According to Christopher Monckton in yesterday’s National Press Club debate with Richard Dennis the carbon tax is the wrong solution to a nonproblem. I got a bit bored with them both. Who do you think ‘won’ the debate?
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
I got bored with Monckton’s bullshit. Denniss was pleasantly low-key and reasonable.
The usual lies from Monckton: claims to have “written papers in the reviewed literature” on climate sensitivity. One article, scanned by a friendly physicist, in the APS magazine op-ed spot does not add up to “papers”. Does it?
Very surprised that no journos called him on that,but he is justifiably confident of their basic indifference to the subject’s detail.
Columnists did not advocate the gassing or tatooing of climate ‘skeptics’ in any serious sense,but what the hell,Monckton asserts that as well. No-one dissents.
Lied about his Garnaut/fascist remark as “inadvertent”! How “inadvertent” is it to prepare an audio-visual presentation featuring a slide of a SWASTIKA next to a tract of Garnaut’s remarks? That’s pre-meditation,not inadvertance. God’s teeth!
The hide of the man to urge all to get “back to those equations,again” when he refuses correction by truly qualified people. Calling for civilised debate when he carries on like a pork-chop when faced with thorough debunking! Hypocrite.
He claims again at 40:42 to be “a specialist in the field of the determination of climate sensitivity,and I lecture on this at faculty level”.This is an utter lie [somebody reproduce his course papers,and his publication record and employment history!],as is the claim that there is “no agreement” amongst [real] experts on the subject. That is complete fiction as any reader here would know.
More fiction: claims that the CET is an acceptable proxy for global temperature,and then that the anthropogenic addition of CO2 to the atmosphere since 1750 is almost equivalent to “doubling” the atmospheric level! Totally ignores inertia and slow feedbacks in in asserting what we have seen is all we will get. The guy is shameless,and horribly confident that nobody in the audience dares question him closely!
The most interesting thing about Monckton is his sheer bare-faced cheek,and what that says about his contempt for journalists and the public at large .It’s a game to see how far he can push it.
poly
Hmmm, once again, I didn’t think one can watch the same TV show and come away with such diverging opinion.
Proved wrong again, I am.
I share Monckton’s contempt for journalists. Betting the reporters will be the most ignorant people in the room is always safe.
The hide of the man to urge all to get “back to those equations,again” when he refuses correction by truly qualified people.
Tim Lambert, and John Abraham I guess are the tender few who qualify?
So how come their ‘corrections’ are crap?
It was good to see it ended up a civilised debate.
Poly, amazing how you can be so easily offended. I thought his acceptance of 1 c without even mentioning natural variation was very reasonable.
A bit more science for drought-lover Lukey:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/07/rising-co2-causes-unprecendented.html
Afraid I’m seriously bored with the whole charade to.
I mean, God…. is it really two years until the next election.
Are we there yet…… are we there yet…….. are we there yet
Richard Denniss relied heavily on PP logic when he said, “bet the house if Monckton’s right or insure the house if he’s wrong” in response to the argument that “if the premium costs more than the risk – don’t insure.”
However, it seems from all the figures that whatever we pay for the premium simply won’t guarantee the house so as Moncton also said, we may as well enjoy the sunshine.
‘Denniss was pleasantly low-key and reasonable.’
Really, I thought he nothing substantial to say on real climate change.
By comparison Christopher was a breath of fresh air.
polyaulax,
From my reading what Monckton said about sensitivity is true. What do you say is the error that offends you.
Of interest also (not mentioned by Monckton) is that a Nic Lewis (mathematician) whilst looking at the relervent section in the last IPCC report, found one of the main empirical papers on sensitivity was mis represented. The current variation in climate sensitivty is already large, a correction to the IPCC last report will bring the whole diaster thing to an end.
It is obvious that the climate is not very sensitive to CO2 changes, since life on this planet has existed for hundreds of millions of years through a large range of temperature and CO2 ranges, without destructive climate ending diasters. Funny though it seems being hit by large metorites is actyally more common.
Ray
In a debate like this, the participants only have a short amount of time to make their points. What a shame for Denniss that he missed the opportunity, because of wasting so much of his allotted time on irrelevancies.
He did try to make some headway via the use of analogies, presumably because he was unable to come up with anything substantial to directly support his case. For example the tedious medical analogy that he started with. Unfortunately it flopped. This is because it was not actually an analogy as he claimed it was. I have seen a definition of analogy as “a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based”. His story about the dilemma of the person with cancer is totally dissimilar to anything related to the climate change question. What I can’t work out is whether he did this based on ignorance or a malicious attempt to deceive.
Putting aside Denniss’ tired analogising -with resort to the Pascalian wager – and Monckton’s too-neat mathematics, I guess it was a civil enough tussle between modelling and measurement. Since modelling MUST be wrong 100% of the time, and measurement is merely faulty most of the time, I’d have to give the debate to Monckton.
Having sat through Bob Carter, Lord Monckton and an “amazing” audience (can we take up arms and shoot people??) in Brisbane I have to say I am really dismayed. Audience played like a fiddle but they loved it. Porkies by Carter on radiosonde series (Tamino has it) and reef SSTs. Nonsense by Monckton on Greenland ice melt and snowpack consolidation. So much vaudeville, theatrics, navigated to a tear-jerking conclusion with a mad bad rightist audience going nuts like at a rock concert. And presenters falling over each other in praise of bad science. “ooooo Bob you’re soooo wonderful” – “oh Christopher ….” swoon.
Of course some reasonable comments – but all this stuff about truth in science and robust honest debates from sceptics is pure bunkum. Poly is correct.
Do I say this as a warmists supporter – not really – disturbing politics – another ancient audience – and the Tea Party gave the vote of thanks. THE TEA PARTY !!! omigawd ….
Barf barf and barf.
oh – and couldn’t help but think that the Lord had toned it down for the Press Club. He needed to.
“Do I say this as a warmists supporter – not really”
Yeah, right.
But considering the tiny bit of airplay the sceptics get plus the fact that the CAGWers never want to debate the science anyway, Monckton feels he has to make the most of the oportunity.
And you think Poly’s right about consensus on climate sensitivity?
Yeah, right, again.
But if you and Poly didn’t enjoy Monckton, here’s something you could both get your teeth into.
Just check these speakers; all fully reviewed peers!
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/07/steve-schneiders-climate-view-nytimes.html
Porkies by Carter on radiosonde series (Tamino has it)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2763.1
The porkies on radiosonde series that drop stations from the record until a cooling trend is magically transformed into a warming trend?
