“PROMINENT scientists with long publications records, such as Bob Carter, are routinely described by the media as not being climate scientists and really not reputable scientists at all if they aren’t on the alarmist bandwagon. On the other hand, lawyers expressing alarmist views are described as prominent scientists.
“And the scientists regularly put forward in the media as the world’s leading climate experts often turn out to be computer modelers with little or no background in climate science…
Read more from Myron Ebell here.
And of course Graeme Pearman who many in Australia assume to be a climate scientist, actually trained as a biologist and has a PhD in carbon budgeting.
As an example of the bias, consider this interview by ABC Journalist Sabra Lane.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Bandwagon
determination of who is a scientist by reason of them being on a band wagon is a logical fallacy.
One of a few graduate level degrees I have is a Master of Science Degree. It was so named because it required writing a thesis and doing an oral defense. It wasn’t in a physical science.
Hill’s even brands a dog food, “Hill’s Science Diet”
Did my many years of celestial navigation and yacht racing using a variety of instruments make me a Climate Scientist? What about my tracking data for years in support of patterns form my farm and ranch interests?
I do have a lot of computer modeling experience. Fortran is beyond many.
Does this sound familiar? “You can’t call yourself a scientist if you don’t believe in AGW.”
One both sides of the AGW debate, there’s a tendency for partisans to engage in the You-can’t-play-because-you-don’t-have-the-right-piece-of-paper Game. Sometimes outsiders do have meaningful insights into scientific problems, because the people with the formal training are boxed into unproductive paradigms.
Climate science is still in its infancy. And it’s interdisciplinary. There’s plenty of room for the contributions of chemists, physicists, geologists, oceanographers, astronomers, mathematicians, and statisticians. And even computer jocks, if they’re kept on a short leash.
Although my academic background is in analytical chemistry, I’ve done a little informal climate change investigation in the Northern Sierra. It’s very 19th Century, it’s biological, and it doesn’t involve any mathematics. Jennifer, if you’re interested, I’ll post it in the usual place.
Climate Science?
Climate is an intellectual abstraction of weather patterns on a local scale – but it has no specific physical objective existence in the sense you can point to a physical object labelled “Climate”.
There is weather however, and that is the physical behaviour of the Earth’s liquid-gas-aerosol surface layer.
And then we have something called “a political climate” and would someone who is erudite in this also called a climate scientist?
Larry, yes something on the preliminary investigations of a chemist into the climate of northern sierra would be great! please let me know where and when you post.
Based on the evidence before us, a farmers “dickie” knee has superior predictive ability than a GCM. And there are a lot more of them to produce a consensus.
Larry Fields “Sometimes outsiders do have meaningful insights into scientific problems, because the people with the formal training are boxed into unproductive paradigms”.
And vice versa. Sometimes those with formal training have insights the outsiders don’t have. The way it stands today, the experts are being ignored while the outsiders run the show. I think that’s what the article is about.
Speaking of Climate science. Perhaps you should add a link to some of the discussions at Lucia’s Rank exploits, WUWT, and JeffId’s tAV where they discuss Pielke Sr blog post by Scaffetta defending himself from BS09 from the realclimatescientists.
“BS09”
Yep! sounds about right.
Whenever the news media introduce an ‘expert’, my bullshit antennae begin to twitch. I wonder how many ‘terrorism experts’ have actually seen a terrorist? How many ‘bushfire experts’ have seen a bushfire? Or how many ‘expert economists’ predicted the recent global financial crisis?
The word ‘scientist’ was coined in about 1840 by the English philosopher William Whewell, of Cambridge University. It has become a bit threadbare. From now on, let’s give more recognition to ‘climate philosophers’, who have the skills to broker diverse knowledge into wisdom, avoiding, as far as possible, logical pitfalls. That’s the expertise that really counts. Sadly, I lack it, but there may be those who have it. Any suggestions?
“BS09”
JFP and JP, that’s what I thought too when I posted on it yesterday.
What is terrifying is the snowballing [berraism intended] of the AGW industry. All with sucker taxpayer money. And how it just rolls over sound common sense from well qualified people.
A column in the August Scientific American also makes a suggestion that climate skeptics are not in the same category as scientists:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=stumbling-over-data
Although not sharply worded, it does confirm the bias that you have highlighted here.
Climate science is one of those new commercial concoctions like ‘sport science’ or ‘nutritional science’. Such fields attract zealots or at least enthusiasts with a broadly shared managerial or policy agenda. We would not expect ‘Exercise Quarterly’* to publish a paper extolling the health benefits of sloth. So when people talk about, say, ‘mainstream sport scientists’, it is important to remember that your AVERAGE member of this population is that beady-eyed, skeletal freak you see on television every night hectoring people about BMI and obesity.
* A good description of my regime, incidentally.
Jennifer,
I put the Northern Sierra climate history post just after the rough draft for the Gurr article (Sydney fireworks, Dec 2008). I hope that you like it.
Wikipedia seems to have the handle on who is and isn’t a climate scientist.
For instance Gavin Schmidt, ostensibly a mathematician, is clearly identified as climatologist.
Otoh, Ian Plimer, ostensibly a geologist, is clearly not. He is demoted in the first sentence from professor to a lowly academic. Then the demotion is reinforced by a reporter, Jamie Walker of The Australian, again in the second sentence.
“Australia’s best-known academic geologist and certainly one of the most outspoken”.
Well heck, if Walker of the Australian says it, Bob’s her uncle.
What astounds me is that the intellectual giants who write here are have, and I would speculate would continue to have, almost zero impact on the debate. Despite insults, obfuscation and ad homs, the likes of Loui, coho, birdy, motty, davey green etc are gradually fossilising at the tar-pit of history having been out-evolved by nimbler minds.
In recent times we’ve even seen them try to organise their own political party to push their particular political agenda. It’ll be interesting to see how many candidates they stand and even more interesting, having won power, to see how the draft their bills to:
Outlaw the idea of AGW;
Abolish all university faculties except maths and physics (oh maybe geology so they can let Louis in); and
Establish themselves as a ruling elite of scientist kings.
So much to do, so little time, such meager talent …
PatrickB,
Seeing as how you are so scathing of sceptics, how about, using the products ot those nimbler minds of which you speak so fondly, making a short case [or long one if you so wish] for the ETS and educate us on its necessity for our future.
