dishonesy (sic), not perjury.
Tamino was clearly suggesting it is the equivalent of perjury. He even uses the word “perjury”. In fact Tamino’s thread was titled “ Perjury”.
Perjury
April 16, 2008 · 203 Comments
If you testify in a court of law in the United States, you have to swear an oath to be honest. This oath requires you to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If you violate this oath in sworn testimony, you’re guilty of the crime of perjury: deliberately giving false or misleading testimony under oath.
Lambert’s “dihonesy” (sic) is so clumsy it’s stupid.
Ender, the Hamilton disciple, is over at Lambert’s thread kicking up a treat. This is really fun. It’s like a battered husband’s thread over there and the cowardly Rabbet’s websites.
Ra; I guess I’m non persona grata at Deltoid now; oh well.
NT; you nong; that is the whole point of Lomborg’s book; that the whole world is generally better off; does that mean everyone is better off; well no, of course not; but the big worry are utopian solutions; the real solution is to plug away at the system we have and not throw the baby out with the bath-water; anyway, Lomborg’s 1st book was published in 2001 and “Cool It” in 2007, so I hardly think they are out of date yet. With sustainability you are being disingenuous; basic physics; left to its devices any system will increase in entropy; what Slim is offering is a steady state situation where humanity cannot increase the natural energy available to us; that is a contradiction in terms because that means humanity cannot increase; why should we not have the option of increasing our numbers and exploring space; as a matter of interest, what are your views on space exploration, and how do you propose doing that using wind or solar power?
Cohenite is misrepresenting sustainability and conflating living systems with entropy. Yeah sure, the universe is going to disappear down a black hole or up its own fundament sooner or later, but meanwhile life goes on. To quote Wikipedia, for convenience, the term sustainability has its roots in ecology as the ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes, functions, biodiversity and productivity into the future. To be sustainable, nature’s resources must be used at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. There is now clear scientific evidence from environmental science that humanity is living unsustainably, and that an unprecedented collective effort is needed to keep human use of natural resources within sustainable limits.
This is why sustainability is anathema to those of us who prefer the 10% growth forever free-market model. To accept the need for carbon abatement is to acknowledge the importance of sustainability. It simply isn’t possible for the remaining 90% of the planet’s population to enjoy the same level of prosperity as the privileged top 10%, let alone the top 10%. The system is straining as it is and something will give sooner or later.
We either try to ameliorate our impact or party like there’s no tomorrow. Hey we can always find another planet to live on with our nuclear rocket ships if we trash this one!
Cohenite,
What a trivial response.
“left to its devices any system will increase in entropy;” Only if there is no external energy source… The Earth has the Sun… Remember? So the system that is decreasing in entropy is… The whole Solar System.
Space travel currently uses solar and nuclear. Can’t have coal fired space ships.
It’s also not very close. I am all for space travel, would be an unbelievable honour. I don’t think it will seriously happen until we have some sort of ‘space elevator’ to easily lift material to LEO, and fusion power. Not much will happen before then. It’s a long way off. It’s not really a solution.
I don’t understand why you have such an aversion to wind and solar.
Do you understand, or have you studied any natural resource management? Can you think of any resource that is managed such that it won’t deplete. How many resources, that were available to us, are no longer available? Resources are not infinite.
How many other Earth-like planets have we found? We have to work with what we have, not in some fantasy Star Wars world where we just move to another planet.
Well Slim, that is the problem, isn’t it; either the 3rd world stays where they are in terms of living standards, or the West drops back to meet them them a long way down from where we are; I think there would be a direct relationship between the mooted decline in emissions, over 50% and preferably 80%, and the decline Westerners would have to incur to allow the 3rd world to come up the reduced standard; this is assuming that your scenario that unacceptable degradation of natural indices is to be avoided; Lomborg argues that that stark choice is not inevitable, but in any event hard choices will have to be made; such as deplenished natural range for animals; but I would agree with you that localised pollution issues should be addressed and minimised; and I’m chuffed that you share my enthusiasm for space exploration; for a while there I thought you might be one of those types who would resist the idea because it would despoil the pristine nature of whatever planet we landed and set up business on:-)
me: The real question is since CO2 can only be beneficial for the world
Slim: Not sure how we leap from there are issues and uncertainties with the science to CO2 emissions can only be beneficial.
me: I thought I was addressing somebody with some encyclopedic knowledge.
Once it dawns on you that CO2 is not heating up the planet, (other things were, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, PDO which is now in a cooling mode,) you will realize that CO2 is essential to life and an increase of it increases proportionately food production. There has been an enormous increase in plants since CO2 started its meager rise with the last warm PDO. Do you know that greenhouses, the ones that grow tomatoes etc, go up to 1000ppm to feed the plants?
