“Many have criticised the scientific debate [on climate change] for becoming politicised – whether that be in terms of underplaying or overplaying the dangers presented by climate change – and this is an important issue to explore. But what has really been lacking in recent years is any substantive political debate about how we should view and respond to climate change. This has led to a situation where the IPCC, an unelected body, holds an unprecedented influence on the lives of everyone on the planet – and any attempt to question this body’s legitimacy or actions is shouted down as ‘denial’ of the scientific facts. In discussing the origins of the climate change issue and the IPCC, this essay raises the following questions:
1. How much of the global warming issue is shaped by new scientific discoveries, and how much by broader cultural and political trends?
2. How has the interaction between scientists, international institutions, governments, media and activists influenced the development of climate change policy?
3. Was the establishment of the IPCC a visionary act or an expression of political implosion in the West?
This essay does not attempt to provide a comprehensive history of the global warming issue; rather its aim is to contribute to the start of a critique. For whatever the facts about climate change can tell us, they do not tell us that the debate is over…
To keep reading this essay by Tony Gilland click here: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3540/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Tony Gilland politicises the debate by:
1. Suggesting that the IPCC holds unprecedented influence on everyones’ lives, when in fact the IPCC has no regulatory control whatsoever. Rather, governments can choose to act on the advice of the IPCC, or ignore it, much as they can do with virtually any other scientific publication or body of work.
2. Confusing the scientific and advisory role of the IPCC (which should not require the election to public office) with the role of elected politicians in creating legislation.
I would suggest that Tony has little understanding of the varying roles and responsibilities of your average climate scientist compared to an IPCC author, compared to an elected politician or govt. I would further suggest that in his effort to construct an argument to fit with his own world view, he has conveniently smeared all these concepts together. The resulting conglomeration of ideas is misleading and ugly i’m afraid, the product of someone who has set out to prove their world view rather than uncover the truth.
I would suggest that label of ‘essay’ should not be applied to any piece of writing that includes such a loaded and unscholarly question as number 3 above. A more fitting title is ‘polemic’ or ‘rant’.
Having said that, I agree that there is a deficiency in the POLITICAL debate about how we should respond to climate change.
As I’ve said on this blog before, part of this deficiency can be sheeted home to elements of the conservative side of politics, who are wasting their time in feeble debates about the science, instead of putting a bit of brain time into pondering and arguing the merits of particular responses.
Certainly in Australia at present with an election coming up, government policy is awash with populist, ineffectual, and/or innappropriate policy responses.
These range from buckets of money for lame technologies that are in favour with certain lobby groups, to horrible and draconian measures banning particular technolgies in a residential setting (such as banning incandescent lightbulbs, or electric hot water). Such bans in the residential setting work because it is more politically expedient to hurt all of the general public, than to do something effective and economically rational, like emissions trading, which will focus on the organisations who are doing most of the emitting.
We need some level headed and progressive conservatives (to coin a lovely oxymoron) who can leave the scientific debate to the ob-coms who just can’t let it go, and move on to putting some serious thought into the policy response.
Instead, the conservative side of the political debate is mired in conspiracy theories, tabloid research that is big on ‘ah hah!!!’s and light on consensus (see climate audit), and an over-inflated fear of the influence of green NGOs (who i assure you are substantially less influential with the current Australian Govt than, say, the Exclusive Brethren).
Steve, who funds the IPCC and who is the Summary For Policymakers written for?
Paul do you know any IPCC authors? Have you spoken to any?
We should be aware that exposure to radioactivity can cause unusual effects, one being multi-poster-syndrome, where the same person posts comments here under various noms des plumes.
Our first poster here is Steve but reading his post one quickly realises it is Ender.
Then we have Luke, AKA Phil Done, or other CO@ worshippers who write under initials.
Of course sceptics here also write under noms des plumes and well they might if their employers discover who they are.
I wrote under a noms des plume once because Henry Thornton told me to – Genghis Khan – which one HT reader wanted sacked and censored for his politically incorrect views. Henry ignored that censorship.
So who is Steve really?
And our side is mired in conspiracy theories? Steve’s side of politics thinks that President Bush is the great Satan, run by the Military Industrial Comples and Bilderberg group and Halliwell. (Actually look at the source of the money – it’s the Saudis and the Wahabbies).
Steve – the definition of a conservative is simply one who accepts that if something isn’t broke, then there is no reason to fix it. Your lot can’t accept reality and thus continually want to change it for something different. Your lot has despatched more members of humanity off this mortal coil than anyone else.
So for a start please educate yourself about the Scientific Method – you seem totally ignorant of it.
Luke,
right on cue – answers a question with a question – standard debating technique of a loser.
Or is it Phil, or Luke, or Steve, or Ender – are they actually all the same person and thus a virtual Hydra ?
They do think alike.
For another excellent contribution from ‘Spiked’:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3738/
I know one, Luke. He’s a card carrying member of Greenpeace, the Labor Party, he wears tie died jeans. No, wait, he doesn’t, he’s none of the above.
Actually how improbable that anyone would be called Hissink – is this a joke too. More importantly Louis is that you know us by ours words – and Louis I’m still waiting for your apology on yesterday’s complete misrepresentation of an article you have not read. You cad !
And would this be the Louis who revised Newtonian mechanics – warning – do not read while drinking coffee. http://timlambert.org/2004/12/hissink/
Was this the Louis who “threw random grenades into the blogosphere”
And you have the temerity to lecture us on the scientific method.
You scoundrel !
As for worshipping CO2 – yes I do – I’m watching the little bubbles rise through a brown amber liquid right now.
When we form world goverment Louis you’ll be the first against the wall. Then we will then tickle you with feather dusters and go koochy koo – “who’s a norty little denialist then”.
“Steve – the definition of a conservative is simply one who accepts that if something isn’t broke, then there is no reason to fix it. Your lot can’t accept reality and thus continually want to change it for something different. Your lot has despatched more members of humanity off this mortal coil than anyone else.”
No, a conservative is some who wants things to stay the same. Such an attitude brings up a dilemma which is usually ignored. Is wanting things to stay the same best served by making them stay the same, or take the King Canute attitude to the world, and pretending it’s it’s just a matter of pretending they aren’t broke.