In the AMS’ words “In the Tropics the exclusion of the 9 anomalous stations from the 63-station network for 1958–2000 results in a warming of the 300–100-mb layer rather than a cooling, a doubling of the warming of the 850–300-mb layer to a value of 0.13 K decade−1, and a greater warming at 850–300-mb than at the surface. ”
Would that be the porker you were referring to?
For me it wasn’t a debate – Monckton talked of the science, Denniss talked analogies. Chalk and Cheese.
It was good in that it put the real facts to some of the dumb journalists for a change.
BTW OT – Alexandrina Mayor Kym McHugh is worried that constant bickering between the states and individual communities over the future of the Murray-Darling Basin will end up with little reform to stop the Lower Lakes region of South Australia becoming a salty “Dead Sea”.
With just weeks until the release of the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan, Mr McHugh is pleading for all basin communities and politicians to agree on three key points: the Murray needs to flow out to sea nine years out of every 10; all salt in the system needs to be flushed out; and the federal government should ensure every reform contributes to the overall health of the basin.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pile-up-of-salt-feared-in-murray-basin/story-fn59niix-1226098605395
Mayeau nope – truncating the data is a disgrace. The end. Jeez you’re dense matey.
Time for sceptics to ditch Monckton – get someone less vaudevillian representing the cause. It’s not a good look.
luke
“Time for sceptics to ditch Monckton”
As always when an opponent asks for the removal of someone, that someone must be doing a good job.
The opposite is also true, over at Bolta’s there are a couple of posters continually extolling the virtues of M Turnbull, and what a disaster he was as a leader.
I have yet to watch the debate but it sounds relatively tame. Was it useful? Hmmm…
As an interested layperson with no real science education I have followed the whole AGW debate for several years. I’ve read the various blogs and tried to at least grasp the basics. What has stood out for me is the difficulty in evaluating exactly what the truth might be – there seems good evidence on all sides. Or more exactly, there is a belief in the evidence on both sides.
Perhaps this is just more human nature at work. Even on the pro-AGW sites, one sees the extent to which discussion becomes more and more mired in esoterica, the extent to which those in agreement piss in each other’s pockets, and the extraordinary discourtesy extended to those who disagree. Things are no better in the skeptics camp either.
No, I can’t hope to understand the detailed workings of radiative physics, nor the complexities of atmospheric behaviour. All I can do is observe the predictions and then try to match those to reality. But even that is prone to confusion as data is manipulated into statistical oblivion. Nonetheless, I don’t see evidence of catastrophe.
But that’s not my real concern. Rather, it is the extent to which the whole AGW meme has subverted the mainstream view of the world. There now exists a sense, especially with young people, that the world’s climate is normally stable and benign. That if it weren’t for man, we’d be living in a paradise of gentle zephyrs and golden sun. Any natural disaster, from flooding rain to drought to heavy snow to tsunami and earthquake, is somehow caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2.
It is the lack of REAL discourse on the issue, and the manipulation by political and financial interests, that worries me. Thus, I welcome the opportunity for people like Monckton to present an alternative point of view. Is he wrong? Maybe. Is he right. Maybe. Is it useful to hear him speak?
YES!
But Luke darlin, Jimmy Angell didn’t truncate the data. He looked at it and thought “All those cold radiosonde readings in the fifties, what would the record look like if they didn’t exist?”
Then he deleted them.
It’s bad form to berate Carter for digging them out of the trash bin, and finding out that when you plug them back in a 0.2 degree step change in the warmist version of the record is reconciled.
Prof Bob should be applauded. And Tamino should crawl back under his rock.
Lukle – Roy Morgan disagrees with you.
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2011/1393/
Here is a Wall Street Journal editorial on Gillards carbon tax.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203304576447910279095574.html?KEYWORDS=gillard#articleTabs%3Darticle
Thanks for that James.
I’ve often wondered if the satellite measurements of surface temperature are like their measurements of SLs.
The radiosondes and tide gauges tell a much more moderate story.
One that alarmist rent seekers like our mate here don’t want to know about.
Graeme I think you make a very valid point. I think this then begs the question should we be taking out “insurance”? Denniss kept pushing the insurance line with no comprehension of the futilty of this “insurance”. As Monkton so rightly pointed out you do not take out an insurance policy if the payout is less than the premium. In this instance we know two things.
1. The cost of insurance is very high and the opportunity cost is great. We can do useful things with that money that we know have a benefit and do not hinder productivity growth and efficiency.
2. The return on the policy has no payout because the worlds emissions will not fall and as Flannery has stated ( although i doubt he is right…like with so many things) that if the world shuts down today, temp will not change for a thousand years. I have heard not one scientist or economist suggest our actions will change temperatures.
The other thing that seems to me to stand out is the consensus position in reality is just that co2 is a greenhouse gas and will create some warming. There appears to be no consensus on how much and this is the valid and important point that Monkton was making. Anybody investigating the science would surely have to also agree with this?
Luke I am surpised you think “we” should ditch the lord? I suspect that he could argue that the moon is made of green cheese and any impartial “voter” would walk out believing him….obviously irrespective of the reality ( its made out of blue cheese!)
I am not surprised anybody of any note is unprepared to debate him!
How did Poly get away with the profanity “bull****”, perhaps Graham would like to explain?
Cancer analogies and equations don’t convince me of anything. However, I do hope Monckton stays prominent, for the obvious reasons stated by Mark A: when the left tells you to ditch (Monckton) or promote (Turnbull), it shows where they’re hurting and where they think they can gain on you.
I walked along the fringe of our forest on a still night recently, coming back from watching Origin at the neighbours. Walking on a cold and windless night is a bit like ocean swimming: you become aware of sharp temperature variations within a few metres. It occurred to me that if something as apparently simple as temperature within such a tiny space can be so complex and variable, the boffins claiming to understand and, god help us, model the climate of a planet really must be like the Hungry Beast rappers. Pivotal science really could be in the hands of preening juveniles, clad affectedly in lab-coats – in case of coffee spills? – but with little capacity for thought or observation.
I’m in a similar position to Graeme M. Nothing makes me more suspicious than the abolition of the past, and it is what we have seen consistently with CAGW promoters. A tiny example: Tim Flannery is actually an editor of Watkin Tench’s journals, which contain a reliable account of summer westerly conditions around Sydney in the early 1790’s. I’ve witnessed similar scary conditions twice in my life, but not to the lethal effect described by Tench. The grand deceit of warmists is to invoke the severity of current and recent disasters, knowing that they will be magnified by their freshness. Something else working for the warmists is, of course, greater reportage and more extensive human settlement. Were the Galveston hurricane to occur now, it would be a gift to alarmists.