“Outlaw the idea of AGW”; you can’t outlaw a belief PB, but you can insure it doesn’t impact too much on the social/political/economic framework; what I would do is classify AGW as a religion with no tax exempt status.
“making a short case [or long one if you so wish] for the ETS and educate us on its necessity for our future”
I’m sure that those advocating the policy would do so far more eloquently than I. I don’t think my feeble efforts would help to convince you of its utility given that you don’t accept the justifications put forward by experts, indeed you don’t accept anyone, other than the minority that support your position, as expert.
cohenite,
ha ha, nice to see that you’ve still got a spark of innovation. Maybe you could go down the white Australia route, you know, no specific policy but enough barriers to keep those who disagree-with/are-not-like you out of the debate.
Here’s a plan for you.
First create the belief that those you dislike are identifiable as a group because they all share negative traits. Here’s some starters for you: they don’t bathe, they marry their close kin, they have strange beliefs, they only deal fairly with each other, they want to keep the rest of us out, they are elite, they are exclusive … what’s this … I suddenly have an urge to fling my arm up a a 45 degree angle … arghhhh .. god … win …
Secondly, get yourself elected Prince of Science for Life(POSFL, pronounced pos-fl) on the wave of hysteria you’ve created and then deal with the mofos (birdy would probably be handy here).
The climate alarmist science community is overwhelmingly comprised of researchers whose entire careers are based on climate alarmism. In contrast, the sceptical scientists are overwhelmingly comprised of researchers with well established expertise in other fields of research. The alarmists repeatedly refer to a catechism of highly selected evidence which supports their claims. The sceptics cite voluminous other evidence from their own fields which contradicts the alarmist’s claims.
Even when alarmist evidence is conclusively discredited (e.g. the hockey stick) they continue to use it and to dismiss all conflicting evidence no matter now sound or voluminous it may be. When their own claims fail they revise the evidence, not their hypothesis. Recent examples have involved the current global cooling trend, the absence of a signature tropospheric hot spot, Antarctic cooling, oceanic cooling, unchanged rates of sea level rise, etc. All have been subjected to dubious data manipulation trying to make a silk purse to suit AGW out of a sow’s ear of empirical data which refuses to conform to their hopes.
AGW has become just another faith based belief immune to all conflicting reason and evidence. Although it maintains a claim to being based on science, it’s relation to genuine, evidence based, logically consistent, refutable science is not unlike that of Scientology with which it shares a number of commonalities.
The amazing thing about all this is that people who claim to be scientists are so willing to become so profoundly and righteously committed to a belief in something that, at best, is highly uncertain and the reality of which will inevitably become apparent in the not too distant future. It’s almost seems they must somehow think that their own unshakable faith will determine that reality and what they claim to fear so greatly is actually that for which they so desperately hope.
“The amazing thing about all this is that people who claim to be scientists are so willing to become so profoundly and righteously committed to a belief in something that, at best, is highly uncertain and the reality of which will inevitably become apparent in the not too distant future.”
Yeah, it ‘s bloody astounding, all these people trained in well established methods at reputable institutions by highly regarded teachers all reach a conclusion (although they do not exclude modifying that conclusion should new information come to light), based on up-to-date observations, that you disagree with and they’re all suffering from the same delusion. How can this be Walter, perhaps you can present you completely watertight, fully referenced and based in fact case for your conclusion at the next meeting of the Flat Earth Society (FES)?
” I don’t think my feeble efforts would help to convince you of its utility given that you don’t accept the justifications put forward by experts, indeed you don’t accept anyone, other than the minority that support your position, as expert.”
Patrick, old chap, I don’t think too many of the general population [other than financially incestuous accademics and some politicians] accept those justifications too readily either.
Even a true believer like old Jack is waking up.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/04/mccain-realization-%e2%80%9cthe-waxman-markey-1400-page-bill-is-a-farce/#more-9767
“Recent examples have involved the current global cooling trend, the absence of a signature tropospheric hot spot, Antarctic cooling, oceanic cooling, unchanged rates of sea level rise, etc.’
More bunk from denialists ! How is that denialist scum deny the data quality then go and use it anyway. You fucking hypocrites.
But hey this is the new denialist scum creed.
“1) Nothing that was recorded by instruments such as weather-stations, ocean buoys or satellite data. Since all instruments are subject to error, we cannot use them to measure climate.
2) Nothing that has been corrected to account for the error of recording instruments. Any corrected data is a fudge. You must use only the raw data, which is previously disqualified under rule #1. Got that? OK, moving along…
3) Nothing that was produced by a computer model. We all know that you can’t trust computer models, and they have a terrible track record in any industrial, architectural, engineering, astronomical or medical context.
4) Nothing that was researched or published by a scientist. Such appeals to authority are invalid. We all know that scientists are just writing these papers to keep their grant money.”
and more mirth at
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/08/01/the-rules/
The Australian denialist movement is the greatest collection of flim flam merchants and snake oil sellers ever established. What a bunch of con-artists – see if you get one senate seat lads.
“SABRA LANE: Four eminent CSIRO scientists have spoken out, telling the inquiry the Government’s targets for cutting greenhouse emissions are inadequate. But they’ve stressed their submissions are personal and not endorsed by the CSIRO.
Dr Michael Raupach is among them, he also says the Government’s target of 60 per cent reduction for 2050 is too low.
MICHAEL RAUPACH: My figure would be an emissions reduction for Australia of the order of 90 per cent by 2050. How we get there matters much less than the fact that it’s very low by 2050.”
Uhhh huh –
And Dr Michael – if one proposal was, for a strictly hypothetical exercise, immediate and summary execution of CSIRO employees politicking in a private capacity to start to crush emissions – do you perhaps allow that you might get a little more concerned about the means, politics and even, the Ends of your advocacy – like more than a few of the rest of we mere uncredentialed peons ?
“More bunk from denialists ! How is that denialist scum deny the data quality then go and use it anyway. You fucking hypocrites.”
You don’t consider that after we paid you brilliant academics billions for this dodgy data that we aren’t entitled to use it in self defence?
It may be crook but it’s the best you could come up with.