“The UN’s all-powerful climate change panel is no straightforward scientific body. It is a deeply political organisation that was born out of disenchantment with progress.”
All powerful? That’s an ironic joke, isn’t it? No, it’s not. If it was all powerful, it would have had the recommendation it makes implemented and actively encouraged by world governments by now. The most powerful government, the US, has so far not ratified it. How “all-powerful” is that?
“When we form world goverment Louis you’ll be the first against the wall. Then we will then tickle you with feather dusters and go koochy koo – “who’s a norty little denialist then”.
Brief confirmed.
Better watch out for the feather dusters, Louis. I especially picked yours to be ultra tickly. I even put plenty of dust in them, to make your hay fever play up.
Luke
Your post above quoting my comments at Tim Lambert’s blog are wrong.
Lambert seems, according to you, to quote my comments without citing a source.
So,
both you and he, in the words of Nigel Calder, are liars.
Refute it with facts please.
No Louis you’re the liar and an old crook and you know it. He’s quoted at source ! Do you deny the sources he’s listed ?
Come on – put up !
http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=2963
http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=2982
In this era information is power. Withholding info or tailoring the delivery in such a way as to make your lack of info seem superior to those whose info is being censored, is the height of power in the information age.
I can’t recall any other organization which can call press conferences at will, and declare that the reason for said organzation’s being is the most pressing crisis the world has ever faced and then asert that further argument is a crime called “denial”.
To say “Suggesting that the IPCC holds unprecedented influence on everyones’ lives, when in fact the IPCC has no regulatory control whatsoever.” is willful ignorance.
“Confusing the scientific and advisory role of the IPCC (which should not require the election to public office) with the role of elected politicians in creating legislation”
As far as I have seen the IPCC has confused science with sticking ones fingers in ones ears and yelling the debate is over.
Louis – Ask Jennifer if I have posted here before this one. This is the first post in this thread that I have made.
Paul asks politely:
“Steve, who funds the IPCC and who is the Summary For Policymakers written for?”
Why hasn’t this been answered? All i saw was an attempt (successful apparently) to turn an honest questiion into a personality conflict.
Louis, you might well have multiple personalities, but I don’t. Ender is Steve Gloor. I am not he.
The IPCC is of course funded by taxpayers, including US and Australian taxpayers, via their govts, via the UN (or so i assume).
However, TV shows such as Media Watch, and the judiciary, and universities, and hospitals are also funded by govts.
Do you mean to imply anything by this Paul? Cmon out with it: lets here your conspiracy theory.
———
To say “Suggesting that the IPCC holds unprecedented influence on everyones’ lives, when in fact the IPCC has no regulatory control whatsoever.” is willful ignorance.
No, its not. Of course the IPCC holds influence. This influence was built, through a decade of negotiations between the govts of countries, with heavy input from all manner of lobbyists.
However, it doesn’t hold the reigns of power, or any decision making authority when it comes to legislation within a country. The responses of the US Govt and the Australian Govt should highlight to you that it is more than possible for a govt to interpret the pronouncements of the IPCC in their own best interests.
Those govts are elected by us. Don’t like the way the govt is responding to the IPCC? Then vote for another party. Oh, are both major parties and the Nationals, and the Greens, and the Democrats in Australia failing to respond to the IPCC in a way that you agree with? Well welcome to the extreme minority. Enjoy yourself.
Also don’t shoot the science just because you don’t like the policy response or bad news – totally irrational but common.
The IPCC’s financial statements are available and have been featured on this blog before.
The IPCC is funded by WMO and UNEP and funds solicited from participating countries.
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/procd.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
The SPM is obviously an executive summary for policy makers and those who cannot be bothered wading through the full documentation. If anything it sounded like it was watered down or neutered somewhat to appease various countries delegations. So left to their own devices the scientists may have been more strident in their assessment.
In any case the IPCC WG1 documents are very factual and non-emotional. How many people who are critical of this business have even read the 4AR reports?
Maybe the documents are factual and unemotional but their production was not;
David Henderson
Abstract
“Governments, and in particular the governments of the OECD member countries, are mishandling climate change issues. Both the basis and the content of official policies are open to serious question. Too much reliance is placed on the established process of review and inquiry which is conducted through the agency of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This process, which is wrongly taken to be objective and authoritative, has been made the point of departure for over-presumptive conclusions which are biased towards alarm, in the mistaken belief that “the science is settled.” Rather than pursuing as a matter of urgency ambitious and costly targets for drastic further curbing of CO2 emissions, governments should take prompt steps to ensure that they and their citizens are more fully and more objectively informed and advised. This implies both improving the IPCC process and going beyond it. As to the content of policy, it is not the case that the choice now lies between two extremes, of no action and the immediate adoption of much stronger measures to curb emissions. The orientation of policies should be made more evolutionary and less presumptive, with actual policy measures focusing more on carbon taxes rather than the present and prospective array of costly and intrusive regulatory initiatives.”
http://ideas.repec.org/a/wej/wldecn/279.html
You cant blame Louis for the confusion, Steve Gloor (page title Stephen Gloor) posts as Ender whilst who knows what Luke is up to.
Nobody will take you seriously if you cant even get your name right.
Yea well what would some contrarian Tory say eh? Might as well ask you for an opinion. Anyway if the Australian and US governments can keep their own counsel and be recalcitrant what’s stopping these other dudes? Does the IPCC hold these governments at gunpoint? Have they no other capacity? Are they paralysed with fear that the IPCC might write them a strong memo? ooooo wa !
rog – “You cant blame Louis for the confusion, Steve Gloor (page title Stephen Gloor) posts as Ender whilst who knows what Luke is up to.”
So you have a problem with me shortening my firstname spelt Stephen to Steve??????? What else should I use Steph??????????? I just got used to posting as Ender and never have hidden my real name.
Now who is the person behind rog I wonder?
“No, a conservative is some who wants things to stay the same. Such an attitude brings up a dilemma which is usually ignored. Is wanting things to stay the same best served by making them stay the same, or take the King Canute attitude to the world, and pretending it’s it’s just a matter of pretending they aren’t broke.”
(Posted by: SJT at August 22, 2007 10:04 PM).