If the Hockeystick, with its abolition of the Medieval Warming, didn’t convince you of the need to ignore these shabby frauds, you’re probably ripe for more of their trash. But people live longer now, and they live long enough to see three of four major weather cycles with all kinds of variations and contradictions between. Maybe that’s a reason why skeptic audiences are on the old side. (Also, some youthful or youth-obsessed people never get to be either cool or wise, so they should lay off the age thing. They should save themselves the pain of trying to be SNL, but ending up David Brent.)
Really, I’m with Binny. I just want to wake up one morning soon and know that this Federal Government, with its self-loathing green dogmatists, are gone from my life. And I want Turnbull and the Doctors’ Wives gone from my life. And my local member, ugly-but-beautiful-in-his-ugliness Oakeshott…please, let him be gone from my life!
Are we there yet?
I was there in person, and it was anything but boring – what most of you would have missed was the supercilious, ridiculing, smart-arse reactions from the AGW faithful – typical pro-green, I am superior, faux intellectualism that is Canberra. I used to debate at University and Moncknto not only changed his debating to deal with Denniss’ points, Denniss did not do so himself, but simply relied on appeals to authority, head counts, and consensus.
The impression I got from Denniss, and thus most of the audience, was that none of them understand the scientific method, thinking that science is actually done by every one agreeing that something must be true if we all agree to it.
Denniss mentioned overwhelming evidence – but neglected to present it – it might have been its underwhelming state which prompted him to hyperbole.
Boring? Denniss was boring by repeating the consensus line, but if anyone thinks Monckton was boring, and the audience certainly didn’t judging by their reactions, then what a pathetic life some of us must live.
Hahahahaha – you’re being played like a fiddle Sinkers. Lied to without blinking. Come on – are you that far gone?
It’s vaudeville mate. Razza mattaz and when nobody’s looking (in safe rightist (tea party) company) the real demeanour bubbles up … You should be worried !
Of course the evidence is overwhelming – deniers spend most of their time pulling stunts. It’s too time consuming to keep up with all the nonsense.
e.g. Bob’s bald-faced beauty – http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/#more-3954 leaving off the end of the radiosonde graph is as sleazy and shonky as you can get. SHAME SHAME SHAME !@!
And that was just one ! Face it scepos just make shit up !
luke, even by your deranged standards that is ridiculous. Angell didn’t truncate anything; you are thinking of Santer the truncater so justfiably hung out to dry by McKitrick who has been vindicated by Fu et al:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/new-paper-illustrates-another-failure-of-the-ipcc-mullti-decadal-global-model-predictions-on-the-warming-in-the-tropical-upper-troposphere-models-versus-observations-by-fu-et-al-2011/
Thanks cohers,
“This indicates possible common errors among GCMs although we cannot exclude the possibility that the discrepancy between models and observations is partly caused by biases in satellite data.”
The more the science is settled, the more heads that uncertainty monster grows…..
Give up Luke, the science is irrelevant. No new technology means no cut in global emissions. Our “insurance policy” is merely a huge cost with no payout as I believe even you agree!?
Can you point me to any debate held anywhere in the world on this topic where the warmers have actually walked away on top?
remember its not that “sceptics” ( well most) say co2 is not a greenhouse gas and causes no warming. The argument as you know is about how much warming and there is no consensus on this at all. For the scary scenarios to arise you better start to see some real increases in temp, sea level, ocean temps, hot spot etc etc quickly to be able to support any chance of significant warming taking place…..so far its not looking very likely (thankgoodness) asnd yet we are being told by so many its all getting worse than predicted??? seriously wake up and admit there is now serious doubt about the C in CAGW……..AND SWEET F.A we can do about it anyway. They wont even consider nuclear in the safest country in the world for its use!…clearly this is politics and nothing else.
A hypothetical:
If humanity were actually facing a global disaster (it isn’t), who are the very last people you would want involved in taking decisions or action? Well?
Exactly!
Luke, Loud Munktoon is our Trojan Horse and history will see him as hero.
Robert….no politician thats for sure! sadly im not sure the liberals are muh better, but one things for sure they could not be as bad as this current mob. If they tried I dont think they could be more succesful at stuffing up our competitiveness and long term future!..NBN joke, carbon policy bigger joke, boat people, and lets not bother with what happened under Rudd’s watch!
toby robertson
“I’m not sure the liberals are much better,”
You are right Toby, and this is where we differ from Luke and Co. we can freely acknowledge the shortcomings of all politicians’ regardless of party politics, where he and the left will not.
I think, nay I’m sure, TA would dearly love to say again that man made CC is crap, but as a politician he simply cannot do it.
Still too many brainwashed by “edumacation” liberal supporters believe in it.
best to keep them on side and then quietly drop the package when in power.
Sad but this is politics.
With a name led by Lord, he loses credibility immediately
Why Ann? Since when has a name suggested credibility.
Did you know that he invented a mathematics puzzle that offered $1mil to the first person to solve it within 2 years. It took eighteen months for 2 Cambridge Mathematicians solve it and they won their $1mil. Monckton by then had sold 500K copies of the puzzle.
His second mathematics puzzle, Eternity II hasn’t been solved so far with in the 4 year time-scale and the $2mil prize hasn’t been claimed……………. and you suggest he has no credibility?
“With a name led by Lord, he loses credibility immediately”
Names are irrelevant; for instance ‘Ann’ means gracious which obviously has nothing to do with your character.
Ann
“With a name led (sic) by Lord, he loses credibility immediately”
Well Ann, this obsession with royalty and nobility being inbred and generally dimwits and idiots, you name any derogatory term, always puzzled me.
There are only a few thousand of them and certainly, there were and currently are a few oddballs amongst them.
Have you or anyone else made a study of how they compare to the general population?
People complain that they have hereditary rights and any one of them can be a king or a queen.
Not many turned out to be really objectionable.
Compare that to the number of people who can be elected to the position of president of the US or PM of Australia, (hundreds of millions in theory) and we can still select an absolute dud.
It should make you think again, but judging by your comment, you didn’t think in the first place, so there is no chance of that.
Cheers
‘Despite negative publicity surrounding Lord Monckton’s visit to Australia, the results of a special Roy Morgan Reactor test over the last 24 hours show Lord Monckton won the debate and persuaded a substantial 9% of Australians to his view that ‘Concerns about Global Warming are exaggerated’.
Cohers – he didn’t show the full data set. Unbelievable !
Their fawning vaudeville duo act was nauseating and crowd a lynch mob. Cohenite even you must be worried about some of your fellow travellers.
When the Tea Party guy gives the vote of thanks you know you’ve arrived.
Richard Denniss was all spin.
Monckton had the facts at his fingertips. One hopes that more people will come to realise what a hoax the crazy PM and her Green partners in crime are peddling.