Also, when a sceptic tries to audit this rubbish you slam the door on his fingers.
“I don’t think too many of the general population [other than financially incestuous accademics and some politicians] accept those justifications too readily either”
Hey Spangled have a look at this
Here’s a NewsPoll question:
THINKING NOW ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, IN PARTICULAR, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME. UNDER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME, THE PRICE OF ENERGY SOURCES, SUCH AS PETROL, ELECTRICITY AND GAS MAY BECOME MORE EXPENSIVE. WOULD YOU PERSONALLY BE IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST PAYING MORE FOR ENERGY SOURCES, SUCH AS PETROL, ELECTRICITY AND GAS IF IT WOULD HELP TO SLOW GLOBAL WARMING?
and here’s the result:
IN FAVOUR 58
AGAINST 38
UNCOMMITTED 4
Some other interesting poll results there as well. All point to a fairly solid majority supporting action on AGW. Presumably they have all bought into the delusion as well. I’d say that a very powerful force ray must be involved, oh yes I’ll warrant that.
http://www.mumble.com.au/pdfs/federal/20090724-6Newspollall.pdf
WOULD YOU PERSONALLY BE IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST PAYING MORE FOR ENERGY SOURCES, SUCH AS PETROL, ELECTRICITY AND GAS IF IT WOULD HELP TO SLOW GLOBAL WARMING?
Even I’d vote for that!
But do you still beat your wife?
I’m glad to see that when offered a quid pro quo you can see the benefits as well as the costs. In that respect you differ from many of the posters here who only seem to see the costs of harm reduction without thinking about the problems that are being addressed so as to provide for a more clement future. Refreshing to see such an even-handed approach.
I think it’s kinda entertaining (and highlights the double standards) that so many ‘anti-AGW’ folk here (including Jennifer) tell us that models are useless, etc etc, particularly when Bob Carter himself published a paper on sea levels using… models!
The first line of the abstract is also slightly ironic:
“Two different conceptual models underlie the application of sequence stratigraphy by Exxon stratigraphers and later researchers…”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6X-3VVM8MD-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=011c90c1797d93fd24d82af626ff81bc
that Bob Carter
“that Bob Carter”
He’s a caution alright. He’s a bit like the funny old uncle who has a bit to much to drink at the wedding and starts to remove his .. oh hang on that’s Wilson Tuckey, sorry got my “funny old denialists” mixed up.
“You don’t consider that after we paid you brilliant academics billions for this dodgy data ”
probably not – lots of data collected voluntarily
– how come 4 different sources of data give the same answers, same patterns, same trends slice it dice anyway you like – same story. Look at the 10,000s of studies on animal behaviour, breeding, plant phenology in Nature – same story. Massive body of interlocked evidence that says the same thing.
But you’d deny it. You’d deny your grandmas.
Love those ‘Denialist Scum’ descriptions . ‘Please explain’ ( Not why Canberra used all Pauline’s policies.) What your carbon tax is really going to cost people in normal houses. Blow by blow .item by item. If Barnaby and Wilson are ‘Denialist Scummies’, give us the figures. Last i heard was 30,000 plus jobs vanishing in “regional” NSW and QLD . To be replaced in about 10 years by green things.
Where do they vanish to? Oh shit the Asian countries that know it is all bullshit.
In the same report SE QLD and W Vic gonna have a surge from carbon plantations.
Anybody been to Hamilton W VIC and seen how much FOOD that is .
LOVE THOSE BLUEGUM STEAKS . With tomato sauce .
” In that respect you differ from many of the posters here who only seem to see the costs of harm reduction without thinking about the problems that are being addressed so as to provide for a more clement future. Refreshing to see such an even-handed ”
I appreciate the superior sarcasm but if you think that these motherhood questions represent the true situation, I rest my case.
When the public are being told lies though, they’ll be angry when the truth finally dawns.
And FR, computer modelling is still an honourable occupation. It all depends how you go about it.
Well no matter what you say, Svensmark confirmed his cosmoclimatology the other day. Lindzen proved the climate models don’t model climate (like we didn’t notice the MET prognos being consistently 180 out). And Jen posted a little empirical evidence with the upper trop drying out a bit which looks suspiciously like Miskolczi saturated greenhouse effect.
All your side has is a temp graph that doesn’t match a co2 signature, and a bunch of greedy politicians with a hankering to spend other people’s money, who never met a tax they didn’t like.
Patrick B,
Judging by your flak I seem to be squarely on target, and like all gadflys, undeflected from the goal of pointing to your intellectual nakedness.
Well that’s why you guys aren’t clever isn’t it – why does dislike for a carbon tax logically mean the climate science is incorrect. How moronic.
“probably not – lots of data collected voluntarily”
Lukie,
That was the good cheap stuff, getting it adjusted [and sequestered] is what cost.
If you jokers could sequester CO2 like you do data there wouldn’t be a problem.
Y’know, if you could suck as hard as you can blow.
Patrick B, Can you point me in the direction of anybody who has eloquently put the case for an ETS that actually spells out the costs and benefits of such a scheme?
I am not aware of anybody who actually believes an ETS will lower temperature, and only an idiot could believe it will not lower living standards and cost jobs.
The more I read of your comments, the more I realise you must fall into this “idiots camp.”
But please I am open to changing my mind on an ets if you can even ineloquently put the case for an ETS that demonstrates a realistic cost benifit anaylsis?!…
Also do you really think the governemnt will be able to put the tax raised to a more productive use than the private sector? Who is more likely to be able to pick the next energy source and storage capacity? Governments waste money( not all of it i just mean they are highly inneficient), nobody can argue with that can they?
Luke I find it particularly worrying that, irrespective of an individuals views on the human impact of climate change, people actually openly support what they must know in their hearts and certainly their heads, can and will not change the weather or climate.
Doesnt that at least make you wonder about the “faith” aspect of AGW?
Patrick…IF an ETS and higher prices WOULD lower temperature ( not by much thanks cold is worse than hot …isnt it?) then I would support an ETS or carbon tax or legislation etyc…….BUT IT WONT LOWER TEMPERATURE SO ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD ADVOCATE ONE….or somebody with a poiltical objective. Politics and religion go hand in hand they both look to control the proles and AGW seems like a match made in ..er heaven?