Josie Appleton (link above) argues that the irrational fear of climate change represents the new face of conservatism:
“Climate change ethics represent a new conservatism, only this is a conservatism that has no social good that it wants to defend, no traditional institutions, traditional culture, or traditional communities. With eco-ethics, both the anxiety about change and the objective of social stability are discussed in terms of the flux of wind and rain. Eco-ethics critiques social change by talking about melting ice and confused beavers; and it aims to stabilise society by gearing all aspects of life towards the goal of a stable climate.”
The King Canute allusion completely escapes me.
King Canute thought he could hold back the tide by commanding it to retreat, while deceiving himself that he could command it to retreat. That is what is happening now with the temperature rise, people denying reality to themselves.
Sorry SJT, but I think you have the legend a..e about:
“Canute is most commonly understood to be the man who tried to command the waves. As it is told in legend, the king grew tired of flattery from his courtiers. When one such flatterer gushed that Canute was so great, he might even command the sea itself, he was angry. Canute thought it right to prove his courtier wrong with a demonstration (at Southampton or Bosham; other sources say these events took place near his palace at Westminster). When the waves did not turn back at his word, Canute said that even a king’s powers have limits. At his failure to command the waves, it is told, he piously removed his crown, refusing to wear it again, for to him there was no true king except God.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canute_the_Great
Why the IPCC has an Agenda
by David Wojick
Question – How many scientists are on the IPCC?
Answer – none – it’s a trick question. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not made up of scientists. In fact, it is not made up of people, but of countries. Of course, there are many people, including many scientists, in its loosely defined organization. However, the members of the Panel itself are countries, mostly underdeveloped countries. This is important.
The IPCC should be called the UN-IPCC. That it is not so called, masks the fact that it is a UN agency, with UN goals. The IPCC is a joint subsidiary of the UN Environmental Program and the (UN) World Meteorological Organization. All members (countries) of UNEP and WMO are eligible to be members of the (UN)IPCC.
UNEP, which probably really runs the IPCC, is a radical green organization. It has organized, and helps administer, all the global and regional environmental Conventions supported by the UN.
In particular, UNEP organized the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is both a document and another UN organization. UNEP makes clear that the IPCC was organized in 1988 to provide the scientific framework for the 1992 UNFCCC. Likewise, the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment Report was the primary input into the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (to the UNFCCC). In fact, the UNFCCC says explicitly that the IPCC is its mandatory scientific source and provides the tasking for the IPCC.
Moreover, though not widely reported in the U.S., Article 4 of the UNFCCC requires developed countries to pay all the developing countries’ costs of mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. On paper at least, they stand to get huge sums for “capacity building” and “technology transfer”, the UN jargon for developed-country climate subsidies to the third world. The developing countries are well aware of this as yet unfulfilled promise of riches.
The promised UNFCCC largesse is predicated on the principle of dangerous human influence on climate (Article 2). And UNEP has repeatedly stated its acceptance of this principle. Given this organizational (and funding) nexus, one can hardly believe that the (UN)IPCC is neutral or unbiased.
In fact, the Preface to the 1995 Second Assessment report from Working Group I (“The Science of Climate Change”) is quite candid. It says that “…the underlying aim of this report is to provide objective information on which to base global change policies that will meet the ultimate aim of the FCCC – expressed in Article 2 of the Convention…” Thus, it is clear that the IPCC is never going to contradict, or even weaken, Article 2 of the FCCC.
It is true that many of the volunteer scientists who work on IPCC reports may be unbiased. Indeed, there are many statements in the technical pages of the IPCC Assessment Reports that express skepticism or stress uncertainty regarding the human role in climate. However, the organization and guiding principles of the IPCC are against such skeptical views, and they do not appear in the Assessment summaries, or in any of the other IPCC reports.
Regarding the Assessments, there are other organizational features that bias the result. Each of the three Working Groups is funded by, led by, and supported by an organization committed to the threat of human climate influence. In the case of Working Group II, this is the U.S. Global Change Research Program, whose $1.7 billion annual budget depends on that threat.
The (UN)IPCC is a party to the UN climate change agenda, along with the UNFCCC and UNEP. The fact that some, perhaps many, of the volunteer scientists who contribute to IPCC reports do not share this agenda is merely a smoke screen.
In short, the IPCC is a UN agency with a UN agenda.
SJT, your grasp of history is as fanciful and misinformed as your grasp of science.
King Canute did not believe that he could stop the tides.
He did what he did to prove to the masses that he was not infallible, and was not able to change nature.
As usual, you have got it arse about.
So do you know any IPCC scientists Paul?
Yes, why?
John Christy is an Author with the IPCC, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. Unlike many other Lead Authors he was not appointed by his government, and he considers that this situation arose most likely because the remainder were willing to adopt a particular viewpoint on causes of climate change not dissimilar to the views of their political appointees. Describing a gathering in New Zealand prior to publication of the IPCC TAR, he mentions how discussion at a meeting was cut short when serious objections were raised to a pet theory of the scientist leading the discussion. Such is the quality of open debate in IPCC circles.
Christy also points out that, in the IPCC’s third annual report, a future scenario involving a 6 degree C rise in temperature in the next 100 years was added to the report at a late stage in the review process at the request of a few governments. As is evident, political interference, not scientific reasoning, was responsible for the scary headlines the politicians required in order to justify their plans for taxes on energy and mobility. This extreme ‘storyline’, labelled A1F1 was one of 245, but it grabbed all the media attention. It required the most extreme outputs of greenhouse gases barely imaginable, the least possible countermeasures, and an atmosphere of the highest sensitivity to these factors. It was described by Christy as “the one that’s not going to happen”.
Christy isn’t the resigning type, but the likes of Reiter, Landsea, Pielke Sr have all resigned from the IPCC.
IPCC Reviewer Professor Kellow writes:
“I was a referee for Chapter 19 in the Report on ‘Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment’, and made in essence the criticism…that the whole exercise fails to take account of the increases in wealth that give rise to the emissions that drive the climate models, that drive the impact models.
It is nonsensical to suggest that vulnerabilities will be as they would be if the projected climates impacted upon present developing countries. The Report persists in this nonsense in the face of at least this reviewer drawing it to their attention, so the persistence is quite wilful.