Luke,
You were there, of course, (The Denniss-Monckton debate).
No?
You Julia, you.
SD – you’ll love this 🙂
“ONE of Australia’s foremost experts on the relationship between climate change and sea levels has written a peer-reviewed paper concluding that rises in sea levels are “decelerating”.
15cm by 2100.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sea-level-rises-are-slowing-tidal-gauge-records-show/story-e6frg6nf-1226099350056
Try to keep up Sinkers – I was talking about Brisbane Monckton stage show (see above). Dopey wan.
John, thanks for that. Phil Watson is what I call a realistic govt adviser unlike CSIRO led by John Church who spruiks this sort of alarmist crap:
”We are seeing something significant, and it’s something our coastal cities have not experienced before,” said Dr Church, a lead author of the most recent global assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ”We’re beginning to move outside the range of what we have become used to seeing as normal variability, and see an acceleration of both greenhouse gas levels and sea level rise.”
And Combet prepares maps of coastal inundation showing a quarter of a million coastal houses being lost yet, like Al Gore, chooses to live by the ocean.
Check out this story Luke and warmers!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sea-level-rises-are-slowing-tidal-gauge-records-show/story-e6frg6nf-1226099350056
real scientists throw out or modify a theory when evidence disputes it. But we have so many scientists and politicians saying its worse than predicted…..seriously how can you have anything but doubt about the C in CAGW!?
The Luke donkey has always been so religiously involved in this CAGW fraud, but with the deceleration of SL problem he’ll be working himself up to even more extreme fits of gormless delusion.
If SLR isn’t happening combined with little statistically significant temp increase since 1995 this stupid con should be dropped at once before we waste more countless billions that could/should be spent elsewhere.
More of this fraud exposed by Lomborg and using pesky facts again.
Gee we could get returns like this– Germany spent 75 billion $ on solar to achieve just a 0.1% part of their total energy supply. For dumb bums like Polly and Luke that’s 75 thousand million or $ 75,000,000,000.
Of course China would achieve that replacement next week when they open another CF power station.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/bootleggers-hijack-climate-change-debate/story-e6frgd0x-1226099304031
BTW this would delay warming by 2100 by a few hours and yet Luke strongly endorses this illogical madness.
Chris Monckton is wonderful…he makes warmies’ heads explode all over the place. The incoherent incontinent spluttering outrage this last week is just marvelous!
I went to the Newcastle session and I saw no climate science I disagreed with, many of the graphs and data I know quite well. He had a few additional references to sub-Arrhenius 2XCO2 results I hadn’t seen before, but on the ABC he cited Spencer & Braswell 2010 and Lindzen & Choi 2011 live on national television. Made my heart warm, it did. Those two papers are also wonderful head exploders, warmies hate them since no one has falsified the data yet (nor will they – its a bit difficult to hide back-radiated IR from a satellite).
Have to say Prof Lindzen’s interview with Andrew Bolt was likewise marvelous, in a different way. Prof Lindzen just gently and mercilessly inserts the scalpel with a smile. And if you don’t agree with me, try this thought: how is Dr Pachauri going to keep Lindzen & Choi 2011 out of AR5 after NAS threw its little tanti eh? Snookered, they are.
Boring? More like depressing. Monckton should have been a lawyer – the jails would be empty and we would live in fear. Triumph of oratory over evidence, so much for noblesse oblige. But you can see how he got no votes in 4 elections for seats for hereditary peers. As Kalichmand quoted by Monboit put it “The cognitive style of the denialist represents a warped sense of reality, which is why arguing with them gets you nowhere. All people fit the world into their own sense of reality, but the suspicious person distorts reality with uncommon rigidity.” Moncktons response to the University in WA was a good example of why you never argue with a mug. “Please specify three instances in which I am thought to have circulated “widely discredited fictions about climate change”, with a clear citation in each instance of my ipsissima verba, and provide evidence, in the form of at least five peer-reviewed refutations in each instance, that the widely discredited “fictions” are indeed fictions. ” What pompous pricks to his hide.
Bazza…what do you when the evidence doesnt support a theory?…..stick with it, modify it, or throw it out?….
It seems likely that…..
1. No real warming for over a decade
2. no hot spot
3. no accelerating rate of sea lvl rise ( decreasing?!)
4. Ocean temps steady to marginally declining?
5. Its likely been this warm during teh medieval, roman and minoan warm periods….
Talk about looking at things through your own prism!
stupid is as stupid does………
remember “sceptics” do not say co2 is not a greenhouse gas…we argue ( rightly) there is no concensus and little real world evidence or historical evidence to support the C in CAGW.
And yes it would be depressing for a zealot to realise his emperor has no clothes!!
Bazza,
You could always try a few facts for a change unlike Wendy Carlisle, the ABC and all the others who won’t debate the difficult science but, like you, are quite happy to shoot the messenger.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/this-is-not-journalism-wendy-carlisle/
Ah, Bazza, here I was just now saying Chris Monckton quotes Lindzen & Spencer 2011 and Spencer & Braswell 2010 on the ABC, and you say “triumph of oratory over evidence” when his opponent Dr Denniss cited no evidence at all.
You, sir, need to improve your debating skills, since the people who read what you say may otherwise conclude that you are typing using your fundament rather than your intellect.
Some good interviews here from 2 gb radio, Gary Johns, Maurice Eemma, Bjorn Lomborg etc.
Don’t bother Bazza your comprehension level doesn’t allow you to grasp any of this unfortunately.
http://www.2gb.com/
“The cognitive style of the denialist represents a warped sense of reality…”
If you look at that sentence, it sounds analytical, academic. Look harder, however, and you can see that most of it is senseless, over-wrought verbiage, meant to flatter the pretensions of the speaker’s smug followers. “Denialists have a warped sense of reality” would not be true – nor would the use of the word “denialist” be any less sloppy – but at least there would be some clarity.
In fact, the quoted sentence does express well the disdainful prissiness and self-importance of our Green Betters. They just don’t seem to realise how thin their veneer of academic objectivity is: the misanthropic, self-loathing Leftism shows through every time. To quote Dirty Harry, their mouthwash ain’t making it.
Well bazza, I’m a lawyer and if I had my way the jails would be full. I have a special dislike for those who waste public money; who would they be bazza? People who abuse the English language come a close second; what in blazes does this mean:
“the suspicious person distorts reality with uncommon rigidity.”
You’re an idiot bazza.
Cohenite, I am not a lawyer so pls excuse the potential stupidity of my question. If a politician..or anybody knowingly misleads, and worse misuses public money when they know it is a waste and has no way of achieving its objectives…is there any recourse or consequence?