“I appreciate the superior sarcasm”
I always try to make the people I encounter happy. However I don’t detect any evidence to support you statement re the acceptance or otherwise of AGW mitigation by the majority. Indeed both major political parties went to the last election promising to implement mitigation strategies.
“if you think that these motherhood questions represent the true situation, I rest my case”
You may interpret the question however you like but the pollsters have framed the question so that it has both a negative and positive aspect. A respondent is being asked to take a hit in order to get a benefit. Just to be clear, this question addresses the concern often expressed here and in other denialist fora that mitigation may be too expensive. And yet a clear majority remain in favour. As to your assertion that the questions don’t represent the true situation, that’s curious in a couple of ways:
Firstly questions are inquisitorial in their nature, they are intended to reveal something which may or may not lead to a valid conclusion, they are not in themselves statements of fact or truth, indeed they are not statements, they can’t assert anything.
Secondly, what is the true situation? Is it a fact that AGW isn’t happening, can you point to research that proves this conclusively?
I take your lack of an adequate riposte as a sign that you concede the point.
Louis,
As always a meaningless stream of non sequiturs. Fabulous stuff! Are you familiar with eecummings?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._E._Cummings#Poetry
“The more I read of your comments, the more I realise you must fall into this “idiots camp.””
How sweet to be an Idiot,
As harmless as a cloud,
Too small to hide the sun
Almost poking fun,
At the warm but insecure untidy crowd
(Neil Innes)
With regard to you attempts at making a substantive point, I rather think you’ve missed it. Regardless of what you think the majority, according to the poll I quoted, believe that the government’s mitigation strategy is worth taking a hit for. The opposition is desperate to find a position that gets them in the tent without splitting the party. It’s seems that your battle is being lost. Your assertions that anyone (in this case the majority) who supports a mitigation plan is an idiot merely reflects you lack of an adequate response and probably a lack of social skills dating back to primary school.
“Can you point me in the direction of anybody who has eloquently put the case for an ETS that actually spells out the costs and benefits of such a scheme?”
May be able to help here Toby, I think a chap called Garnaut did a fair amount of work, quite recently iirc, on AGW mitigation strategies, costs/benefits that sort of thing. Seemed rather disappointed that the Govt didn’t go far enough.
I’ve got this little box up in the right hand corner of my web browser thingy that allows me to type in a word, press a button and see a range of matching results put together by some crowd called “Google”. I suggest you put in this chap “Garnaut” and maybe “Report” (make sure there’s a space between the words) and see what happens. Works for me as out American cousins say.
You’ve all missed the most outstanding example of double standards. One of Penny Wong’s chief advisers is Will Steffwen who describes himself as having “a long history in international global change research” by which he means “serving from 1998 to 2004 as Executive Director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), based in Stockholm, Sweden, and before that as Executive Officer of IGBP’s Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems project” (http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/content/author/will) Those positions are administrative and not research appointments at all. In fact, Steffen has done no science at all since a post-doc about thirty years ago. But the media, and the government are happy to treat him as a leading scientific expert. In the real world such deception would be a scandal. In the mirror universe of the carbon cult it is par for the course.
“A respondent is being asked to take a hit in order to get a benefit.”
You ARE easily fooled!
The hit is instant but the benefit is postponed indefinitely.
Not only will it probably never happen, the situation will almost certainly become quickly worse through not-wished-to-be-forseen circumstances.
It appears fair at first glance and will extract an affirmative response but it is a loaded question.
“It appears fair at first glance and will extract an affirmative response but it is a loaded question.”
That’s why you need to have a look at some of the other questions that were asked and the responses.
It is fascinating though how the denialist mind works. It now appears that the pollsters are in on the conspiracy as well!
Apparently, not only am I a fool for accepting the opinion of the clear majority of experts in the fields but I so blinded by prejudice am I that I can’t see the manipulation of public sentiment through the running of bogus opinion polls. It’s worth noting at this point that Newspoll is owned by The Australian newspaper, a denialist bastion. I rather think that you guys have seriously blown your own cover. Science indeed! at the first sign of solid rebuttal you resort to your own scurrilous, badly written dogma.
Well Patrick how expected of you to avoid the points and act as though you know so much and are so superior….
Im aware of the garnaut report and the stern report, neither build a case for an ets in an elequent or ineloquent way…i note as usual you avoid the question.
May I point out to you, that yes the question posed contained a negative and a positive…but it was phrased so that the negative would bring a positive…..since this is not the case the question serves no real purpose other than to create the impression that an ETS will bring benefits and people support the concept…..is that too hard for you to work out?
You can not possibly consider yourself a critical thinker if you are not sceptical of the political angle taken by both the stern and garnaut reports. their prognosis are based on highly unlikely worst case scenarios that allow no scope for technological advancement and assume all costs and no benefits from a warmer world.
Why is it that people think in 100 years time we will be using the same technology”?….how much have things changed in the last 100 years?
Why dont you practise a little humility and do some thinking in response to the questions that are posed? Rather than just blindly following the sheep…..?
Once again do you think an ETS will lower temperature?
Do you think an ETS will improve our living standards and increase jobs?..remember think for yourself about these answers and ignore your belief in AGW…that is irrelevant to the above two questions.
Also how big a public service do you think will be required to monitor this ETS?
How much will it be rorted by big business?
How much will the banks and trading houses make out of trading these carbon credits?
And when/ if AGW turns out to be wrong, how much money will society have to spend to bail out these new masters of the universe?
When you have thought about these questions, and not googled your answers for somebody elses thoughts, I would be interested to hear both your answers and your reasoning.
If you fob me off with some more flippant comments I will just ensure I skip over your posts in future…no skin of either of our noses i am sure, but since you are so intellectually superior to me it should be easy for you to present your answers and thoughts….
“More bunk from denialists ! How is that denialist scum deny the data quality then go and use it anyway. You fucking hypocrites.”
It should be tattooed on their foreheads.
“Once again do you think an ETS will lower temperature?
Do you think an ETS will improve our living standards and increase jobs?..remember think for yourself about these answers and ignore your belief in AGW…that is irrelevant to the above two questions.”…sorry i did not phrase that correctly.