It is, of course, such a fundamental criticism that it virtually renders the whole report invalid, so it was not likely to be well-received. I also added that the chapter exaggerated the hazards of climate change and almost totally ignored any benefits. I put it that the First Order Draft read as if (in a warmer, and therefore wetter, world) no rain would fall in any form that would be in any way useful to anyone: there would be only floods and droughts.
The Second Order Draft included some language to the effect that this was because the Committee had decided that it should be so, to which I responded that they should not then represent their analysis as a risk assessment, since any sensible risk assessment must include benefits as well as costs. I’m not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board either, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a Chapter ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.
But then I’ll be counted as one of the 2,500 experts who agree with this nonsense!”
“…The developing countries are well aware of this as yet unfulfilled promise of riches….” (Posted by: Paul Biggs at August 23, 2007 06:50 PM)
The ex Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart has confirmed this view:
“No matter if the science is all phony [sic], there are collateral environmental benefits…. Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Ironically, AGW enthusiasts who advocating the buying locally produced foods etc. only and foisting ‘renewable’ energy sources only on developing countries are eagerly working in the other direction.
Some alternative views on IPCC politics here:
Whose political agenda is reflected in the IPCC Working Group 1, Scientists or Politicians?
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/democratization_of_knowledge/001148whose_political_agen.html
Well listening to you and them there seems to be no similarity – little intrigue, no censorhip, lots of hard work and little thanks. Find it hard to believe that the great many are doing anything but their best. Would be interesting to have the personality profiles of those who have spat the dummy.
All in all very whingey Paul.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-21.htm
You know that that is? It’s the computer generated UN-IPCC official science from WG 1, very factually and non-emotionally “proving” that the gulf stream will collapse soon, plunging Europe into a very factual and non-emotional new ice age.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/ocean-circulation-new-evidence-yes-slowdown-no/
You know what this is? It’s real climate scientists complaining that the reporters they invited to the RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE are reporting that there will be RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE in the future. Wonder where they got that idea? Someone has been leading those gullable reporters astray.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;317/5840/935
Know what this is? It’s the results of the RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE SEABOURNE OBSERVATORY which confirm that the gulf stream is going strong. Not only not slowing down, it looks to be speeding up.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=708A8967-E7F2-99DF-3368594A3B3EFA47&chanId=sa013&modsrc=most_popular
Here’s the press report. I include this for one reason only. Somewhere between the RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE observatory’s launch and the publishing of it’s conclusions, the name of the program was, maybe not dropped altogether, but certainly de-emphasized. You won’t find it in even one report.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/who-ya-gonna-call/
Finally, you know what this is? It’s those same real climate scientists patting themselves on the back for saying low those many years ago, “maybe the ocean currents won’t stop, we just can’t tell yet.”
They whispered it. (probably not to Al Gore though).
Are you some sort of clown James – this is an evidence based blog matey so don’t bother peddling rampant dishonesty and unadulterated bulldust here.
Crap 1: You say “”proving” that the gulf stream will collapse soon, plunging Europe into a very factual and non-emotional new ice age.”
You dishonest scumbag positioning a graphic out of context with YOUR words substituted – the text of the TAR actually says:
“Most models show weakening of the ocean thermohaline circulation which leads to a reduction of the heat transport into high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. However, even in models where the thermohaline circulation weakens, there is still a warming over Europe due to increased greenhouse gases. The current projections using climate models do not exhibit a complete shut-down of the thermohaline circulation by 2100. Beyond 2100, the thermohaline circulation could completely, and possibly irreversibly, shut-down in either hemisphere if the change in radiative forcing is large enough and applied long enough. “
For good measure the 4AR says: “Although the MOC weakens in most model runs for the three SRES scenarios, none shows a collapse of the MOC by the year 2100 for the scenarios considered. No coupled model simulation of the Atlantic MOC shows a mean increase in the MOC in response to global warming by 2100. It is very unlikely that the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during the course of the 21st century. At this stage, it is too early to assess the likelihood of a large abrupt change of the MOC beyond the end of the 21st century.”
Crap 2:
You say: “It’s real climate scientists complaining that the reporters they invited to the RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE” NO – IT WAS NOT THEIR CONFERENCE AT ALL.
Crap 3:
You say: “Wonder where they got that idea? Someone has been leading those gullable reporters astray.” NO – WHAT REPORTERS NEVER GET THINGS WRONG. 100% BASELESS ASSERTION BY YOU. Pulled out of your bum.
Realclimate says: “Picking this out of the results is therefore a little perverse. The big story should have been the phenomenal effort that has gone into exploring this important issue, the much improved context for previous measurements and a welcome reassessment of the significance of previous results. It’s a shame the Guardian missed it.”
And also supported by http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/oct/30/guardianletters.climatechange
Crap 4:
You say :
“Somewhere between the RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE observatory’s launch and the publishing of it’s conclusions, the name of the program was, maybe not dropped altogether, but certainly de-emphasized. You won’t find it in even one report.”
WTF – oh look a whole web site on rapid with August 2007 reports !!! http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/rapid/kt/kt_sci2007.php
PRESS RELEASE here talking about RAPID.
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2007/29-rapid.asp
And oh look – John Church in Science discussing RAPID. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/317/5840/908
And papers last week discussing RAPID
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;317/5840/935
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;317/5840/938
RAPID RAPID RAPID RAPID
Crap 5:
You say “it looks to be speeding up” OH NO IT DOES NOT ! The paper which you obviously haven’t reads says:
“Without additional historical estimates to increase the degrees of freedom, it is unlikely that we will be able to conclusively demonstrate a change in the overturning circulation over the past 50 years.” .. .. .. ..
“Thus, although the intra-annual variability in the overturning demonstrates that we are unlikely to conclusively identify past changes in the overturning using only sparse basin margin densities at a single latitude, the observed temporal variability defines the limit of our ability to identify future changes. Fundamentally, we need longer time series of the overturning to define its interannual variability. Ten additional years of uninterrupted measurements would ensure that any seasonal cycles are well defined and would also refine the nature of interannual variations, whether they are oscillations, trends, or sudden shifts.”
Crap 6:
You say: It’s those same real climate scientists patting themselves on the back for saying low those many years ago, “maybe the ocean currents won’t stop, we just can’t tell yet.”
You’re quoting them ! Well it’s your quote not theirs. Those words appear nowhere.
Take a hike shonk !