The short answer, Toby, is to vote against them; there is a distinction between stupid expenditure which can be argued against on political grounds and expenditure which contravenes legal standards or process. This is the issue the Kelly enquiry in NSW is considering.
Other than that pollies sre subject to the same legal constraints as the rest of us.
toby robertson
I’m not a lawyer myself, but politicians are covered by the “acting in good faith” get out clause.
Only if a criminal action is involved can they be charged.
In other words, stupidity and incompetence are not criminal offenses.
It should come down to us to make sure we elect good people, but where do you find them?
“All people fit the world into their own sense of reality…”
A statement which exhibits near-impossible levels of clumsiness, pomposity and triteness. When you think about it, cohers, of the four clauses quoted so reverently by bazza, three deserve to be in the hall of fame of pretentious twattery.
Thx for that Coher’s..sadly it is what I expected. I do question anybody that uses “the science is settled” and blatantly lies about us being behind the world, and comments about China acting etc etc, so clearly untrue, seem to me to be clearly not acting in good faith. However if they are just that stupid and really believe in their actions I do support their right to do this…and our right to fight them all the way…..
as this link shows, in a court of law…just like in every debate, the theory is flawed, and trying to reshape our economy based on this is clearly negligent and as a result I was hoping could at least be a Tort?
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/06/legal-verdict-manmade-global-warming-science-doesn%E2%80%99t-withstand-scrutiny/
I was hoping that maybe the threat of legal action might actually make them ponder that there really is a strong alternative perspective .
Johnathan, sadly until we pay enough we will continue to mostly get intellectual light weights with few critical thinking skills.
Johnathan Wilkes,
…..”where do you find them”
As Billy Conolly says….. The mere fact that you aspire to be a politician should preclude you from being one.
Cohenite opines on wasting money – and then he claims he’s a lawyer – hahahahahahahaha
pullease !
Hey you guys had been telling me we’re in a bone crushing ice age and the world is about to freeze. WTF ! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-22/massive-heat-wave-spreads-across-us/2806814
Luke – some media seem to have taken to reporting comfort levels rather than actual temperatures for the US heat wave (which looks like a jet stream blocking event to me – like the Moscow one):
“with a heat index of 112 in parts of the city”
And this one.
Back in 1980 I did some work at site and I recall that in the single mens’ quarters the temperature didn’t drop below 100 F for 6 weeks (I had a liquid crystal temperature scale on my clock radio). Then it rained for 6 weeks and my building floated away (I was in it at the time, fortunately it didn’t go far). Didn’t do much good to the plant either, we all worked like trojans to get it back operating after the floods subsided. I didn’t think that was all due to CO2 then, and in the age of internet data at my fingertips I still don’t. At least I don’t have to shovel copper concentrate any more though.
Oops, I meant to say “I recall that in the single mens’ quarters the temperature didn’t drop below 100 F at midnight for 6 weeks”. I was on shift. ‘Twas truly hot, weather for lizards – one perenty wandered happily and fearlessly through our plant one day, not often you see a 3m long lizard.
Ack. Not my night. Now I stuffed the boldface for everyone.
Near the end of Richard Dennis’s talk he hit us with the old “overwhelming evidence” , twice I think. This is the continual sqwark when these parrot brains are still in neutral and their mouths are still going.
At least he spared us from the tobacco industry analogy, but hell what’s the difference to that and the nasty you might have in our medical analogy.
These cunning dopes will try to convince you that on the scary scale AGW is right up there with cancer.
Yeah yawn alright Bazza .
All is forgiven, Bruce, and yes the jet stream is in zig zag motion and I blame a relatively quiet sun for upsetting the circumpolar vortex via the NAO.
Toby, if it makes you feel better ther ehas been a successful legal action in New Zealand:
http://www.suite101.com/content/legal-defeat-for-global-warming-in-kiwigate-scandal-a294157
Just remember Luke, the warmest year there, is still 1934.
How many years BC [before CO2 probs] was that?
They talk about climate change. Since severe heatwaves are a permanent feature of climate, ergo…no change! But I doubt that anyone is obtuse enough to believe otherwise.
Guys, I can’t believe that any of this is about climate. There is certainly no real conservation apparent in the waste and vandalism of desal, solar, wind etc. Coal and gas will continue to be ripped from prime land for export to the untaxed. I’m starting to get the impression that this is about shrinking the private middle ground, expanding the purely obstructive elements of the public sector, and generally creating the scarcity and dependency that the very worst people need to flourish. Hope I’m wrong.
Robert
“that the very worst people need to flourish.”
That is the idea, remove the power of the independent, self reliant, hardworking, potentially dangerous to pollys middle class and cultivate the dependent masses.
” Hope I’m wrong”
Sorry, you are right, unfortunately.
The point is chumps is that this heatwave can’t be happening? Where’s the ice age. It’s written on my fridge – YOUR predictions. By now we’re old frozen solid.
And jeez I loved this one from Monckers in Brissy. “Nobody denies CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that doubling CO2 will cause a slight warming”
Well holey doley – on here they do. Is there anything that you lot haven’t denied? The Lord would be most displeased in you? All about good science he told us !
Off to jail for Toby – the Lord would require Cohenite to earn his pay and sentence you to the colonies for bad science. But fuck it – we’re already here? So how does that work?
“Oh well” – as a loud voice proclaimed at the Brisbane rally – “I don’t say this lightly – but at what point do take up arms against this monstrous idea”. Even the compere winced at that one – where’s the videocam when you need it. And the audience clapped !?!
Nutters awake ! Poor Bazza – he’d be tarred and feathered in such a crowd. Whereas I clapped loudly and said “hear hear – bravo !”.
‘The point is chumps is that this heatwave can’t be happening? Where’s the ice age. It’s written on my fridge – YOUR predictions. By now we’re old frozen solid.’
Comrade Luke, Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann said LIA begin in a regional way and I draw your attention once again to the cool wet summers in California and west Canada.
Global warming should produce a lengthening of the growing season in North America, but this is not happening.
Also we would expect a warming of the coldest winter air masses and fewer weather extremes as the planet warms, yet all we have is a greening going on because of increased CO2.
Sydney’s wettest July in 60 years might just appear to be anomalous weather, but it’s really the start of a cool IPO and hence climate change.
Lord Monckton wins. Game, set and match. Proper balance of logos and pathos. No logical fallacies detected.
Deniss relied on far too many logical fallacies and rhetorical ‘debating techniques’ that seek to win by sympathy rather than logic. Several uses noted of the old classic; the pre-supposition.
If you think I was already on Moncktons side, think not. Please take some time to get onto Amazon and invest in a few books about the art of rhetoric and argument – and study. Be sure to understand the difference between ‘logos’ and ‘pathos’ and the full range of logical fallacies; which by the way Monckton picked up on in the debate and questions.