Lets assume AGW is happening , do you think an ETS will actually lower temperature by any realistic amount? Will it improve or lower our standards of living?
“You can not possibly consider yourself a critical thinker if you are not sceptical of the political angle taken by both the stern and garnaut reports.”
I should instead accept on face value your subjective assessment that the reports you refer to have a “political angle”? Rather think I’d be laughed at if I went along with that proposition. And I would expect the proposer to be the victim of some rather cruel pointing and laughing. Still at least you’ve moved on from the one line insult.
“neither build a case for an ets in an elequent or ineloquent way”
What is it exactly that caused you to dismiss these voluminous and exhaustive studies? Is purely that they are “ineloquent”, was it a split infinitive that damned them in your eyes? Perhaps the authors began a sentence with “but”.
“Why dont you practise a little humility”
Indeed, I should reject all advice and follow only my own counsel or that of people who agree with me. This could be construed as being pigheaded, stubborn, inflexible, incapable of adapting to circumstances, not a team player, bereft of reason, but what the hell I’ll give it a shot. Here goes (deep breath):
All denialists are right, Al Gore is a big fatty, AGW is an attempt by aliens to ruin our fantastic western lifestyle and disrupt the AFL grand final, (I think it’s working!!), I love Graham Bird, the IPA is a highly reputable research institute (Look at me Ma, King of the World!!) Greenies are an evolutionary dead end.
Come into me spirit of the Savior!!!
What? ouch!! Someone took emergency action and hit me with a copy of Garnaut, oh well back to reality …
“The climate alarmist science community is overwhelmingly comprised of researchers whose entire careers are based on climate alarmism. In contrast, the sceptical scientists are overwhelmingly comprised of researchers with well established expertise in other fields of research. The alarmists repeatedly refer to a catechism of highly selected evidence which supports their claims. The sceptics cite voluminous other evidence from their own fields which contradicts the alarmist’s claims.”
Rubbish. You have made a claim you know you cannot support. Even if there was no AGW, there would still be plenty of work for climate scientists.
Spanglers – your comments are pathetic given you have total access to the BoM climate data bank. Frankly if we dropped it on your computer (well it wouldn’t fit) you wouldn’t know what to do with it. You simply want to have a whinge about it. In fact working with climate data are a big pain for most scientists – complex messy stuff from difficult environments. You need a good climate data workout to settle you right down. About 6 months should do you.
Toby most people probably haven’t go a clue about AGW – loose woolly thinking and fanciful notions abound on all sides. The Feds know that a unilateral ETS will have no effect on climate – presumably they’re trying to get some creds for catalysing a much bigger international deal at Copenhagen. Anything else doesn’t make sense. Personally I don’t think you can persuade the electorate to vote for austerity – so I’m pessimistic that it can be sold and the fracas will take down a much bigger science effort on climate that is sorely needed.
But remember – the global atmosphere doesn’t give a rats about our politics, economy, science, alarmists, denialist scum or the environment – it’s just going to integrate a physical solution to whatever drives it.
luke and PB are obviously the shift workers to-night and PB has taken his stimulants and flushed his sense of irony “Garnaut did a fair amount of work”; very droll PB; for a true estimate of the ETS;
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25243345-601,00.html
And that’s the minimalist 5% reduction in emissions refereable to 2000.
“The Feds know that a unilateral ETS will have no effect on climate”
This does not mean that the work done by people like Garnaut is wrong or an attempt at fraud, it is was a necessary precursor to the framing of the proposeed bill.
I agree with Luke in that the current govt, for many reasons, has nailed it’s AGW colours to the mast and is now looking to use it’s ETS policy to drag the major players into the ring. We’re a bit player to be sure but it’s often the minor characters that assist the protagonists in their quest.
Ah, coho good to have you aboard. Yes I’ve had a day off so plenty of time to engage in a little tete e tete.
As to your reference, the first thing I notice is that you assert that it will link to a “true estimate” of the ETS. Normally I’d say “well it’s informal conversation, interlocutors may be allowed logical fallacies”, however given that denialists are obsessed with truth as defined as the presentation of a proof not only beyond reasonable doubt but truth in the sense of abolute truth, the type spoken by God, revealed, inalienable truth, I must take issue with the phrase “true esitmate”. Surely an estimate is contingent and as such it’s truth can’t be determined as the set of circumstances necessary to validate the estimate and establish its accuracy, or “truth” if you like, have yet to occur?
I also notice that it’s a link to The Australian newspaper, enough said.
Upon scanning the article I note that the “secret” (but it’s in the paper??) report largely agrees with the Federal Govts estimates.
Just a few points for you to ponder whilst you sip you late night Horlicks.
Yes luke, but our parliamentarians won’t go cold;
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/bud_0910/parliament/QoNs/P5.pdf
You’ll be able to curl up at the feet of Senator Wong.
I meant of course PB; the doppleganger effect, no doubt.
Stated on the ANU’s web site: “Andrew Macintosh is an environmental law and policy expert and is the Associate Director of the ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy.
Prior to joining the ANU College of Law, Andrew was Deputy Director of The Australia Institute and has previously worked as an environmental advisor to the Australian Democrats”
The Australian National University’s Centre for Climate Law—the first such centre in
Australia – was officially opened 6 june 2008 by the Minister for Environment, Heritage and the
Arts, Peter Garrett
The Centre for Climate Law, within the University’s College of Law and headed up by
Professor Tim Bonyhady, will also teach Australia’s first university course dedicated to
climate law.
“Australians understand that responsibility for the climate is shared by us all, and looking at
the legal ramifications of climate change is an important part of finding solutions,
understanding their impact and acting responsibly,” Mr Garrett said.
Professor Tim Bonyhady has been appointed to a panel of experts supporting the independent review of the EPBC Act.
When joint Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Mr. Al Gore, who failed to complete a law degree, failed in Divinity and got a D in Science (Washington Post, 2000, link http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18) is put up as the Godfather of Climate Science, what hope do real scientists have! No wonder Big Al did not want to discuss with Senator Steve Fielding, a qualified engineer, about his doubts of AGW theory when in Australia recently. But of course it’s not about real science but a failed theory adopted by politicians (for new taxes), carbon traders like Gore and clung onto by “climate” modelers afraid of losing their jobs and the massive amounts of money thrown at them.