Did you know that humans are comfortable with 1000ppm ( often in theatres and closed spaces) because we evolved in such atmospheres? I just read of a paper where the physiology of our lungs is crucially dependent on alveoles with high CO2 so that the oxygen exchange can happen. Search it on Google.
That is what I mean by beneficial once the scarecrow of warming is debunked.
NT; I asked Slim for examples of where wind and solar are substituting for traditional power sources; maybe you can enlighten me; if these sources of energy could do the job without diminishing living standards then I have no ideological attachment to coal, oil etc ( some of my aquaintances who work in coal and oil may not be as sanguine though; and indeed the employment and social restructuring issues are simply being rose-coloured by the sustainable advocates); as for space travel; I find your pessimissm typical of the youth of today; for example if we are going to rely on rockets, then nuclear fission rather than liquid or solid chemical propellant is the answer; the elevator to aid escape from the gravity well is an idea that has been around for a long time; personally I think Casimir ‘propulsion’ is an idea worth exploring along with nuclear/ion drive combinations. You just have no imagination and get up and go!
Yes anna, I am more than familiar with biology – I once worked as a medical biochemist, so I am passingly familiar with CO2 and its place in the carbon cycle. I am also made of more than 90% water, but I wouldn’t want to live in an aquatic environment.
I am not aware that the scarecrow of warming, or the role of increased carbon emissions in it, has been debunked. I appreciate that many people wish it so. Equally there are many more who don’t think it so. Sure, there is dispute among scientists, but nothing like a concrete conclusion that CO2 has no role, indeed far from it.
I am interested to know how you can categorically declare that CO2 is not heating the planet – if it was that simple, this debate would be more pointless than it is. Are you saying that even if CO2 is not involved in global warming, it is actually beneficial to add billions of tonnes to the atmosphere every year? Because plants grow faster? They grow faster with fertiliser too, but we’ve long since realised that it must be used judiciously, lest there are unintended consequences with run off into natural ecosystems.
Cohenite – it’s not simply and either/or with fossil and renewable energy. It is not at all difficult to reduce our requirement from the traditional grid by 30-60%. That has to be a good thing. There are many examples. Just Google energy self-sufficent towns and you will find many real world examples.
Cohenite.
More garbage
“I find your pessimissm typical of the youth of today; for example if we are going to rely on rockets, then nuclear fission rather than liquid or solid chemical propellant is the answer; the elevator to aid escape from the gravity well is an idea that has been around for a long time; personally I think Casimir ‘propulsion’ is an idea worth exploring along with nuclear/ion drive combinations. You just have no imagination and get up and go!”
I wasn’t being pessimistic, I was saying that we don’t have the technology to go to some other planet, nor do we have a target planet. You are living in la la land.
We already use Wind Power in WA.
It’s interesting that you see me as being pessimistic for not evisioning an imaginary future where we can fly space ships to other worlds, yet you see it as ‘realistic’ (not pessimistic) that there is no way we can move to Solar and alternative engery over coal. At least solar techonology exists… You seem to make a art out of mutually exclusive thinking.
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…
“then nuclear fission rather than liquid or solid chemical propellant is the answer”
Ummm this sounds a bit silly to me, you may have to check with a rocket scientist. Fission isn’t that great for fast acceleration, unless you plan to explode a nuclear bomb under the rocket.
Anna V
“The real question is since CO2 can only be beneficial for the world”
How can it be “only beneficial”? Too much of anything is a bad thing.
Tell you what get a bucket, light a fire in it, wait for the fire to extinguish, then attempt to breathe the contents of the bucket.
NT
I thought I was discoursing with adults.
400 ppm, means four hundred parts per million, i.e 0.0004 of the atmosphere in a while will have CO2.
1000ppm means 0.001 of the atmosphere . We evolved when the CO2 in the atmosphere was with 0.004 or more.
I am a lady and do not want to tell you what to do with your bucket.
Ah, and the responsibility of man on this number is another tiny percent of this.
I have replied to Slim with links, it seems the system is careful of links.
To suggest that we can afford to increase atmospheric CO2 concentration (even quadruple) simply because it is present in low concentrations is without evidence. It is mere speculation.
Certain hormones or enzyme co-factors may be present in very low concentrations and to suggest that they can be double or quadrupled without pathogenic effects is clearly nonsense. No-one can say with certainty that doubling CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be without effect, no matter how much we may wish or believe it to be so. And for what? So we burn up fossil fuels in a profligate manner?
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.
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.