And the journalists score: Some good. Some stupid amateurs, with agendas and possibly fixed attitudes. They rightly deserved the public embarrassment that Monckton dished up for their failed cunning.
This is unofficial, but it appears only the USA is feeling the heat.
http://coolwx.com/record/records.daily.globe.large.png
I think this protest could rattle the Juliar idiot govt, providing it comes off without a serious, illegal incident or other silly nonsense.
http://api.ning.com/files/Yv4Kqn4emptXwAy5GN0gySkmonnyrTVhhUfuwIPT6hc2Ki0r3PwA1uOstC9Xah2vG1GtnpVoyQHNRi3a1IZ5FnHzgwU2tfKp/convoyA4flyer2.pdf
Yeah, right, Luke and where’s gavin when you need [?] him?
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/07/say-goodbye-to-colombias-glaciers.html
“The point is chumps is that this heatwave can’t be happening?”
We never seem to have as many alibis all ready prepared as you lot:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/dust-another-magical-temperature-control/
Presumably Dr Watson has been gagged and probably canned after saying SL rise is slowing and would not reach IPCC expectations.
His department has more sense and spoke for him.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/media/DecMedia11072205.htm
“The point is chumps is that this heatwave can’t be happening?”
Hey, Luke, increased jet stream blocking is associated with solar minima. That’s not me saying this it is Mike Lockwood at Reading. He is a consensus climate scientist too, not a sceptic – at least from what I’ve read he’s said re AGW. I don’t have a copy of the paper he’s just published but you can probably hunt it up from ERL directly.
Also Steve Goddard has more on how the media is sexing up the temperatures with this heat index thing. It’s made it to the ABC too, their US correspondent on the radio news this morning quoted a “heat index of 116” in the US East Coast. I groaned. The actual temperatures are pretty ordinary for summer, certainly wouldn’t be much of a hassle here in Newcastle anyway (I could do with some, its freezing today).
This looks to be a new tactic – make it look like hot weather is unusual and exceptional by distorting the measurements so it sounds like it is hotter than it really is. Neat trick. Stay tuned for the same thing in summer for us methinks.
Sigh. Done it again. Thought I checked the syntax too.
Here’s that link:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/actual-temperatures-too-low-to-create-hysteria/
But this hot weather CANNOT be happening – you all assured me – and now it is. I reckon you lot are clueless. And now you’re fabricating some bullshit about jet streams. Too much link link guys – explain in your own words.
Luke – but I thought you liked peer review literature…
“Too much link link guys – explain in your own words.”
It’s what’s called gander sauce.
And Monckton, like most of us here, is happy to concede that ACO2 is responsible for some of the warming.
But if the “climate scientists” are allowed out long enough to “interpret” the CERN results, there may not be much heat left over to blame on ACO2.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/7/17/gagging-the-sceptics.html
Good grief Luke,
Isn’t it always, always you that claims there is a difference between climate and isolated weather events? Wouldn’t this heat wave be an example of weather event?
Thx Cohenite, the article didnt actually mention any consequence for their finding of “fraud”. In reality i do not want them in Gaol at all…. but it might make them wake up and recognise that spending money with basically a zero payout is an act of negligence….perhaps the threat of legal action could be better directed at treasury for negligence in its modelling, or dept of climate change or any other body or person who has knowingly manipulated and distorted or just ignored the known or what in reality if they were thorough and unbiased they would have discovered. Surely treasury have a duty to point out via a cost benefit analysis that our actions as designed are futile and are clearly not acting in the interests of its citizens.
Luke its your mob saying the science is settled and as a result any thinking person could only conclude they( yes that must mean you as well then) must be nutters or zealots …surely?…
And its not the scientists (unless they did distort, lie, manipulate etc to achieve a pre desired aim) that i would want prosecuted ( or preferably the fear of so they became more unbiased) but the people who want to waste so much money for a basically known zero payout. AND yes that should be directed at the liberals as well as anybody being paid in the area of “CAGW”.
eg; I wonder when we will see a rapid increase in these sea levels then…40cm by 2050 and 90 cm by 2100.I particularly like this “When water warms, it expands and sea level rises” whilst conveniently forgetting that the argo buoys have shown no real warming since they were introduced…and even the IPCC central estimate is 57cm by 2100…….as Luke would say…sigh……..and no evidence sighted by them at all, just the usual “There is strong national and international evidence that sea levels will increase substantially in this century”….how about the evidence from other experts like morner suggesting it just aint happening…..and is in fact the “greatest lie ever told”!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
During the Little Ice Age there were, of course, heat waves, warm seasons. When a negative PDO dominated in the middle of last century, we still had that very sharp drought and heat around 1960.
Like I said, I can’t believe that anyone is obtuse enough to believe otherwise, or to believe that current solar and wind technology will power anything much at all. In addition to the toy-tech element, the waste and vandalism of “going green” are just too obvious. All of this can only be vacuous game-playing. But one has to ask why.
Is this the big chance for all the tormented self-loathers? Will they ever again have such a collection of junk-educated dogmatists in power, to make the big authoritarian play on their behalf?
I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy. It’s more a “mal-de-siecle”, whereby shrill, unhappy people resent that general prosperity and security haven’t made them less miserable. The great divide is between those who feel deep gratitude for the added life and opportunities of industrialisation and those who can only mull over their own continuing problems and inadequacies, and will look to level by concocting a mock science and mock morality aimed at crippling the means of mass consumption.
The real catastrophe is Global Ingratitude.
We need to be proud that we live in a time and place where obesity is the major nutritional problem. When we go to a suburban mall and see thousands of ordinary people impudently consuming products our Green Betters disapprove of, rather than starving quaintly and nobly, we need to feel proud. Not only can all these people eat as much as they like, they can read all the signs in the shop windows. The children survive childhood, the mothers survive childbirth. They watch Fox!
The age of the masses really is here, but the type of people who talk about “the masses” aren’t happy. The masses get to keep their individuality, they get to choose. This is not what their betters had in mind.
Morner just spinning what you want to hear Toby. You only believe him as you choose to. Investigate more and you’ll find some stress cracks.
“will look to level by concocting a mock science and mock morality” cripes Robert – have you ever talked to some mainstream climate scientists. Some much philosophical piffle. You don’t think they go home to families as well? That they’re living on some other planet. Having listened to a number of sceptics spruik – really what bent weird individuals.
Gillard would have to know that Australia’s proposed reductions mean nothing for climate (temperature) but does signal we’re prepared to pull our weight internationally and start the journey. Whether that’s incisive or stupid, time will tell. Of course all governments can only go so far – you can always vote them out.