**********
BE IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST PAYING MORE FOR ENERGY SOURCES, SUCH AS PETROL, ELECTRICITY AND GAS IF IT WOULD HELP TO SLOW GLOBAL WARMING?
and here’s the result:
IN FAVOUR 58
AGAINST 38
UNCOMMITTED 4
Some other interesting poll results there as well. All point to a fairly solid majority supporting action on AGW. Presumably they have all bought into the delusion as well. I’d say that a very powerful force ray must be involved, oh yes I’ll warrant that.”
**************
But as any good conspiracy theorist knows, mass delusions are more common and persistent than people might think. For example, today one might rightly consider that more or less the entire intellectual life of the Middle Ages consisted of one delusional concept after another, yet nobody noticed for hundreds of years. A more recent example of a mass delusion might be the Iraqi WMD fraud, which emanted from and took in millions from the right-wing loony department, but which was also taken up with vigor and a total lack of discrimination by the press and general media.
Regardless of whether or not the poll consisted of a trick question, as has been rightly suggested on the evidence presented so far, the result seems to show that 58% of the rabble appear to believe that ‘something must be done’ in order to slow global warming and who are prepared to wear higher prices if this would help the cause.
Although not, thankfully, a scientist myself, I have two brothers who are scientists, one a geneticist, the other a geologist. When I questioned them on the issue of climate change, both of them exhibited a strong belief in anthropogenic global warming and the necessity to do something about it. However further questioning showed that they simply assumed that the current warming must be anthropogenic in nature without any knowledge of arguments for and against, or even that the question might be relevant. It was quite clear that neither of them anything about the subject at all, but instead were reliant on ingrained habit to trust the relevant scientific authorities on the matter.
It seems to me that since the rabble do not generally read the literature relating to climate, scientific or otherwise, and the media is incompetent at presenting the arguments from both sides with any clarity, it would unsurprising if the rabble were as clueless on the subject as my brothers turned out to be. I would therefore rate the 58% poll figure as essentially meaningless except as a measure of the effectiveness of climate propaganda.
so patrick, you are incapable of answering a few simple questions…oh well you win, its what i expect from people that hold a “faith”.
your wit and sarcasm are such a pleasure to us all i suppose we should be grateful to be in your presence.
Me i ll just skip over your wit for now and think oh what a complete and utter prick you are, still i suppose i can satisfy myself with the thought you are probably some single bitter twisted individual..and rather than feel sorry for you, just hope it gets worse.
Luke thankyou for your response, it must be worrying to genuinely be concerned like you are and see the best that people can come up with is an ETS that you know will not help.
perhaps patrick might like to read the following link http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims-Call-Climate-Fears-Pseudo-Religion-Urge-Chancellor-to-reconsider-views
“The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to “strongly reconsider” her position on global warming and requested a “convening of an impartial panel” that is “free of ideology” to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments.
The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that “humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.”
“More importantly, there’s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role,” the scientists wrote. “Indeed CO2’s capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today’s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree,” they added.
“The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility,” the scientists wrote.
As Luke says there is a lot of crap on both sides of the debate and I can understand why he believes so strongly because he continually provides his evidence and thoughts in a coherent ( well generally Luke…) manner. He does get abusive sometimes but i think i understand that his sense of humour and wit make up for it and make his posts generally intersting to read.
It frustrates me that the sceptic side seems to find it so hard to gain traction. I have been disappointed in interviews i have seen of our pin up boys such as bob carter, but i thought plimer made a case that really should gain traction if only people were capable of picking up his book and reading it. Just the first chapter has to make you sceptical.
Science needs to watch out. It has offered us so much over the years but it is already in danger of becoming a laughing stock. Now when I see some new scientific finding I am immediately sceptical.
Dribble, I concur with your sentiments and celebrate the humour in your name. Its sad isnt it that so few people who should have the capacity to think for themselves just blindly believe what they are told by “higher” authorities.
“think oh what a complete and utter prick you are”
I’m sorry Toby, the tenor of you last comment with its pleading pathetic tone almost brings a tear to my eye. You admiration for Luke is …um… admirable. I don’t intend to answer any of your questions, why should I? I don’t really care about the evidence, that’s for others to gather. Your questions are for the scientists not for bloggers. What I take issue with is your absolute conviction that you are right and everyone else is wrong, a position that conflicts directly with your professed belief in science. It’s borne out by your childish, intemperate language. Anyone who disagrees with you (or motty, louis etc) is an idiot, a fool, a moron. Brilliant response.
Dribble,
Interesting idea about the middle ages, doesn’t really work though. No delusion back then just a strong belief backed by the fear of the church.
Good to see that some members of you family have some sense. And I suppose you include yourself as part of the “rabble” or are you some sort of peer? Baron Dribble perhaps?
Comment on PatrickB, 5:47 pm on 5-8-09
PatrickB in dismissing a well-credentialled scientist in Walter Starck implies that there is an overwhelming consensus that AGW is proven and serious. It is interesting to compare this witha study by Professor Dennis Bray, easily found on the net at more than one site, under the title:
“The not so clear consensus on climate change”
Bray found that about 10% of scientists polled strongly believed in dangerous AGW. About 10% thought it was completely unfounded. The remaining 80% covered the whole spectrum between these views.
This hardly supports the view that the science is settled, and that sceptics are somehow unscientific. Debate on the science and on policy responses for possible AGW should continue. They should not be shut down by alarmism.
Baah baah patrick, your comprehension skills, thinking processes and debating skills are a wonder to us all .
what a tosser
PatrickB is misrepresenting the Newspoll figures (well, of course that’s not all he’s misrepresenting, but let’s just focus on that, since it is practically the only factual reference he has produced throughout the thread and is the basis of his claim that Australians want action on climate change regardless of the price impact).
The poll also showed in his figures that he doesn’t mention a clear majority did not want any action on an ETS until after the Copenhagen conference. When people say that they will wear the pain, but not just now thanks, it says something about whether they will really wear the pain if and when it actually comes. The poll after Copenhagen, if it is the fiasco most expect, will be telling.
He also omits to mention that Newspoll results on the ETS have swung markedly against it – by around 20% – since last September. Momentum and trend are at least as important in assessing polling as any single point in time result, Patrick.