Are you some sort of clown James – this is an evidence based blog matey so don’t bother peddling rampant dishonesty and unadulterated bulldust here.
Crap 1: You say “”proving” that the gulf stream will collapse soon, plunging Europe into a very factual and non-emotional new ice age.” You dishonest scumbag – the text of the TAR actually says:
“Most models show weakening of the ocean thermohaline circulation which leads to a reduction of the heat transport into high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. However, even in models where the thermohaline circulation weakens, there is still a warming over Europe due to increased greenhouse gases. The current projections using climate models do not exhibit a complete shut-down of the thermohaline circulation by 2100. Beyond 2100, the thermohaline circulation could completely, and possibly irreversibly, shut-down in either hemisphere if the change in radiative forcing is large enough and applied long enough. “
For good measure the 4AR says: “Although the MOC weakens in most model runs for the three SRES scenarios, none shows a collapse of the MOC by the year 2100 for the scenarios considered. No coupled model simulation of the Atlantic MOC shows a mean increase in the MOC in response to global warming by 2100. It is very unlikely that the MOC will undergo a large abrupt transition during the course of the 21st century. At this stage, it is too early to assess the likelihood of a large abrupt change of the MOC beyond the end of the 21st century.”
Crap 2:
You say: “It’s real climate scientists complaining that the reporters they invited to the RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE” NO – IT WAS NOT THEIR CONFERENCE AT ALL.
Crap 3:
You say: “Wonder where they got that idea? Someone has been leading those gullable reporters astray.” NO – WHAT REPORTERS NEVER GET THINGS WRONG. 100% BASELESS ASSERTION BY YOU. Pulled out of your bum.
Realclimate says: “Picking this out of the results is therefore a little perverse. The big story should have been the phenomenal effort that has gone into exploring this important issue, the much improved context for previous measurements and a welcome reassessment of the significance of previous results. It’s a shame the Guardian missed it.”
And also supported by http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/oct/30/guardianletters.climatechange
Crap 4:
You say :
“Somewhere between the RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE observatory’s launch and the publishing of it’s conclusions, the name of the program was, maybe not dropped altogether, but certainly de-emphasized. You won’t find it in even one report.”
WTF – oh look a whole web site on rapid with August 2007 reports !!! http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/rapid/kt/kt_sci2007.php
PRESS RELEASE here talking about RAPID.
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2007/29-rapid.asp
And oh look – John Church in Science discussing RAPID. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/317/5840/908
And papers last week discussing RAPID
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;317/5840/935
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;317/5840/938
RAPID RAPID RAPID RAPID
Crap 5:
You say “it looks to be speeding up” OH NO IT DOES NOT ! The paper which you obviously haven’t reads says:
“Without additional historical estimates to increase the degrees of freedom, it is unlikely that we will be able to conclusively demonstrate a change in the overturning circulation over the past 50 years.” .. .. .. ..
“Thus, although the intra-annual variability in the overturning demonstrates that we are unlikely to conclusively identify past changes in the overturning using only sparse basin margin densities at a single latitude, the observed temporal variability defines the limit of our ability to identify future changes. Fundamentally, we need longer time series of the overturning to define its interannual variability. Ten additional years of uninterrupted measurements would ensure that any seasonal cycles are well defined and would also refine the nature of interannual variations, whether they are oscillations, trends, or sudden shifts.”
Crap 6:
You say: It’s those same real climate scientists patting themselves on the back for saying low those many years ago, “maybe the ocean currents won’t stop, we just can’t tell yet.”
You’re quoting them ! Well it’s your quote not theirs. Those words appear nowhere.
Take a hike shonk !
So, touched a nerve did we? I didn’t read all though your rant Luke but just a glance tells me your feeling a bit emotional.
Come on now. Can you not see that “Thus, although the intra-annual variability in the overturning demonstrates that we are unlikely to conclusively identify past changes in the overturning using only sparse basin margin densities at a single latitude, the observed temporal variability defines the limit of our ability to identify future changes. Fundamentally, we need longer time series of the overturning to define its interannual variability. Ten additional years of uninterrupted measurements would ensure that any seasonal cycles are well defined and would also refine the nature of interannual variations, whether they are oscillations, trends, or sudden shifts.” is just a long version of “Maybe the gulf stream won’t stop. We just can’t tell yet.”
I abreviated their crap for your benefit.
You should say thank you.
I am assuming “shonk” isn’t Australian for thanks.
Mate – far from emotional at all – you’ve been caught lying your butt off !
You didn’t abbreviate – you fabricated.
And RC didn’t make your quote above – so WRONG again. Try to lay straight in bed.
There there. I know. Hurts when you find out superman can’t really stop bullets or leap tall buildings in a single bound.
Can I get you a tissue?
The real capper to the story is when Gavin Schmit remarks,
“In a sure-to-be widely publicized paper in the Dec. 1 Nature, Bryden et al. present results from oceanographic cruises at 25°N across the Atlantic showing a ~30% decline in the ocean overturning circulation. These cruises have been repeated every few years since 1957, and the last two cruises (in 1998 and 2004) show notable changes in the structure of the deep return circulation.”
Must be sweet, getting to take an expensive cruise on the company dime, promote fear and panic, and maintain the illusion of non partisan reasonable deniability, when the whole thing is found out.
And all we skeptics get are snipes from reality challenged, character assassins.
Peace out Jim
So we have some ex-hippie sepo clogging up the place – at least Graeme Bird was funny.
Who’s Gavin Schmit? Don’t know him?
So which company are we talking about ? Is there a cruise company or is this some illiterate druggie hippie speak? Was it P&O or Fairstar?
What fear and panic was promoted by whom? The article isn’t. But that’s because illiterate druggies have trouble reading. Anywway – where’s the fear and panic – didn’t see any when I was down the shops? Maybe you’re having a flashback.
And when you say “found out” – the critique seems to be written at the time of paper publication.
What’s this drongo “Peace out” quip anyway ?
So much did you inhale back in the day sepo?
James
you make a whole bunch of claims, Luke makes a post in response on the technical points, that must have taken a long time to write and research. Your response is to state that you haven’t read it.
Welcome to the world of the denier.
Dear STJ
I am not in the habit of indulging petulant self-centered abrasive jerks, or their syncophants.
However if there are any who readers who slogged through Luke’s diatribe, I will answer point for point.
But they have to ask first.
Regards Jim
James
Luke seemed to be a little jumpy, maybe he’s had a few sherbets tonight, but you have come up with same contrian line he has replied to a hundred times already. Ignore his references to actual science at your own peril.
Curious how Luke now portrays himself as a champion of the measured conclusion on circulation change. This is the clown who sneered at my own calculations on the actual volumes of fresh water needed to actually produce a meaningful change in salinity/density, let alone suffient to alter the underlying momentum of the entire North Atlantic.
James has quite rightly pointed out how the original language was cast in a way that would allow the imagination of the standard journalistic plodder to run riot. Even the uncertainty post year 2100 was cast in a way that could be perceived as a risk.
As TAR said, “Beyond 2100, the thermohaline circulation could completely, and possibly irreversibly, shut-down in either hemisphere IF THE CHANGE IN RADIATIVE FORCING IS LARGE ENOUGH AND APPLIED LONG ENOUGH (my emphasis)”. That is the unambiguous language of the Spiv.
For the change would have to be so large as to be quite outside any realistic probability and be applied for so long as to be quite removed from any sort of climatic response.
We were expected to believe that a circulation change based on an excess of melt water would be; a] strong enough to overcome the power of the Earth’s rotation, and
b] be maintained during a mini ice age which is, by definition, the very opposite of an excess of melt water.
So don’t worry about the abuse, James, it is just a bit of local pond life trying to reposition themselves as something that might float on top of the pond after an excess of nutrients. Aspirational scum? or le scum en retard?
“Don’t worry about the abuse” – from the Godzilla of bile himself – ROTFL.
And as usal Mottsa can’t read the Queen’s English – bizarrely now Ian is supporting some sepo hippie in directly misquoting the literature – in true industry bulldusting advocate style. Spin-o-saurus rex.
In terms of “my emphasis” – NO – it’s your misquote you hippie sympathising scumbag – you could get a job for cutting interviews on 60 Minutes – obviously you’re a good choice as industry apologist – all the tricks of Flash Harry knife merchant – trying to use a quick grab out of context. And here caught with your grubby hand RIGHT IN THE VIRTUAL BETACAM EDITING SUITE (my emphasis).
The TAR in fuller context SAID !!!!
“Most models show weakening of the Northern Hemisphere Thermohaline Circulation (THC), which contributes to a reduction of the surface warming in the northern North Atlantic. Even in models where the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe due to increased greenhouse gases. In experiments where the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration is stabilised at twice its present day value, the North Atlantic THC is projected to recover from initial weakening within one to several centuries. The THC could collapse entirely in either hemisphere if the rate of change in radiative forcing is large enough and applied long enough. Models indicate that a decrease of the THC reduces its resilience to perturbations, i.e., a once reduced THC appears to be less stable and a shut-down can become more likely. However, it is too early to say with confidence whether an irreversible collapse in the THC is likely or not, or at what threshold it might occur and what the climate implications could be. None of the current projections with coupled models exhibits a complete shut-down of the THC by 2100. Although the North Atlantic THC weakens in most models, the relative roles of surface heat and fresh water fluxes vary from model to model. Wind stress changes appear to play only a minor role in the transient response.”
The specific section on thermohaline probably above your comprehension level adds more context.
Your summary is the typical right wingers tool in trade – the out of context quote. This might work with your klu flux property rights devotees but doesn’t wash in a science discussion matey.
Not being a student of the sciences, the gimp wouldn’t understand why there may be an interest in this issue. You’ve never answered this aspect – preferring the absolute power of the envelope and an enormous ego against paleo data indicating big reductions in flow are indeed possible. And given the “rotation of the Earth rules all” our resident intellectual giant might give us a reason for the variation in sverdrups the RAPID array and other monitoring have experienced thus far.
This should be good.
Peace out ! No wonder there’s earthquakes.
If you bothered to check back, Phlukeldinho, you would notice that it was YOU who provided the original quote, not me. And the bits you have since added are of marginal relevance. It is still a bunch of weasel words designed to lodge an unsubstantiated fear just over the temporal horizon.
The entire theory was based on the absurd notion that the entire circulation was driven by fresh water induced density changes in the North Atlantic. And TAR wallowed in this crap like a stray mut on a bit of roadkill.
So do explain it all for us, Luke. How does the slow down maintain itself when the claimed engine driver, the cold dense NA water, is restored, indeed, boosted by this so-called ice age?
Sensible people, that is anyone NOT from the EUPCC or some departmental “SpivsRus”, don’t need a climate model to figure out that the moment the circulation slowed to a point where it began to get cooler, the circulation would pick up again and bring back the warm currents.
This bull$hit about not knowing what the next few centuries hold is classic shonkademia, designed to get the punters imaginations into overdrive.
The only surprise is that clowns like you are still bunging on a show for the gullible after being exposed, repeatedly.
ARGH !!!!!
You have again ignored that you have attributed to me is a fragment of what I said AND was itself in reference to what your new mate hippie boy has previously misquoted OUT OF CONTEXT. Don’t bung it on.
So our one sophist has DUCKED ANY explanation of the huge variation in flows and the paleo data ONCE AGAIN. It’s surprising that clowns like you are treated seriously by anyone now.
It’s a pity that your inflated ego is ignored by reality.
What a dreadful display.
Ah what the hell.
Crap 1 The Gulf Stream is driven by the winds, which in turn are driven by the revolving of the Earth. Therefore unless the Earth itself were to suddenly stop spinning, the Gulf Stream won’t shut down. The UN-IPCC indulgence of the possibility is naked fear mongering designed to frighten the uninformed.
Crap 2 The Real Climate guys didn’t bother to disavow crap 1 or correct the press, so that means they own it.
Crap 3 Maybe the fact that the conference was called RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE could have colored the reportage. I couldn’t find the section in the UNIPCC’s WG1 where they entertain the possibility of the ocean currents continuing on just fine. I don’t figure the scientists at the RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE conference spent too much time discussing the topic of the Gulf Stream continuing on at pace either. So to say that reporters were the hysterical people who jumped to conclusions is hypocracy. They just did their job, parroting the scientists.
Crap 4 Those aren’t reports you linked to, those are advocacy papers sequestered behind pay per veiw gates. The real press; WaPo, NYtimes, LATimes, Guardian, Daily Mail, whatever crud you read in Oz, – the stuff that the people will actually read – it doesn’t have the phrase “rapid climate change” anywhere. The name is material to the mindset of the scientists and points to anything but dispassioned observers of the natural world. I call that purposeful neglect by reporters, and or protecting the climate change narrative.
Crap 5 The original bit of the IPCC WG1 I linked to mentions a fluxuation between 10 ~ 30 sverdrups as the starting value of their computer models. The official peer reviewed analysis by Bryden et al claims a 30 % reduction in the gulfstream since 1992. {[10+30]/2}*0.7=14 – that’s less then the actual measured value of 4 ~ 35 sverdrups recorded by the buoys – thus there is an increase – from the scientific “oh my god rapid climate change WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!” mean value of 14 sverdrups, to the new “maybe the EU isn’t gonna notice how we have been conning them if we just keep quiet and down play the report” mean value of 19.5 sverdrups.
Luke People like you, who when confronted with the reality that there isn’t any disaster looming go into hissy fits of rage, scare the hell out of me. You give me nightmares of flesh eating zombies roaming the countryside.
Not emotional about it? Hell you reposted your litany of insult twice, because you were afraid I would miss it the first time.
Put down the sherbet and take a look in the mirror.
You really wanted the gulf stream to stop? Why would you want that?
Nope – not even close punk – you purposefully and knowingly misquoted. I directly and precisely addressed your intial stupidity. Now don’t try to create a diversion away from that. Your attempt to change the subject is utterly pathetic. Grow up and stay off the hooch.
1. Irrelevant to the original point.
2. Nope WRONG. Irrelevant to the point.
3. Nope WRONG
4. Nope you haven’t addressed the point. Real press? Are you some of idiot ! Where do you think the press get their information from you halfwit.
5. Nope. You haven’t read the paper and you’re a total loon.
The reason we are studying the issue is that the circulation appears to have varied considerably in the past – we also know climate has changed very rapidly in the past as well. This is valuable baseline information on a system we know little about despite your cocksureness.
If your moronic drug riddled mind can’t get it – try basket weaving. But try not to be blatantly dishonest if you’re wanting to play scientists. Don’t think we won’t check anything you try to get away with AT SOURCE !
This would have to go down in blog history as a classic “They just did their job, parroting the scientists” – so the great free press are now mindless parrots – they probably just quote what politicians tell them too. ROTFL and LMAO.
Is that why the press has 50% denialist crap in it?
Lordy me – at least Mottsa is quasi-comprehensible. No wonder there’s serious earthquakes.
Do you know why there’s earthquakes James?
(No I didn’t post twice for the reason you offer – the system swallowed the first one – you’ll note the second has http://'s – it apparently was cleared later)
Gee wiz Luke, and here we were thinking that Wunsch had put all this crap to bed. Remember Wunsch? He was your darling when he was dumping on the “swindle” doco but seems to have fallen out of favour with his statement along the lines of “not in a million years”.
And the record is very clear above, bozo, you supplied the quote first.
James, this is standard MO for this goon. He even borrows my debating points, used to give Ender a touch up, and shamelessly recycles them in the wrong context. He is a fully paid departmental blog stalker who always hits the shrill button when he has to comment outside his official instructions. His master will hose him down eventually and supply him with suitably plausible and measured material.
So that’s your response is it? Unable to take up the issue so you’re doing a bit of infill and biffo to substitute for mental activity.
Your clear total ignorance of the entire issue is exemplified by your conflation of the MOC with the Gulf Stream. Wunsch is pretty right but you need to understand the details don’t you – the Gulf Stream will keep going but can be steered by ocean density contrasts. Indeed we have examples from the Lake Agassiz and Heinrich Events.
You guys are pathetic flakes.
“Wunch is pretty right”. So what does that mean, phlukey, no collapse of Atlantic Conveyor for 990,000 years? So what the hell is TAR wanking on about uncertainty in the next few centuries?
And if ocean density contrasts were such a big issue it would be all over at Cape Cod where the St Laurence dumps the largest volumes of fresh water into the system. But no, it just keeps on rolling. Take a look at the map at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6968/fig_tab/nature02206_F3.html to see where the fresh water is. Surprise, surprise, not much of it flowing from melting Greenland where the boofheads claim it will collapse the Conveyor.
According to Environment Canada http://www.qc.ec.gc.ca/CSL/INF/inf016_e.html
“From Cornwall, Ontario to Baie-Comeau, Quebec, the mean annual flow (historic mean) of the St. Lawrence River increased from 7800 m3/s to 16 800 m3/s thanks to the contribution of its main tributaries, namely the Ottawa, Saguenay, Manicouagan, Saint-Maurice and Aux Outardes rivers.”
That is 16.8 megalitres/second, 1008Ml/minute, 60,480Ml/hour, 1.451Km3/day, for an annual outflow of 530Km3. And the map makes it very clear that this sort of volume has absolutely zero impact on salinity levels in the Eastern Atlantic. The map also makes it clear that nowhere near this volume is currently melting from Greenland, let alone the 100 fold increase required to even begin to alter density on a scale required to interfere with the Conveyor.
So best crawl back into your hole you pathetic departmental plodder.
I’m really enjoying this. You’ve utterly trapped yourself. Read very carefully what I’ve written above and if your scumbag mind can attempt intelligent thought you might reflect on it.
And that’s all you get this time. I might tell you in a few weeks if you don’t get it. But in the meantime lay the ad homs on thick and carry on like a loon and the vulgarian that you are.
As an aside good to see that you’re reading Nature and not Rednecks Weekly for a change – but did you read it or just look at the piccies
It says:
“The oceans are a global reservoir and redistribution agent for several important constituents of the Earth’s climate system, among them heat, fresh water and carbon dioxide. Whereas these constituents are actively exchanged with the atmosphere, salt is a component that is approximately conserved in the ocean. The distribution of salinity in the ocean is widely measured, and can therefore be used to diagnose rates of surface freshwater fluxes1, freshwater transport2 and local ocean mixing3—important components of climate dynamics. Here we present a comparison of salinities on a long transect (50° S to 60° N) through the western basins of the Atlantic Ocean between the 1950s and the 1990s. We find systematic freshening at both poleward ends contrasted with large increases of salinity pervading the upper water column at low latitudes. Our results extend a growing body of evidence indicating that shifts in the oceanic distribution of fresh and saline waters are occurring worldwide in ways that suggest links to global warming and possible changes in the hydrologic cycle of the Earth.”
“The freshening of the entire system of overflow and entrainment that ventilates the deep North Atlantic has already been shown to have taken place at a remarkable, if not quite steady, rate of -0.010 to -0.015 p.s.u. per decade over the past four decades10. That freshening has been attributed to some combination of enhanced wind-driven exports of ice or fresh water from the Arctic, increased net precipitation rates, and elevated volumes of continental runoff from melting ice15, 16, 17, 18—some of which can be associated with recent amplification of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)19. In the low latitude Atlantic, the factors building positive salinity anomalies must also involve some combination of dynamic and thermo-dynamic processes: altered circulation, precipitation patterns and intensified trade winds20—themselves associated with the NAO—but also enhanced evaporation rates due to warming of the surface ocean21.”
and
“In addition, parallel changes in ocean salinity and temperature distributions are occurring in other oceans. In the Mediterranean, as previously mentioned, the water masses formed by net evaporation exhibit a 40-yr trend of increasing temperature and salinity14. In the Pacific, a symmetric freshening of intermediate waters ventilated at high latitudes of the Northern and Southern hemispheres contrasts with zonally averaged salinity and temperature increases in the upper 200 m at several lines spanning latitudes 24° N to 32° S (ref. 26). In a subsequent analysis, the possibility that such coherent behaviour might reflect some shorter-term natural oscillation in the Pacific climate, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), was discounted on the basis that recent freshening of AAIW had also been observed in the Indian Ocean where the PDO signal is slight27, 28. An analogous argument could be extended to the hemispherically symmetric Atlantic salinity changes, to downplay the NAO as the sole dynamic at work.
Although it is a fundamental component of the planetary energy budget, the hydrologic cycle remains one of the least-understood elements of the climate system and freshwater budgets one of the largest causes for differences among climate models29. Given the great uncertainties in measuring evaporation and precipitation over the oceans, conclusive evidence for changes in the global water cycle will depend on present and future efforts to directly measure salinity changes and freshwater transports by ocean currents.”
Anyway back to it – you won’t be living this down for a LONG time. In fact you should carefully reflect on what I’ve said about this issue from day # one.
Of course if you want to apologise for being being personal and rude we could have a polite conversation.
Do you know why there are earthquakes Ian?
You have got to be kidding, bozo. These quotes are conspicuous for their absence of reference to actual scale, relevance and significance of salinity changes. A change of 0.010 psu per decade (ie 0.001 psu each year) in an ocean that exhibits a normal range from 30 to 38 psu is the proverbial three fifths of sweet FA.
At this rate, assuming it has no cyclical element to it whatsoever, it will take a whole millenia to achieve the same change as one can observe by sailing from Cape Canaveral to the Bahamas.
And once again, Luke, you failed to explain how Wunsch can be “about right” with his “not in a million years” and your continued flogging of this crap.
Go back to the map again, boofhead, and explain why such a huge volume of fresh water in the St Laurence, at salinity levels as low as 30 psu, can dissipate to 35 psu the moment it drops off the continental shelf. Clearly, the volume of fresh is an insignificant portion of the total water volume.
This is all another load of bollocks that is entirely dependent on totally unrealistic assumptions about Greenland ice melt and ocean mixing rates.
The circulation is subject to very minor changes in velocity and this very minor change in velocity results in very minor changes in the supply of warm water from the gulf stream.
This very minor change in supply of warm water from the gulf stream produces a very minor cooling in the north atlantic which will, in turn, produce a very minor reduction in the greenland ice melt rate which will correct any earlier increase in supply of fresh water that is claimed to be slowing down the circulation rate.
That is how climatic cycles work, you bombed out rabbit.
Well Ian – on the Wunsch business – still haven’t worked it out eh? Still conflating the issues. I suggest you keep swinging. Dig an even deeper hole.
You might also say “exactly” what I’m flogging.
As for the paper – that was just an aside I was simply enjoying the irony of the source you were quoting. The authors seemed to view things differently in terms of significance – small point. I like it when you don’t read your own sources.
As I know how you work by now – you’re massively assumptive, non-reflective and are too personally certain to ever be any good at science.
Yep Wunsch is broadly correct. But that’s not the end of the show.
Incidentally the models predict a significant weakening of
NADW formation did not include meltwater
runoff from the Greenland ice sheet.
Luke the climate zombie.
Still trying to kill off the planet with fairy tales.
It took you five words to start with the insults this time. I think that is an improvement. Lets check.
[ Are you some sort of clown James]
[ Nope – not even close punk ]
Nope. My mistake. Much like the Thermohaline flow it’s well within the margine of error and shows no change for a hopeless asshole like yourself.
It’s pointless talking to a zombie. You just have to beat in their brains and make sure none of the infectious goo gets on you while your doing it.
But I’m an optimist so I’ll give your re-rebuttal
a rebuttal.
1. Yep
2. Yep
3. Yep (Note you didn’t support it with a grida link which would have been easy enough to do if it existed, since a codswallowing climate change groupie like yourself must surely have every utterance from UN climate control in your favorite file.)
4. Yep (Note again. All you had to do was show one story in a real newspaper with the word Rapid – you had a farking week to look for it – Total failure]
5. Yep [Jerk said – The reason we are studying the issue is that the circulation appears to have varied considerably in the past ] If you had bothered to read the report you would have noticed that the circulation appears {no wait}-
that the circulation definitely varies considerably in the HERE AND NOW . STUPID.
[Is that why the press has 50% denialist crap in it?] Dude what papers are you reading? Really I would love to get a subscription. Provide a link to some denialist crap for me if you would.
And what the hell do earthquakes have to do with it?
Sorry for the above outburst.
Tonight we will experience one of those rare occasions when, American and Australian, though separated by a vast ocean, get to share in a cosmic event. Total eclipse of the moon. I’ll be outside looking at it right along with you.
Happy viewing.
Peace out Jim
{Be careful of the muslims. They go crazier then usual when their God is eclipsed.}