Two years and Tony will sort it for ya (maybe less) ! Why worry ?
I like Morner on SL.
The redhead has broken up the party and in a couple of years the climatariat will be out of work
“…have you ever talked to some mainstream climate scientists.”
Nope. I live right out in the bush. But I have that internet thingy. In any case, I assumed that they have homes, families etc. You left out apple pies, but I assume they have all that sort of thing.
“Whether that’s incisive or stupid, time will tell”
Time has told. It’s stupid.
By the way, guys, the stress-cracked guy really is spinning what we want to hear:
“The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.”
“Two years and Tony will sort it for ya (maybe less) ! Why worry ?”…much will have already been wasted and as much as I think it likely he will wind much of it back, i certainly dont trust politicians.
…and if they stick with their own current policy they are as wrong ( or worse) as the “coalition of the green”
Must say it also worries me that if the greens were stupid enough to prevent its removal in the senate, if the libs called a double dissolution I think they would end up with a significant majority in the senate and that is also a scarey prospect…as much as the prospect of seeing the greens wiped out appeals to me!
Front page of the herald today has a story “Its cold comfort” with an energy company and a govt web site suggesting people snuggle up with pets, use tea cosies to keep kettles hot and picnic outdoors to save energy costs!! Arent governments supposed to govern to improve our living standards!?..we know the proposed actions will do no good and we also know they will do harm….doesnt that amount to negligence?
Hey Toby would that be the bloke who constructed a mangrove tree for a film crew to photograph the sea level implications. What you don’t know matey. Toby – Morner’s Indian Ocean was seriously debunked in the peer-reviewed literature. And not with models ! We’ll just throw another sceptic’s thesis on the barbie shall we?
“Wolfgang Flamme Says:
June 26th, 2007 at 2:55 am
Warwick,
in the documentation, Moerner talks about ‘the message of the tree’. Actually there could have been two messages – one about an inconvenient truth and another even more inconvenient about how it’s handled. He had a film team ready, he had the tree with leaves still green nearby, he said they even talked to witnesses who watched the students rooting out the tree. A close to perfect documentation of evidence which Moerner chose to replace with a fake.
Now what evidence is left? Moerner after 4 years finally admitting faking a documentary by setting up a tree near the shore by hand. Tree with still green leaves: gone. Its roots remains: probably gone. Australians: gone. Moerner: gone. Witnesses: probably unavailable or increasingly untrustworthy. Documentation: faked by Moerner – else: nothing.
Now Warwick, don’t tell me that was a clever thing to do.
Louis Hissink Says:
June 26th, 2007 at 4:27 am
So Moerner is now the guilty party and the unknown Aussies now out of the topic?
At least Moerner admitted doing it – we are still waiting for the Team to admit theirs.”
from http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=118
Also Interestingly Morner’s findings have been firmly rebutted in 4 separate publications (Church et al. (2006), Woodworth (2005), Woodroffe (2005) and Kench et al. (2005))
http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/Church_et_al_2006_published.pdf
Also Morner’s behaviour is set into some perspective when one sees http://secure.environmentaldefense.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf
Wakey wakey Toby !
It is obviously driving AGW believer and promoters crazy that a lord of dubious pedigree is kicking their asses in the public square.
“Dr. Mörner was President of the Commission on Sea Level Change until July 2003, but the commission was terminated at that time during a reorganization of the commission structure of INQUA.”…yes apparently an exageration, but given that he was what he says he was before its decommissioning it doesnt mean he doesnt know what he is talking about?
If he has falsified data etc he should also be prosecuted/ held to account. I appreciate you pointing this out to me and you are right his view suits my bias and for this i am guilty. I will try and look into this further. Shame people on the warming side seldom seem to be able to acknowledge or recognise their own bias.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/05/sea-level-rise-is-acceleratingto.html is an interesting counter that also suggests sea lvls are just not doing what is expected…as did ydays article in teh oz and a lot of other papers etc…..
clearly the science is not settled…. and i can counter wakey wakey Luke!
Damn that tree, what was he thinking?
On the brighter side, at least I can avoid making a vaux par elsewhere.
Heat wave used to be at least 5 days with the temp more then 9 degrees above the average morning, noon, and night. Just last year it was like this.
But as with all things climate sciency, the officials are moving “heat wave” further down on the discount rack.
AMS now says that we only need 2 days for it to be called a “heat wave”.
Whatever.
So whats average temperature in New York during June/July? Tricky question with the newspaper men and official weather service propagandizing non stop for the global warming crew. I don’t trust them to give a straight answer to such a direct question. But I have a work around. From the archives pre “Inconvenient Truth”, unbiased, non affiliated witnesses report 80/90’s with 90-100% humidity.
No matter how much they want to discount the definition we still have a thing called the newspaper weather page. My newspaper shows the temps in New York, Washington DC, Boston, Nashville, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Raleigh, and Richmond… in fact not one of them reading 9 degrees above average. Not during the high of the day, nor the cool of the night.
July is mid summer in the Northern Hemisphere folks. Hot is normal in July.
http://kzoo.co/VyQHed emotive language aside, it appears more people are waking up.
Re Monckton: he annoys me for some reasons, but he truly enrages the our Green Betters…so bring him on.
Re Maldives: I doubt that an Australian research team would damage a tree in an erosion zone when they could simply alter data. It’s what they do so well! My prob with Morner is not his failure to state clearly what had happened to the tree – though that is a prob – but that he was getting with the whole Maldives stunt mentality. (Remember the underwater cabinet meeting in full scuba gear?) Unless you know an awful lot about a species of tree, both as individual specimen and as species, what can you prove by showing it near the ocean? It’s about as useful as those highest-ever-lowest-ever “records” based on thirty odd years of satellite monitoring, or the current “heat wave”. I’m not saying his tree was without significance, but it is very hard to step into another discipline without drawing wrong conclusions.
That said, the guy gets his toes wet, does some science – as opposed to modelling, which is nothing but a stunt.
Toby – what horsehit in that video “peddling fraudulent data from East Anglia” – WTF – say again?
What a little skanky shill – can she do it topless next time?
I see Rahmstorf et al. is countering Watson, yet in the washup all we discover is that models produce greater SLR than observation.
Monckton does make the most salient point which all AGW believers continue to ignore.This is consensus science and science has never operated in this fashion.
Double dip Nina for CFS, which beats the rest by a country mile.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/images3/nino34SSTMonE120.gif
Luke,
to put it simply as requested, the reason for blocked high pressure systems that lead to heatwaves and extreme cold events in a cooling world, look at it this way.
In a cooling world there is a lower temperature gradient between the equator and the poles, this reduces the power of the climate systems that move the heat polewards.
This allows the circumpolar jet streams to expand equatorwards. This lengthens their path and wavelength and reduces their velocity. Then they are more susceptible to blocking by continental high pressure systems.
This explains why during the Maunder and Dalton minimums there did not seem to be a great reduction in average temperatures. There were however great frosts, capable of freezing rivers to a depth of eighteen inches, splitting oak trees three feet in diameter, causing the failure of winter crops, and then summer heat and drought causing the failure of spring plantings, with resultant famines
According to the University of Colorado sea level graphs, over the last year they have gone down, not the rate of increase, actual levels down. And the world is warming?
‘This is consensus science and science has never operated in this fashion.’
Ah yes Robert – that’s why with engineering and chemistry – well you can just do anything you like. Brain surgery – anyone can have a crack. No consensus – no standards at all. Do you lot ever think ?
Now Julian – you want to get all sciencey – same counter-intuitive things happen in a warming world. And yo’all went “nnnnoooooooooooo”. And suddenly cherry picking any event is unacceptable – this blog makes a a career of it? Hypocrisy ? surely not
Sea level – surely you’re not using that last wiggle on a big La Nina and PDO change? Did you talk up the 1998 upward wiggle too? http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel2/sl_ns_global.png Come on – ya got nuttin’
I would reply, but I’m too busy moving my beach blanket. Three millimeters per year . How far up the beach will be a safe distance to keep from getting wet?
“Come on – ya got nuttin’”
Yeah, precisely nothing. Morner at least knows what’s happening in the real world from a long lifetime of observations as my own 48 year benchmark shows somewhat less than nothing and it is interesting that the European satellite also shows nothing:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/hiding-the-decline-in-sea-level/#more-32692
And James, that 3 mm should see you out.
Good point Julian, albeit wasted on our luke who’s currently running on one cylinder of a clapped out Victa mower.
The AGW crew have overlooked the fact that in a warming world energy gradients will level out and there will be less energy for those massive storms which aren’t happening anywhere at the levels they are supposed to be.
Sea level is another area where this idiocy abounds. If the volume of water in the ocean increases then the tidal range will shrink, the lowest low will be higher and the highest high lower, because the same gravitational force will be pushing more mass. This will have profound affects on sea level rise and I can’t see that the AGW boffins have factored this into their calculations.
Spanglers – come back when you’ve adjusted your benchmark for IPO and Alzheimers.
Why is Cohers a lawyer – well you have to quick at making shit up and releasing rabbits. Deniers tools #3 and #6c
So now Cohers has decided that there can never be a change in sea level due to auto-tide compensating theory of drongo-ism. Paleo types might argue…. (NEXT !)
That’s not what I said luke; sea level can change and I also believe people’s IQ can increase if they exercise their brains. Unfortunately the reverse can also happen.
‘…in a warming world energy gradients will level out and there will be less energy for those massive storms which aren’t happening anywhere at the levels they are supposed to be.’
The logical simplicity attracts me, is there a link?
Luke,
“The progress of science is strewn, like an ancient desert trail, with the bleached skeleton of discarded theories which once seemed to possess eternal life.”
Arthur Koestler
Arrhenius’s theory died a long time ago, its reincarnation is being supported on its deathbed by a dedicated and diverse team of gatekeepers.
Julian Braggins
I chose an Arthur Koesler quote because of his overnight conversion to Marxism at University, and some twenty years later the reversal those views, both because of extreme stress, the latter being a mock firing squad.
Showing that logic and reason cannot penetrate a belief on their own, it takes a life threatening event to accomplish this.
I hope this shock is no more than say, the Hudson river freezing over. 😉
Guys; off the record I reckoned Monckton was quite smooth on ABC even polished, but that’s all he does now; isn’t it?
However I don’t conceed a mm on the SL issue. Property near the heads any where up n down the coast will just ooze away despite the rock walls, tide guages, denial froth etc.
Sorry for all thus affected though
Julian – anti-sceptic rule # 3 – as soon as you think you’re special or Galileo – well – you’re almost guaranteed not to be !
But having a wank is probably both pleasurable and harmless. Sort of like modelling. 🙂
luke
“Ah yes Robert – that’s why with engineering and chemistry – well you can just do anything you like. Brain surgery – anyone can have a crack. No consensus – no standards at all. Do you lot ever think ?”
We do Luke, but it seems you do not.
What have a proven theory and practice have to do with consensus on an hypothesis?
You are cracking up mate, sorry to say.
Luke,
When the true contribution of CO2 is revealed, I just wanted to my quote to be attributed to me in search engines, and not the following poster who might have been you, which would have pleased neither of us!
( my biblical use-by date was up ten years ago, so I’ll be lucky to see the next solar minimum).
It’s quite satisfying to see your replies reduced to little ad homs, I’ll defer to your greater experience with the last one 😉
El Gordo,
H.H. Lamb was very emphatic on temperature gradients. He wrote a lot on climate but I only remember a few quotes. Stephen Wilde wrote an article in
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/features-2/wilde-weather/the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature/290.html
in which he explains the increased mechanism that produces the equatorwards polar jet stream shifts in low solar activity periods. He takes the effect of that on climate as a given, but I’m sure he has read H.H.Lamb.
Johnathan thinks all material science, chemistry and neuroscience is done and over – hah ! But progress is not made by handwavers old son. Every crank doesn’t get to have a turn and expect their latest wanky idea is IT !!!
The IPCC are NOT doing science by consensus. They don’t DO science as an IPCC. They’re periodically reviewing and reporting what the consensus understanding is and also making some comments on alternative explanations.
Julian – and cold air outbreaks are possible and perhaps different in a greenhouse world. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1301/pdf
Luke, that paper starts out poorly by talking of recent and future climate conditions.
Crystal ball stuff and the models (for the most part) are tweaked to get the right outcome.
Nevertheless, severe cold weather outbreaks will become a serious problem in the coming decades, but luckily we have Plan B as backup.
” are tweaked to get the right outcome.” errr nope !
Julian B, thanx for Stephen Wilde link, I first picked up on him over at Watts in comments and found him very readable. So I will look at the article in more detail and interpret for the consumption of others with less understanding of the science.
Luke, you’re looking poorly. Where’s your guest post?
Luke wrote: > No consensus – no standards at all.
Those two things are hardly synonymous, and your attempt to smuggle them in as coequal fails miserably, clownishly: consensus doesn’t equal standards, and standards aren’t determined by consensus.
Standards are determined by reality, which the majority (i.e. consensus) may or may not adhere to.
“Standards are determined by reality, which the majority (i.e. consensus) may or may not adhere to.”
Wow ! Whose reality?