Incidentally, you’re not PatrickG from Larvatus Prodeo are you? You show the same standard of snark, the same ham-handed attempts at humour while clearly not having much idea what the concept ‘humour’ is all about, the same surfeit of opinion and paucity of data.
Patrick B “Apparently, not only am I a fool for accepting the opinion of the clear majority of experts in the fields….”
What experts, what fields? Generalizations like yours are what drive alarmist dogma. I was debating (one sided) with an AGW advocate the other day and asked him to name an objective poll that showed the majority of climate scientists agreed with the AGW theory. I asked him 4 times and each time he came back with no answer and more rhetoric.
I agree that you would get unanimity if you polled all climate modelers. The mistake you alarmists make is thinking modelers represent climate science. They do not, they represent climate modeling, and there may be a lot of them because anyone can run a climate model. Most of you speak as if climate modeling is climate science and that climate scientists like Richard Lindzen, with 40 years in the non-modeling, direct observation school are skeptics not worth bothering with.
The IPCC represents climate modelers and they are well represented by the IPCC. The IPCC admitted in TAR that they were going to use models exclusively to ‘guess’ at future climate states. They do not predict future climate states because the IPCC made it clear that is not possible, and Kevin Trenberth concurred. Out of the 4000 reviewers on the IPCC, only about 250 are degreed climate scientists or meteorologists. The rest are scientists from all disciplines.
Among the skeptics you might get partial agreement on AGW. John Christy of UAH claims CO2 ‘should’ warm the atmosphere and Patrick Micahels feels ACO2 contributes to the warming. The latter simply does not think the amount of warming contributed is worth the bother. Therefore a straight yes/no poll would reveal nothing.
Let me put it to you this way. Among all climate scientists with a degree in the discipline, or among meteorologists, or among physicists, what percentage of those people agree with the AGW theory? How many of them just don’t know?
I really don’t get where you are coming from in trying to disparage Pearman’s qualifications.
You say …
“And of course Graeme Pearman who many in Australia assume to be a climate scientist, actually trained as a biologist and has a PhD in carbon budgeting.”
And the reality is …
“The material for this web site was prepared under contract by Dr Graeme I Pearman AM, FAA, ATSE, FRoySocVic, BSc(Hon), PhD. Dr Graeme Pearman obtained his degrees from the University of Western Australia, where he was trained as a biologist. He joined CSIRO in 1971 where he was Chief of the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research for the ten years 1992-2002. He contributed over 150 scientific journal papers primarily on aspects of the global carbon budget.”
I would imagine that someone who headed the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research for the ten years, who has contributed to over 150 scientific papers, and who did hios PhD on the global carbon budget (which is key to understanding the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect) might know a thing or two about the subject.
By contrast, how many climate science papers has Bob Carter published (other than his recent embarrassingly lame effort with Freitas & McLean)?
But in the end the most telling thing is that Bob Carter and co. are so willing to say things that are clearly no true, contradictory or illogical. For example, the ‘climate has always changed and was doing so before people were around therefore this time it can’t be us’ line. Or the ‘Carbon dioxide is only a trace gas therefore it can’t possibly affect the climate’ meme. You don’t have to be particularly intelligent let alone trained in climate science to see how bogus arguments like that are. When someone asserts such patently dumb things, how can anyone with any level of scientific literacy take anything they say seriously, or have respect for anyone who holds them up as ‘experts’.
Jennifer, you’re really bad at getting things right. Graham Pearman does not have a PhD in “Carbon budgetting”. What your link says is that “He contributed over 150 scientific journal papers primarily on aspects of the global carbon budget.”
And that latter has nothing to do with “budgetting” It is about quantifying the carbon cycle. He is a world leading scientist in atmospheric chemistry.
He was Chief of CSIRO’s Division of Atmospheric Research for ten years. And yes, in the 60’s there weren’t courses in climatology in Australia. But with, for example, a 1976 Nature article on “Climatic implications of stable carbon isotopes in tree rings” and a profusion of similar articles over the next thirty years, there can hardly be anyone more qualified to be called a climate scientist.
And Bob Carter?
Reality is very few really know about AGW in detail.
But irrelevant anyway – ignore the faux sceptic flak and diversionary stunts – onwards to Berlin !
Anyone who believes in this AGW hypothesis is a climate scientist. Anyone who might disagree is not. Simple as that! No debate or opposing scientific research is required. Didn’t our failed Divinity student and Natural Science D achiever (Washington Post article, 2000) but respected climatologist Al Gore tell us the debate is OVER.
“Jennifer, you’re really bad at getting things right. ”
That’s because she never actually checks that anything she puts up here is correct. As a PhD qualified scientist herself, I would have thought that would have been one of the most important skills she would have learned.
The Commonwealth Bank has announced it will reduce its carbon emissions by 20 per cent by June 2013, in comparison to 2008-2009 levels.
The bank will implement a range of energy and IT efficiency initiatives to achieve the carbon reduction target by June 2013, which include:
* upgrades to lighting and air conditioning in offices and branches;
* automated overnight PC shutdown for all staff;
* upgrades to desktop hardware; and
* changes to the type of cars and fuel used in the Group’s tool-of-trade fleet.
The impact of the project will be measured by the Group’s existing energy and carbon emissions data management systems and will be reported annually.
http://news.envirocentre.com.au/lawn/article.php?issue=555&key=990&id=12764
Very good luke; no doubt the frugal and thrifty CB chaps will pass on the fruits of this efficiency to their customers.
Back ot; Nick has thoughtfully put forward Professor Pearman as a suitably qualified climate scientist with expertise to justify his apocalyptic visions [how come noone ever mentions Pearman’s devout beliefs but those of Spencer or Christy or even Fielding are the basis for ridicule?]; I would like to counter with Professor Paltridge.
One observation is that the time Gavin Schmidt, and other “climate scientists” at RealClimate, spend writing blog entries to debunk criticisms and defend their GCMs leaves little time for producing comprehensive research papers and validating the models. Surely these “climate cannot be dedicated in the way they should be?
As an amateur climate/weather observer for over 23 years, I am concerned about the warming/drying trend in SE Australia over the last 15 years. I don’t know the cause, but I hope it is temporary and due to the dominance of El Nino since the late 1970’s. If however the warming/drying is due to GHG emissions, I doubt that there will ever be sufficient global effort to reduce them – perhaps it will only happen when fossil fuel runs out. In that regard we would be better to think about how to mitigate the worst likely outcome. I see little of that happening. Rudd’s approach is hypocracy. The government maintains record levels of immigration. More water, energy, food and land resources need to be allocated year by year, so diminishing our living standards. In NSW very few towns and cities can boast of full water supplies. For example, Oberon’s dam is at less than 15% capacity. Rainfall there has declined 15% in the last 10 years. Lack of water and our growing energy deficit is something that can be dealt with and are more pressing matters. Climate change is highly unpredicateble in our time frame, and it is even less certain that we can materially do anything about it.
Coho, yes, Graham Pearman and Garth Paltridge were long-time colleagues at the Division of Atmospheric Research. You might like to ask Garth what he thinks of Miskolczi.
SJT: Even if there was no AGW, there would still be plenty of work for climate scientists.
Well, touche. Finally, SJT glimpses, no doubt inadvertently, the real nature of the beast.
“Baah baah patrick, your comprehension skills, thinking processes and debating skills are a wonder to us all .
what a tosser”
What an excellent point, and not at all ineloquent (sic).
“PatrickB is misrepresenting the Newspoll figures”
Total rubbish, the figures I gave were copied and pasted from the report. I also invited others to view the other survey results. I don’t need to manipulate the data to make my argument. All the other results point to majority support for a belief in AGW. I don’t think the result for a “wait until after … ” stance can be interpreted as support for the anti-AGW position.
I don’t regard the science as settled, I think there are few who do, they are called extremists and the occur in all debates. I don’t dismiss the views of Walter Starck, I don’t know what they are. I don’t care, the evidence will be collected and interpreted by experts.
I take issue with the stance taken by the denialists that AGW is a grand conspiracy and that anyone who expresses a view that takes the weight of evidence from a large number of experts as supporting the AGW theory is an idiot. To me that type of argument lacks logic, it is simple, childish, infantile. I’m amazed at the incapacity of adults here to reflect for a moment on the basis for their arguments and the way that they argue. The lack of an ability to reflect and adjust is the mark of an extremist.
I’m not patrickg from LP I’m patrickb, the snarkiness comes with the name.
“I agree that you would get unanimity if you polled all climate modelers. The mistake you alarmists make is thinking modelers represent climate science.”
You see that’s exactly my point in the two sentences you dismiss an entire body of research because you don’t like the (widely accepted) methodology. Then you use a pejorative to attempt to belittle you opponents.
Why do you dismiss modeling when it is a widely used technique in many fields? Why are you at odds with large numbers of practitioners in the field? I presume you feel that another round of insults will answer the question?
“What experts, what fields?”
I presume experts in fields related to the problem at hand. Why is that such a wild assumption? Do you have evidence that large numbers of unqualified people are constructing an elaborate conspiracy?
SJT
““More bunk from denialists ! How is that denialist scum deny the data quality then go and use it anyway. You fucking hypocrites.”
It should be tattooed on their foreheads.”
Like politically uncorrect individuals during the 3rd Reich who had it tattooed on their arms?
PatrickB: Interesting idea about the middle ages, doesn’t really work though. No delusion back then just a strong belief backed by the fear of the church.
*******
No delusion in the Middle Ages? That seems a bit strong. I am not an expert in the belief systems of the period, but the most obvious example is the question of the position of the earth in the solar system. The prevailing view, dating from time immemorial, was that the sun went around the earth. When Copernicus proposed the heliocentric theory there was no actual physical evidence for this view at the time. It mainly arose from Copernicus’s personal belief that the mathematical prescription for the movement of the planets was thereby rendered simpler and more aesthetic than the prevailing system of Ptolemaic epicycles. The theory only gradually gained acceptance over the next hundred years, and we can only imagine the arguments between right and left-wing loony Copernicanists and anti-Copernicanists that must have raged at the time. Due to technical innovations such as the telescope, physical evidence for the theory gradually became available and it eventually became widely accepted. Now, 400 or so years later, we can confidently assert that the theory that the earth orbits the sun is a certain fact.
However, if you had approached a rational philosopher in the 12th century and suggested to him that something might be wrong with the accepted consensus concerning the movement of the planets, you would probably have been branded as denialist scum, your sanity questioned and perhaps you might have been run out of town for being a threat to the mental and moral health of the population. Everybody who knew anything about the subject at all, every educated persion, knew that Ptolemaic epicycles were the bee knees and nothing further by way of explanation could possibly be required.
Were such philosophers, along with the entire intellectual class of the period, deluded? Only now, when the science of astronomy has become far more sophisticated, along with the development of rocketry and satellites etc, can we say with any real certainty that they were.
This is only a very simple example. Consider the vast history of peculiar medical theories, such as the notion that being bled by leeches was good for you, or that the ingestion of mercury compounds was a health tonic. All of these dubious practices and more were recommended by the experts of the day on the basis of elaborate theory. The history of science, or perhaps more correctly the history of rational thinking, shows over and over again that a congregation of experts or authority does not guarantee certain knowledge. Indeed this is one of the lessons of history that is supposedly incorporated into the scientific method itself, but which particularly in relation to climate science seems to have sadly fallen by the wayside in a big way.
“Like politically uncorrect individuals during the 3rd Reich who had it tattooed on their arms?”
*GODWIN*
As in Gretch?
“Baah baah patrick, your comprehension skills, thinking processes and debating skills are a wonder to us all .
what a tosser”
What an excellent point, and not at all ineloquent (sic).
Patrick that is all you deserve, i tried to debate with you and refuse to answer any question, or make an intelligent point, i had said i would not bother to read your comments and im not except i saw my quote.
you remain a tosser and in your instance it seems a great description so infact quite eloquent
“Patrick that is all you deserve, i tried to debate with you and refuse to answer any question, or make an intelligent point, i had said i would not bother to read your comments and im not except i saw my quote.”
That should obviously have read “i tried to debate with you and you refused to answer any simple questions, let alone do anything other than be a smart arse.”
And where does all this CARBON come from ???? http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm