“Earlier this evening, Peter Gleick, a prominent figure in the global warming movement, confessed to stealing electronic documents from The Heartland Institute in an attempt to discredit and embarrass a group that disagrees with his views.
“Gleick’s crime was a serious one. The documents he admits stealing contained personal information about Heartland staff members, donors, and allies, the release of which has violated their privacy and endangered their personal safety.
“An additional document Gleick represented as coming from The Heartland Institute, a forged memo purporting to set out our strategies on global warming, has been extensively cited by newspapers and in news releases and articles posted on Web sites and blogs around the world. It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists, policy experts, and organizations we work with.
“A mere apology is not enough to undo the damage.
“In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a “rational debate” from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.
“Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.
The Heartland Institute is a 28-year-old national nonprofit organization with offices in Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
All [or most of] the dirty washing here:
http://www.climatedepot.com/
Sorry, this thread came up as I was commenting on the earlier Heartland thread about Gleick’s confession of criminality
Here is his mea culpa:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html
So essentially I’ve inadvertently double-posted
FOIA of CG1 & 2 fame is still out there and unknown! 🙂 🙂 🙂
Look at the massive sceptic hypocrisy. Golly it’s on a par with the situation in Syria/Libya/Iraq….
Sounds familiar though. http://junkscience.com/2012/02/18/open-letter-from-michael-mann-to-heartland-institute/
Anyway – it’s really major stuff – mark my words – this will affect climate sensitivity big time. Could totally transform the science. Or not …. yawn….
We’ll just let Heartland can now happily “develop” some “balanced material” for the little school kids. Poor Heartland – they must be in shock – such a nice bunch of guys. So kind.
Luke!!!! WTFs wrong with YOU?
(As a visiting Yankee, I rarely weigh in here. Yet sometimes the OBVIOUS must be said. And reiterated towards the obstinate.)
-Orson in Denver, Colorado (after 20 years in Boulder, Colorado-home of NCAR, NIST, NSIDC [where a few ex-profs pf mine prostitute themselves for AGW], a NOAA office [where Susan Solomon last worked before retirement], CU at Boulder, UCAR, etc – I know too many people and “scientists there!)
The huffy Huffpo! The Thinking Woman’s Who Weekly! What a perfect spot for Gleick’s lame and snooty non-apology.
But leave it to the lawyers. Skeptics should never look to play the victim. Let’s not carry on with gotchas and how-dare-you. Leave all the tricky, whiny stuff to MoveOn and GetUp.
We want brand new coal power plants, and dams and lots of nice nukes. Above all, we want conservation.
Let’s just win this fight.
I take it this is what you mean Luke:
letter-from-michael-mann-to-heartland-institute/
Quote: “As scientists who have had their emails stolen, posted online and grossly misrepresented, we can appreciate the difficulties the Heartland Institute is currently experiencing following the online posting of the organization’s internal documents earlier this week. However, we are greatly disappointed by their content, which indicates the organization is continuing its campaign to discredit mainstream climate science and to undermine the teaching of well-established climate science in the classroom.”
Disregarding the fake doc, Heartland was perfectly entitled to do what it was doing. And it was not required to make those docs available under FOI as UEA was. Also Climategate 1 & 2 emails are listed as delivered for people to draw their own conclusions, not faked, forged or interfered with.
Also UVA is spending a fortune to stop Mann’s emails from being revealed under FOI which makes that letter a joke.
Let me translate – what Luke is pointing out is that the fact of Gleick’s character, or any other of his compatriots, turning out to be deceitful, manipulative, and a reprobate, comes as no shock to either friend or foe.
No they were stolen by thieves ! Quoted out of context and promulgated by forces of evil.
Your mates guys? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/475423b.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110728
Comment from: Luke February 21st, 2012 at 8:43 pm
No they were stolen by thieves ! Quoted out of context and promulgated by forces of evil.
===============================================================
This is getting interesting – i think Luke just cant take it anymore, reality is driving him insane. I expect his next post(s) to say nothing except:
deniers deniers deniers
in a whiney high pitched screamy sort of voice of course
This sounds familiar too, don’t it?
http://junkscience.com/2012/02/19/mann-open-letter-to-heartland-traced-to-union-of-concerned-scientists/
“Michael Mann’s open letter to the Heartland Institute was compiled into PDF format by Aaron Huertas, the self-described “press secretary” for the radical Union of Concerned Scientists.”
Resident Dipstick
Come in, spinner !!
“Look at the massive sceptic hypocrisy.”
No hypocrisy, you malignant dope. FOIA is just SMARTER than you dummies – now that’s gotta hurt !! 🙂 🙂 🙂
Of course a court case would be most interesting – who knows what might be revealed. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v475/n7357/full/475423b.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110728 and particularly with J Mashey snooping around http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/dead-are-allowed-to-vote-on-board-of.html
Luke the only thing that’s important is this idiotic fraud of AGW mitigation. If China, India and the non OECD countries are emitting nearly a billion more NEW tonnes of co2 every year then there is zero the OECD countries can achieve by reducing emissions.
Of course that’s argued from your perspective not mine. I’m not sure there is any real problem of AGW, like melting ice, or SLR, or ocean acidification, or more cyclones, or more high rainfall events, or more severe droughts etc.
But let’s hope that Gleick and his pals are pursued in the courts and punished severely.
Just to show what a fraud AGW mitigation is have a look at the numbers.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2009&unit=MMTCD
From 1990 to 2009 the OECD only increased annual emissions by 1 billion tonnes, that is 11.6 to 12.6 billion tonnes of co2 per annum.
Therefore to increase to an extra billion tonnes per annum it has taken 20 years for the OECD.
But the 2008 to 2009 increase by the non OECD is 0.8 billion tonnes, in just one year and now probably around a billion new tonnes p.a. at least.
I wonder how many people in the electorate understand these numbers and the clueless, useless sacrifice they are making that will cost countless billions and send more jobs and industries overseas?
I see that the village idiot hasnt read the references he has made,yet again, and particularly the attempts to slime scepticism by no less than Nature…the long string of comments are a hoot.
The VI is the perfect metaphor for the incompetence, and absence of ethical and professional standards that people are complaining about with the GW science fraternity….
Bring on that Commission of Inquiry..
Hate to see you so upset Luke. Here, go back to your old comforting ABC for some “science”.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-20/marine-species-at-risk-as-oceans-acidify/3840854
Yes indeed bring on the Commission of Inquiry but be careful what you wish for. Now Truthy tell me – are you that soft in the head that you think sceptics actually know something. Just say yes…
Luke here’s something every sceptic and believer should understand and that is the end game is AGW mitigation.
It is the most obvious fraud and con of the last 100 years. The numbers prove it’s a con and fraud and yet that is the end game whether you like it or not.
All the pollies, CSIRO, researchers and other numbskulls are telling us we must “reduce emissions to save the planet/ tackle CC/ take action on CC” etc .
Yet simple maths proves this is a lie and a fraud, but it is THE END GAME. We are making a sacrifice for nothing and it is costing us billions now and forever into the future.
Well if your record is anything to go by then the evidence for soft headiness has been amply demonstrated time and time again..and consistently so over some years.
Of course they, meaning those who are smart and ethical enough to remain sceptical, know that the current mantra doesnt stack up on a whole lot of fronts.
It certainly hasnt been worth the mega billions already spent…moth balled de sals excluded…. and that alone is scandalous
So bring it on knucklehead
You and Flannery’s mob for starters would make excellent witnesses…snort snort.
Then the fun would really start heh!
Little Lukey trolls,
“Anyway – it’s really major stuff – mark my words – this will affect climate sensitivity big time. Could totally transform the science. Or not …. yawn….”
Um, you are sensitive to Climate?? So am I. I really detest the cold. Tell Europe about all the Gorebull Warming why doncha!! Hasn’t been setting many hot records in your neck of the woods over the last ten years either. Of course I need to remember that the Models are reality to you rather than what is falling on your head so you will simply ignore what I and others try to point out.
When are you going to regale us with horror tales of tipping points on the Russians measurements of Methane bubbling out of the Arctic ocean that approximately equals the amount of methane y’all thought was emitted by ALL oceans!!! Kinda hard to believe your numbers when you thought the oceans were originating only HALF of the methane actually coming from them!!
Gee, we should be able to see the Backradiation just microwaving the ice away from those methane emissions that are alledged to be 20-30 times the efficacy of CO2!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh yeah, Gleick was one of the Climatologists who signed the “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science!” Keep that in mind the next time you ask us to believe more of your climatology.
OOOPS, he was kicked off the AGU task force on scientific ethics:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/21/gleick-removed-from-agu-task-force-on-scientific-ethics/
Dang, a reasonable action taken by the AGU?? Whoda thunk.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/21/josh-on-glieckgate/
Of course, it all “doesn’t matter”, says ABC’s Sara Phillips:
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/02/22/3436126.htm
“People always expected deniers to have funding sources, and guessed that it would likely be petroleum companies and the American right wing” amongst other nonsense.
Yep those recent heatwaves in Adelaide and Perth were sure cold kookyKat.
And yes the Gleick business is certainly sure to change climate sensitivity. Major science impact (NOT!) yawn … don’t you reckon a court case will be fun though – I wonder what will emerge? eh eh ?
Enjoying the UK drought? Seem at bit unusual. Nah …. just joshing …
And interesting you mentioned methane – kicking up again…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (wouldn’t waste a long one on you)
Luke
I don’t usually quote Wiki links but just a quick look will tell you about droughts in the UK and how common they actually are?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_the_United_Kingdom
I’m sure if you weren’t in such a hurry to shoot down kuhnkat, you would have thought about it yourself.
I still have some faith in your intelligence but it’s fading fast!
Well you need to read more widely JW – http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/15/424889/british-super-drought-record-low-rainfall-guardian-reports/?mobile=nc
We’ll just add that on super-Texas drought with the millions of dead trees.
La Nina with a dash of AGW !
England had an even longer drought earlier in the sixteenth century, but the drought of the early 1590s was so severe that you could ride a horse across the Thames near London Bridge. The Trent was just about dry.
If true, this absolutely and positively and beyond all dispute would finally prove…
Nothing. Duh.
Robert
There is no point really arguing with zealots, Our records only go back so far and even the ones we can point to are ignored.
If I didn’t know that this fraud will be eventually exposed for what it is as all others before it, I’d despair.
But it still costs us an arm and a leg in the meantime.
I’m sure at this stage Luke is simply trashing around trying to save face, can’t bring him/herself to just say “I was wrong!”
The 2011 drought in Texas is worse than those of 1925 and 1918. Of course, La Nina is no fun for SE of USA. While we were having our wet early-to-mid fifties, Texas was withering. 1956 was not as bad as 2011 in terms of low rain, but it was the sixth year of severe droughts all in a row, and those drought years were flanked by low rainfall years. It was a disastrous period all up.
There is a chance that such extended drought could come back to Texas, while we get drenched in this part of Oz. Nobody knows, needless to say.
There are even predictions that Texas will become permanently drier. Fortunately, those predictions are based on climate models, so they are just ludicrous slop.
Johnathon lays smoke when hit with some facts.
your response to any science is simply to dismiss it out of hand. How pathetic.
“Ludicrous slop” – simply an unintelligent comment. I don’ t think ludicrous slop gets into these sort of details does it? http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html
Luke,
I cannot believe how badly you are suffering from that decadal disease you highlighted at the last post.
The recent heatwaves in SA & Vic. ROFL! !!!. Seriously???
What do you think they proved?
How old are you anyway? 5 maybe? Where on earth are you sourcing your information? Or maybe you don’t care as long as you think you can score points?
The recent heat wave was nothing at all compared to many many others that I can remember, let alone my parents & grandparents. In actual fact Luke, this is one of the mildest summers I can remember. I have always lived in the vicinity and we experience the same weather as SA and Vic.
And BTW what happened to your pedantic bleating about weather vs climate?
If anyone comments on recent cool waves 🙂 you are always quick to make that distinction.
Look up the averages and records at BoM. We have now officially experienced the 2 wettest years on record. The average temps for Summer so far are not anything out of the ordinary but definitely cooler than average.
Recent heat waves! Seriously?
Luke
“Johnathon lays smoke when hit with some facts.”
I asked you before Luke, hit me with facts and I respond with facts.
So far you have not done so.
As you said “pathetic”
Luke, I would lay off that particular link. Hopelessly distorted and manipulative. It’s something every GetUp dude might keep by the cistern for Spin Training in quiet moments.
Debbie – wakey wakey – KookyKat was telling me how cold in was down under. Which you’d expect in eastern areas under La Nina influence. But in other areas we had some extreme warmth. In fact Debs read what I wrote again and do some research dearie. http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/perth-swelters-in-australia-day-heat-wave-20120126-1qir9.html
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3401058.htm sort of a hot type of “cold”
JW you had plenty of facts on the previous thread and you just kept mouthing off.
Luke
Oh well, what’s the point?
You call them facts I call them garbage. I never mentioned it because it’s not relevant but I do work in IT and write computer code for some important businesses, I mean for people who care about making money as opposed to others who take from the government, that is from all of us!
I know how easy it is to fool, GIGO!
Have it your way.
“Heartland has repeatedly asked for a real debate on this important topic”
That’s right,while attempting to get Jo Nova’s infantile Skeptics Handbook in to US schools a few years back. It was so bad he had to hire David Wojick to craft something a little more convincingly sciency recently.
Bast is a 24/7 spinner, a dead-eyed hypocrite and tobacco pusher.
“work in IT and write computer code for some important businesses,” So ? who cares.
You might like to justify your commercial importance as somehow significant but it adds nothing to a science discussion. GIGO is the point – looks like lost on you. It’s just a sceptic meme and talking point.
41degrees?
That is nothing unusual for Perth in January. Did you check the records?
Also nothing unusual for Adelaide.
I did throw in Vic because it got hot there too for a couple of days. Nothing out of the ordinary.
What was your point again?
How about you read what I wrote again and check the BoM figures?
KK is right. It has been a cooler than average Summer in Australia. Still not anything out of the ordinary. There is nothing there that we need to be alarmed about.
It is also official that 2010/11 are the wettest 2 year period on record. Rather different to the oft repeated projections.
After the drought it is good news. Looks like this land is still a land of drought and flooding rains.
Our natural ephemeral environment has also behaved completely normally. It has bounced back in a spectacular manner. That’s normal too.
Luke
“who cares.” (coding)
I though your ilk would care.
After all that’s all you have?
Why massage data and records if they are above reproach?
because they don’t confirm to your preconceived outcome that’s why!
Give it a rest mate. I said I didn’t mention my involvement in IT because it really doesn’t matter, any intelligent person would know what goes on but I had my doubts about your intelligence so I had to remind you that there are others out here who see through the deceit.
Jennifer
Your blog, your rules! Can’t see what I did wrong in my reply to poly?
Seen much worse here but there you go.
Debbie – it – is – very – basic. Read hat KuknKat said. Read my response.
“It is also official that 2010/11 are the wettest 2 year period on record. Rather different to the oft repeated projections.” pls cite your reference or desist in bulldust !
“Why massage data and records if they are above reproach” are you really that thick JW? satellites drift in orbit. Instrument packages age. Calibration drifts. Met stations are relocated. Sorry it all matters. all probes has calibration and location and sampling issues. Perhaps do less IT for greed and more science matey. Deceit eh? So there’s this big world wide conspiracy among scientists which you guys can’t even name, don’t know – across cultures and nations. F off !
Luke,
I have cited them.
I even (very unusually) posted the link to special climate report 38. No bulldust.
Have you forgotten?
Go check for yourself. It is not hard to find. Go to BoM and look up the records for Perth.
41 degrees for a couple of days in January is nothing out of the ordinary.
You will find it’s the same for SA NSW & Vic.
Gee whiz, even if you watched the Australian Open tennis for the last several years you would know that!
Australia being a purely political entity, very large, and with varied and, to some degree, contrary climate zones, I feel a bit silly talking about “Australian rainfall” totals and records. But if we’re talking about regions which tend to share their conditions, it would be hard to beat the big wet in NSW and QLD in 1950. (Tassie and the West were much drier than normal. So much for “Australian rainfall”.)
Anyway, in 1950, with the westerlies gone completely, the rain really came down. Places like Dubbo had 9″ more rain than in any other year before or since. Here we had a major flood of the Macleay River the year after our ’49 doozie. Whew! Right now is far too wet, and could get worse, but at least it’s not 1950-redux yet.
The interesting thing about 2010-11, our wettest ever two year period according to BOM – BOM prefers words like “ever” to specifying the dating period – was the extent of the wet. That said, the south west of the continent had its driest ever year in 2010, blowing 1940 clear into second place. Go figure.
I’m sure anyone who’s washed clothes the Gaia-friendly way knows the meaning of “wring” and “squeeze”. Imagine our Green Betters trying to wring and squeeze one their “narratives” or “conversations” out of the mess we call Australian climate at this juncture. I’m almost sorry for them.
Quick, call GetUp! We need a spin cycle!
Did I say it was an absolute record Debs? But not cold eh?
And what part of statement 38 would you like to cite on “Rather different to the oft repeated projections.” reference pls for the projections ….
Luke,
you are completely missing the point.
Definitely suffering from that decadal disease.
There are so many references re the projections and they are often completely contradictory. They are merely inexact tools that we should be using and correctly updating to help us understand and explain the world around us.
However, the ones hijacked by the political agenda and used ad nauseum by the AGW celebs and the PR campaigns are most definitely different to current climate/weather patterns.
That would also apply to what you incorrectly see as ‘the other side’.
Emerging real data is indicating that there is nothing happening that is completely out of the ordinary. The hypothesis that human behaviour is changing the climate in an alarming manner is no longer stacking up.
As always it will be time and real data that will be the judge of every single climate projective model. Just as it is for every other projective work.
The beauty of the whole Gleick episode is this simple fact. The pro-AGW camp accepted uncritically the content of the leak and accepted it as the Truth. Sceptics however assessed the documents sceptically and identified both the likely fraudulence and the likely culprit. And then, once that culprit admitted liability, the pro team does its best to smooth it all over and promote the culprit as the Hero.
What a wonderful mirror of the whole debate, nicht wahr?
So can’t name a single one eh Debbie. Thought so.
“Emerging real data is indicating that there is nothing happening that is completely out of the ordinary. ” errrr no actually – but hey you don’t read.
2nd try Luke:
Do you believe Gleick has told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Try to respond with a yes or no answer
sp – I don’t know is my honest response. The blogosphere is awash with opinions either way. Don’t really care either. Relevance to the science is zip.
Looks like IPCC AR5 is out of the blocks to become an even bigger fraud than its predecessors. It rates solar activity at one fortieth of the forcing of CO2.
“This is in glaring contrast to solar activity, which lights up like a neon sign in the raw data. Literally dozens of studies finding .5 to .8 degrees of correlation with temperature. So how is it that the IPCC’s current generation of general circulation models start with the assumption that CO2 has done 40 times as much to warm the planet as solar activity since 1750?”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/
Luke,
I could be completely unkind and go back in time on this blog and cite you and the models you were attached to and the projections you were attached to.
That would just be scoring points.
Yes, the climate is changing, it has a habit of doing that. Yes, it is possible to discern a warming trend. But, no, it is not doing anything particularly alarming and no, those projections you were attached to are not matching current data.
Everyone cites links. There is an oversupply of information that is often completely contradictory.
Haven’t you noticed that it isn’t proving much?
Have you forgotten that I have repeatedly said that we use some of the climate work to assist us? We are fully aware of its limitations. Genuine researchers and scientists are also fully aware of the limitations. Modelling is a useful tool. It is not prophetic. We have a political problem here and I agree that science should have zip to do with it. That’s not what’s happening though. . . is it?
What is means Debbie is you cannot back up your statements.
It’s not scoring points – you’re in sceptic meme promotion mode and don’t even know it.
Citing links and evidence is the stuff of science.
It should be Luke,
in this particular instance it is the stuff of politics.
Luke, just which bit of Debbies comment dont you get. She wrote”Yes, it is possible to discern a warming trend. But, no, it is not doing anything particularly alarming and no, those projections you were attached to are not matching current data.” So Debbie has discerned a warming trend, but those projections you are attached to that show a warming trend are not matching current data. You will have to try harder.
Bazza – I twy and twy and twy but I cannay do it – it’s just meme speak without end
Looks like everyone’s watching Julia vs Kevin …… la de dah …
So I guess Abbott will get in eventually – wonder what he’s gonna do with all his carbon promises. Maybe he’ll revert to “it’s bullshit” again – less confusing for the punters
Thanks Bazza,
Quite clearly Luke is not getting it.
I am going to be totally pedantic however and point out that I said it’s possible to discern a warming trend. Not that Debbie has discerned a warming trend.
As far as projective modelling goes, it has to be time and real data that is the judge, not Debbie, not Luke, not anyone. Projective modelling is an inexact science that uses ‘best guess’ ranges. Projective modelling is a very useful tool that can help to explain and track the world around us. Projective modelling is not meant to replace reality….it is supposed to be used and then updated to make sense of reality.
If reality and current data is not matching the projected ranges….then it is not the fault of reality and current data….there is something wrong with the projective modelling.
It isn’t really that complicated….when the modelling we use in our business doesn’t work as planned, we update the modelling with the correct real data….we don’t blame the current conditions for the failure of the projective work!!!
That includes climate projections Luke.
Bazza is right you know. I have linked the information that gives the current data, you will have to try harder to explain why that doesn’t match the projective models that you have linked.
A news story from Perth about a couple of days in January that hit 41 degrees does not prove anything at all….it is not unusual/alarming or something we need to enact policy over.
Current information is clearly indicating that Summer in Australia, although not anything alarming, is below average temps. That was all KK said.
So…you’re right…it’s not particularly alarmingly cooler either. It is all fairly well within some quite normal ranges.
What was your point again?
Apologies Debbie, when you wrote “I said it’s possible to discern a warming trend. Not that Debbie has discerned a warming trend.” I foolishly thought you had been a bit of discerning. Anyway you hads better put a little asterisk next to your 2011 data in your projective business model – globally it was the warmest La NIna on record. Not even your old timers would have discerned that. If Indigo Jones had not given thier beloved long range forecasts such a bad name, they might have got to hear about La Nina in the 1950s when the connection with the Southern Oscillation was “discovered”.
bazza,
yes it was the warmest, or WEAKEST La Nina on record. It was also preceeded by a La Nina and not an El Nino. Strangely enough we have the coldest January in the last 10 years!!! Must mean that we are cooling without La Nina’s!!
Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with all the people dying from COLD WEATHER SNAPS in the last three years could it.
That’s unreal – a weak La Nina preceded by a whopper La Nina. KuknKat can’t lie straight in bed. Prize for the most bizarre logic ever goes to ….
Debs I think bazza may have been being “subtle”
Thanks Bazza,
as I said, let time and real data be the judge.
We seem to have a lot of warmest, wettest, coolest, on record don’t we?
Got no problems with the southern oscillation Bazza. It is quite clearly an important piece of the climate puzzle.
Unlike you apparently, I do have a problem with the political agenda that has attached itself to climate science and used the good work of good people inappropriately.
As well as listening to generational knowledge I also listen to modern science. I find it works well but I do not pretend that either have all the answers. I have found they both have an important role to play.
I noted the* for 2011. I did that in 2011. Also compared it to the records. Time to move on. It is now 2012.
As per usual, some of the modelling was right and some of it wasn’t. That goes for the generational knowledge too 🙂
Luke,
You think?
And of course I wasn’t aware of that….according to you and Bazza…..I can’t read and can’t discern so… thanks so much for making me aware of that…..obviously I couldn’t have picked it up without your help.
And of course Luke…I wasn’t “been being subtle”
ROFL
Debs – we wouldn’t be without you.
Discernment, subtlety, irony, nuance, condescension…all the ingredients of a Gleick apology. Pure Huffpo!
And Robert,
please don’t forget the heavily entrenched culture of ‘shoot the messenger’. 🙂
Or the rather obvious attempts to lay traps.
ROFL
For years I did not believe that AGW would implode in a sudden theatrical denouement. Now, from Glecik and the amazing reactions of the faithful, I am not so sure.
Luke, keep it up. You create skeptics with every post.
I hope the AGW community makes Gleick a saint and declares him a martyr.
Hunter surely this dummy’s profile ticks all the boxes to make him a martyr of the AGW brigade?
He’s delusional, he’s a liar, he’s a gutless coward, he can’t understand simple kindy maths, ( very important ) he’s excessively greedy, he’s a hypocrite, in other words he’s the full barker.
Just the week before Heartland invited this idiot to give an address at one of their meetings and pay his costs, but this gutless coward declined and then persued his vile crooked deceit.
Heartland displayed their fairness and decency for everyone to see while this specimen showed his true colours by which eveyone should judge him.
This link updates the info that shows how Gleick carried out his fraud. Luke, Gav, Poly etc must be so proud of this brave little CAGW foot soldier with his natural gift for deceit. SARC.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/24/heartland-institute-releases-peter-gleick-emails-detailing-fraud-identity-theft/#more-57467
You lot make me want to puke. Fancy defending Heartland’s methods. How vile. What can we make for the school kiddies today eh?
And you hypocritical scum would not say anything critical of the theft and fraudulent ongoing misrepresentation of the so-called “climategate” emails. You hypocrites.
hunter just a serial roundsman of the boards. Plenty of bolsh and cheer leading – science = 0.0
“fairness and decency for everyone ” hahahahaha – what high farce !
Luke is hopeless he’ll defend anyone on CAGW side no matter how low or vile. The document was a fraud you dummy, but you’re so loopy and delusional that you still think it’s genuine.
You must be the last fool standing who would defend Gleick’s actions, just proves what a waste of time and space you really are.
Here’s Joe Bast explaining what took place with Gleick and indeed shows what decent people they are at Heartland.
Just great to watch and listen to a sane person discuss climate change.
http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-purloined-climate-papers/F3DAA9D5-4213-4DC0-AE0D-5A3D171EB260.html
“Hunter surely this dummy’s profile ticks all the boxes to make him a martyr of the AGW brigade?
He’s delusional, he’s a liar, he’s a gutless coward, he can’t understand simple kindy maths, ( very important ) he’s excessively greedy, he’s a hypocrite, in other words he’s the full barker.”
Who are you talking about, the resident dipstick or Gleick ….that description could be applied to both.
Both are very good metaphors for the ethics in climate science …perhaps one more than the other..and one is clearly a lot more abusive than other.
What farce indeed
This is an expose on the denialist crap that you fifth columnist deniers love to propagate. Don’t lecture about ethics matey when you have so many shonks and charlatans as your travel buddies.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11066
Debs being VERY interested in predictions might like to put on her reading glasses.
“shows what decent people they are at Heartland.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
One is as bad as the other. ..as for real shonks they dont come much worse than the coterie shonkademics behind the IPCC et al…the complete distortion of funding mechanisms, the administrative incompetence of academia generally, and the laugh a minute peer review method of ranking and assessing.
Do these intellectual pigmies do anything about any of this nah..its not in their best interests heh
As long as puff balls and media tarts like Flim Flam are in the front line, supported by sundry dipsticks on the major blogs, and the gravy trains kept full…. who cares.
The general public are scientific dumboes and the pollies are as equally thick as they are.
They believe anything told by some pompous git with a flash title, and a long string of silly acronyms after their names
…so they have got it made.
When the alarmists have a batting line up that includes,.Pachauri Mann, Jones, Hansen, Gore and now Gleick et al….. all publically funded one way or tother, or have already perpetrated great rip offs…. then its no contest.
…and dont tell me that Gore isnt a scientist when there is that famous photo of all the usual suspects from the CSIRO and BOM lining up at the screening of AIT and proclaiming it tops
…or that the Raja isnt, when he lobbies heavily externally ..all based upon what the geniuses tell
Yes ethics went the window yonks ago with climatariat ..they speak up when it suits and remain silent whne it suits
Having abolished much of the past and the present, all Real Climate will be left with is a twenty-five year period after 1979, a “long term slope” they actually like. There’s the good old future, I suppose, full of La Nina maskings, unexpected vulcanism, dipping clouds and wobbles within ever more generous and ingenious error bars. And when in doubt, they can just chant: “It’s worse than we thought!” That always seems to help.
Here’s the real danger of these people:
“The line for the IPCC First Assessment Report is clearly way off, but back in 1990 the climate models didn’t include important things like ocean circulation, so that’s hardly surprising.”
So they left out stuff like ocean circulation. What’s the big deal? 1990 was so yesterday. Who still listens to Kylie’s version of The Locomotion?
Even when they’re wrong, they’re right. Which, I suppose, brings us back to Gleick.
luke links to Bickmore at Real Climate who claims to “take apart” the arguments of the recent anti-AGW letters. Geez, it’s crap, even by RC’s usual head up the kyber and whistle dixie standards.
I especially like Bickmore’s centrepiece graph which he uses to prove the models do well next to observations; it’s got an ensemble range greater than the whole temperature increase which means some models at the beginning of the temperature period are showing a higher temperature level than what other models are showing at the end of the period.
No doubt luke will say it is the ensemble mean which counts and the 95% certainty attached to that mean; but again, they is nonsense; a model may have multiple runs and be observationally consistent with just one; that is why weighting occurs; but we don’t know how the graph was compiled and what weightings were used, whether it was the best run of each model or the mean of each model which was then used to compile the ensemble mean.
The point of this is that models can fluke the right correlation with the data but that mostly they don’t as the spread shows and that applies to individual models as well as ensembles.
Oh deary me Luke,
We’re back into linking wars. . . As you would say. . . Zzzzzzzzz.
Isn’t it astonishing that all these new links provided by you and others come up with different conclusions even though they all claim they are using the same information?
Unfortunately, all of them are more about the political rhetoric and the political agenda they are attached to.
There is a thing called averages and medians and means. There is also another thing called weighting. As well as that there is a concept known as ranges. All of them are useful but all of them are open to subjective interpretation.
It is the subjective interpretation that is causing the problem. That applies to any model.
To further exacerbate that, we have a deeply entrenched culture of ‘shoot the messenger’.
Cohenite also tries to point this out.
What is your point really Luke?
I get that you have bundled up ‘sceptics’ into a type of sinister conspiracy cult that you think has loyal ties to tea parties and old codgers and big oil and etc
But what’s your point?
Not likely to be political is it?
Cohenite misrepresents like a good denier. Could get a job at Heartland.
Debs can’t read – oh dear. The Point Debs is that you make stuff up. You parrot sceptics memes and duck for cover when asked to back it up. Usual response is “well we all know …”. Well actually we don’t.
“Could get a job at Heartland.”
The poor bastards couldn’t afford me; if I wanted a job in the AGW debate I’d be knocking on the pro-AGW door.
Yes true but to get in the pro-AGW door you do need to show your credentials
For dear Debs on our good argument of last week. Sigh.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/scafetta-widget-problems.html .
Credentials wouldnt be a problem…. the standards are so low anyway, Cohers would just step over them.
There a password that will get you immediate acceptance, Cohers:
“IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!”
So Luke,
Your point is that people have literacy problems and that people are making stuff up?
Further to that, if they don’t supply some sort of evidence from the internet they are simply mouthing sceptic memes?
People are making stuff up????
Now that’s a revelation.
Maybe you could benefit from re reading Jen’s post?
What did Gleik do? Didn’t make stuff up by any chance?
People are mouthing memes (sceptic or otherwise ) ?
A further astonishing revelation.
That wouldn’t be political (and therefore nothing to do with genuine science) by any chance?
Just so you remember, my objection and therefore apparently why you brand people like me as a brainless sceptic, is very simply that science has been hijacked and used by politics. The particular brand of science is by it’s nature inexact.
I have no problem with people doing their jobs.
I have a huge problem with the inappropriate use of their work.
At this juncture we have people forced to compromise themselves and ‘make stuff up’ in order to keep their jobs.They are being forced to publicly proclaim that work that they know is not conclusive, is ‘settled’ and that we all must believe that we are heading for unmitigated disaster if we don’t pay extra taxes and fund new studies and control evil entrepreneurial behaviour.
And Luke, I don’t need to supply a link or a newspaper report to make that point. I only have to open my eyes and ears.
There is an oversupply of links, studies, publications, MSM, blog sites, reports, dissertations etc, all loudly proclaiming that the way they have interpreted the data is the only way to interpret it. It’s mostly the same data yet the conclusions are often eons apart.
It isn’t about the science. The scientists should be left alone to do their work properly IMHO.
It is about the politics.
Debbie the only link we require is this one.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2009&unit=MMTCD
This proves beyond argument there is zero OZ or the OECD or just about the entire non OECD can do about AGW mitigation. China and India are the new really big emitters of co2 and the OECD are nearly flatlining and will do so for decades to come.
We can flush billions down the plug hole forever and it won’t change AGW in the slightest, or the temp or the climate.
But our idiot govt still lies and tells the people “we are tackling CC” or “we are taking action on CC” when we are just exporting our jobs and industries to China and India for a zero return.
What a long winded rave to avoid substantiating your claims.
Neville, those figures do make all our emissions reduction plans seem futile. But here’s an idea!
Why don’t we find out where all those Asians are buying their coal? Once we locate the major exporter of coal, we can take action against its government.
http://www.australiancoal.com.au/facts-a-figures.html
Robert,
We would be having to take action action against ourselves, because we are one of the biggest exporters of coal.
I am glad that we are …but it shows just how stupid these politicians and their science and economic advisers are, that we penalise ourselves and take away one of our main competetive advantages (cheap energy) because of this dire crisis about GW caused by burning carbon dioxide sources…but then readily condone the continued exports, because I assume the coal we export, for some mysterious reason, doesnt release Co2 ..an further when it is burnt in some far off place, it appparently doesnt go into the common atmosphere that we all share. Quite bizarre
Like I said, if the advice comes from some pompous academic twit with a flash title, and an endless string of silly acronyms after his/her name they all believe it, irrespective of whether it makes any common sense.
We are run by some of the silliest people imagineable Combet in particular, and given the current Rudd Gillard saga it isnt going to get any betterr anytime soon
Minister, surely it can’t be us! We’re the guys in the white hats, showing the way to the rest of the world. If it were true, it would have to be one of history’s biggest paradoxes. This has to be some libel cooked up by Rupert!
I met this guy in a parking lot and he only wants to be known as Deep Throat. He told me to “follow the money”.
Once I work out who’s making all the money and garnering the huge tax revenues from coal exports, I’m going to give their names to Gillard and Brown…and Simon Sheikh!
Whoever they are, they’ll be sorry!
And which unsubstantiated claims would those be Luke?
Are you claiming that this issue is NOT political?
That is my claim.
If we’re talking about a political issue, where on earth does one find a ‘science’ substantiation?
When it’s political, it’s always easy to shoot the messenger….it is actually getting extremely boring and hugely counter productive.
I couldn’t care less which political party is in power or who their leader is.
I will say however that the current nonsense is just childishly appalling and the attendant PR campaigns hugely wasteful.
I want them to do their bloody job and represent the wishes of their electorates and look after our people in our very lucky and fortunate country.
If they did their job properly, the rest of us, including the scientists, could do do the same.
To Robert and Minister FT. The hypocrisy by the Gillard govt is beyond belief particularly when you consider the simple maths involved re our usuage of coal here in OZ and our exports.
We export three times the tonnage of coal that we use in OZ, so here’s an idea why not reduce exports every year by say 2% before we tally the books for the year, every year.
Then forget about trying to reduce our emissions of co2 by a co2 tax and all the super expensive unreliable, silly solar and wind farms that will never replace coal PStations in any case.
Fairly simple really just use an agreed simple maths formula to calculate the reduction required once a year and the planet’s co2 levels remain unchanged, at least from OZ’s emissions. ( Sweet FA in any case)
A govt that can happily try and export as much coal as they can every year but hurt their people at home by exporting jobs and industries overseas after introducing a co2 tax is indeed suffering from a type of bi-polar dysfunction. They are either idiots or liars, no other conclusion makes any sense.
But a question, how many people in the electorate understand the numbers involved? I’ve asked many people this question and most haven’t got a clue and are amazed when you tell them the truth.
Neville, you fail to take into account that solar panels and wind turbines are all made in Australia using solar and wind power. Aren’t they?
I don’t know how heavy manufacturing is going out in Geothermia, but I imagine Timmy is cranking out lots of new Green hardware. Isn’t he?
You don’t really think that we’d be buying our Green hardware from places like China and Denmark? And do you seriously think they’d be just burning heaps of coal – even our coal! – to manufacture all those panels and turbines?
Remember also that when renewables fall apart or are junked because of hopeless inefficiency, they generate an enormous number of regional jobs. Rural dismantling has as great a potential as government brochure design and production in our cities.
Look, the only real problem we have in this country is Tony Abbott. I suggest we give his job to that smart Gillard chick.
Just something to look at because of Luke’s love of models and his assessment of future CC and indeed SLR.
Here’s all the models used to show future SLR from both Greenland ( all positive) and Antarctica ( all negative and larger) out to 2300 or the next 300 years. Bit of a problem for problematic SLR for 300 years at least.
I mean this is 90% to 99% ( dependiong where you look ) of all the fresh water on the planet and melting of this ice is the source of future catastrophic SLR.
I repeat these are ALL the models as used by the IPCC in their reports and the theory seems to be that a warmer planet leads to more precipitation and as a result more ice.
So where do Gore and Hansen get their 6 metres ( 20 feet) for the next century I wonder?
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html
I’d be interested to ask what the bloggers here think of all these models graphs and ask again, where does future SLR come from in the next 300 years.
BTW they blow up well to a fuller screen.
BTW Luke’s darlings Timmy Flannery and Robyn Williams talk about SLR a lot. Timmy thinks it could be as high as an eight storey building and Robin told Bolt that it’s so concerning and it’s possible that it could reach 100 metres ( yes 350 feet ) by 2100.
I’ll get in first Luke these celebs are 1. the Gillard’s govt Chief CC Commissioner—- that’s Timmy and 2. The ABC’s no 1 spokesman on science and has been for decades—- that’s Robin. He runs the ABC Science show and talks about science for hours every month.
“incidentally bazza and Luke are one and the same!” gee hunter – you’re pretty good aren’t you. That’s incisive thinking.
Wonder if Neville knows any real climate scientists or just celebs.
Yes I know of Lindzen, Michaels, Spencer, Christy, Singer, Ball, etc. Just about all of them believe that humans effect climate but don’t believe that this slight warming is a problem.
My argument is that the FACTS show that there is zero we can do about AGW because it’s all about China and India and they’re not listening.
We should be investing our borrowed billions $ into more R&D, certainly more science and engineering plus building more infrastructure to deal with bad floods and bad drought whenever they come along. We will always have bad floods and drought so we should sensably prepare for it. We shouldn’t mindlessly waste billions every year on idiocy like the co2 tax, because very simple maths shows it can’t work.
So Luke you religiously believe in CAGW, so tell us where catastrophic SLR will come from over the next 50, 100 or 300 years.
Neville,
I would like to see an official audit on the time and money that has been spent on this totally unproductive circus.
I care zip about their official results.
The whole lot of them should be ashamed of themselves, including the media. We have witnessed some childish self serving tantrum chucking. They all wanted media and PR space and like spoilt little kids they didn’t care how badly they behaved to get attention.
The only ones I have respect for are the ones who chose to keep their mouths shut and continue to try and actually do their job amidst this sideshow.
Couldn’t agree more Debbie. BTW here is Lindzen’s seminar a few days ago in the House of Commons UK.
I’m not a scientist but even I can follow most of it, very interesting.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
Luke,
I don’t recall posting that you lot are the same as bazaa. But are you? It would not be like AGW believers never deceive people, after all. Perhaps you got two govt. contracts to post crap?
But setting aside such delicious speculation, can you please show me my post?
Here is a nice bit alarmist used cow food for you to chew on, btw:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/27/why-yes-linking-climate-change-to-earthquakes-does-seem-to-be-bordering-on-the-insane/#more-57702
I think for you to get to the sane/insane border would require traveling away from insanity quite a distance. Bon voyage!
Luke,
You show an op-ed piece published by the home of alarmist deception as proof that Heartland is wicked. Good luck with that, guys.
Well now we have it published for all to see, it’s okay to lie about AGW. Just ask Luke’s good friends at the Guardian rag.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/27/peter-gleick-heartland-institute-lie?CMP=twt_fd
Sort of cements the fraud and con completely for all of us who value logic and reason.
Speaking of liars and snow jobs – remember how sceptics mercilessly spun the snow storms.
Weeeellll http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/17/1114910109.abstract
And Judith Curry as an author – must be right eh?
and oh dear – despite selective sceptic edits – it seems to be a nett loss http://www.skepticalscience.com/GRACE-and-glaciers.html of didums
After the seventies, till 2007, dry weather dominated in my part of the world, though there was a big wet in the late eighties and a monstrous flood around 2000. Colorado, on the other hand, having made elaborate drought plans after the legendary winter drought of ’76-’77 which left the slopes bare of snow, entered upon a long era of abundant rains and snow, which was fantastic for the ski industry.
Is anyone surprised at the recent poor snowfalls in places like Colorado, Utah etc while we are being drenched in Eastern Oz?
It’s also interesting that while we soaked in the mid-fifties, sending our water south and west to cause the worst flooding in SA history, Europe, in many parts, experienced one of its great natural disasters, the Big Freeze of early ’56.
And, now that we’re soaked again, how’s the weather been lately over there, in those same parts which suffered in ’56?
This proves very little, of course, except that, in a very loose way, a climatic pattern or regime in one part of the world may be balanced by a contrary pattern or regime in another part. Moreover, in the age of GetUp – the age of gotcha, spin, junk science, junk education and factoids – anything can be made to mean anything. Yet I do feel that a little historical reflection can still be of use to those who can think straight and who value commonsense above all.
It is a problem though if you don’t read what’s been written in the papers. “anything can be made to mean anything” well no actually.
Speaking of actually reading stuff, here is what Dr. Curry says about the AGW domination of the policy space:
“Climate science has claimed for 30 years that it affects the safety of hundreds of millions of people, or perhaps the whole planet. If it gets it wrong, equally, millions may suffer from high energy costs, hunger due to biofuels, and lost opportunity from misdirected funds, notwithstanding the projected benefits from as yet impractical renewable energy.
Yet, we have allowed it to dictate global policy and form a trillion dollar green industrial complex – all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator. It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review.”
http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/The-IPCC-May-Have-Outlived-its-Usefulness-An-Interview-with-Judith-Curry.html
Luke, one reads this and it is obvious your lot are pigs at the AGW trough.
“It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review.” – hunter condemns the entire scientific basis for his western standard of living. Amazing stuff mate. High calibre thinking. In fact lets let anyone have a go at brain surgery – building bridges – designing car engines.
In fact ‘all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator” is the most pig ignorant thing I have ever seen written. Utter rot.
In fact hunter – you’ve never had it so good – so stop whinging. Obviously Curry is now just another closet denier and concern troll, busy creating road blocks, feigning concern, and rewriting history. She may be entitled to her opinion but not the facts.
Peer review is fine. In-bred, fad-driven peer review is the problem being referred to here. Read those adjectives!
As to the ability of CAGW’s proponents to think straight, you don’t need to look at their theories, methods, calculations or justifications. You just have to look at their proposed remedies.
If, for some reason, CO2, methane,sulfur dioxide etc from human activity really needed to be reduced, the current proponents of CAGW would be the absolute last people one would consult. People will one day laugh at the words “renewable” and “sustainable” when enjoying comic sketches of turn-of-the-century attitudes. It’s not so funny when you have to live with tax-gobbling, subsidy-munching medieval junk like wind-turbines.
Apocalyptic theories will always be with us. The Guardian’s volcano-and-earthquake scenario has recently topped Marian Wilkinson’s stunning evacuation plan for the NSW coast. But expect a fine comeback from Fairfax in the Ashes of catastrophism.
The problem is that we’ve taken it way beyond talk, and we’ve intertwined all the non-solutions with the very real problems of global debt and under-development. If the Guardian get its volcano, we won’t have the wealth, the nukes or the modern coal plants to help ourselves, let alone others.
Environmentalism is not conservation. It is mass neurosis.
Here’s a good video that shows more of that clueless alarmism from the Suzuki idiot. He’s a master at brainwashing kids but doesn’t like the more forensic skills of adults asking inconvenient questions or any questions for that matter.
http://ezralevant.com/2011/12/davids-details.html
Thanks for the link, Nev. It’s dispiriting viewing, but we need to be reminded that at the root of all this folly there are some really appalling people who don’t even bother to hide their extortions and exactions. I’m not much of a hater, but, if I ever do hate someone, it’ll be a moral and intellectual pygmy like Suzuki.
As to the argument that it’s not about personalities and celebs, tell them, not me.
So much for free speeech http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/02/comments_elsewhere_part_ii.php
And such high quality from scepos http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/wet-is-dry-and-dry-is-wet/#more-4742 when down is really up …
Give up luke, nobody with a brain is listening to anything the warmist movement says.
the sad thing is that scientists can no longer be trusted because a few “climate scientists” have destroyed the viablity of all of them….because they have preached so much certainty and doom and gloom and the reality is they have been mostly wrong.
In a way thats a win for the green movement because they want to prevent progress and take us back to the dark ages and with their policies they are succeeeding.
cost benefit analysis is a thing of the past…think NBN… cant do one cos we cant quantify what we dont know yet but we do know its gonna be great!!!…yeah right…….
we do know the C in CAGW is highly unlikely and we also know even if we turn off australia it will do ntg for the climate, so spending billions in areas with little to no return is pure stupidity.
the poor little heartland institute survives on relative peanuts compared to the warmist movement with all their billions of funding ….and yet most people have stopped listening and are now sceptical…..says a lot for the quality of the science and advocates for crap policy.
i am amazed you are still trying to defend this crap!
I’m amazed how easy you are to bluff. How uncritical as a teacher. And that’s what Heartland has told you to think.
the heartland has not told me anything to think cos i have rarely read anything they have said!…..but from what i can see in the articles and comments is people like carter are getting paid peanuts, whilst the other side has billions to throw around…and is rapidly losing the support of even many of the most rusted on warmers….none of this debatable is it?
the science has been used to distort and to push political agendas and as a consequnce the more and more this becomes obvious, and the reality that the catastrophic predictions are highly unlikely..the more and more people will no longer believe what real scientists have to say. I think that is very sad and a huge step back for humans…….but i am sure the greens think that is a win.
i worked out nearly a decade ago if you werent scpetical about the C in CAGW you were naive and likely ignorant of the real world. I started a believer and then went and investigated the other side…only one conclusion i think you can reach…ntg we do short of finding a new technology will have any influence on climate and the science is far from clear cut. Any other view is in my mind zealotry or ignorance
and people pushing for things that will clearly cause hardship and lower living standards is insanity when the pay off is known to be basicaly zero.
Doing something that causes harm and little if any good can only be the actions of stupid people.
if you can see any flaws in anything i have said in the last 5 or 6 by all means point them out……..
otherwise you should stop pushing a cause that has basically only downside given current technology…..
The atmosphere doesn’t really care if we/you find the problem difficult. If an issue/problem is difficult to solve it doesn’t logically diminish the existence of the issue at all. Essentially your logic is that if any mitigation option is economically/technologically difficult therefore ergo the problem must not exist. That’s what cancer patients often tell their doctors.
Isn’t it strange that in a society whose standard of living is dependent on science and technology that we decide we’ll suddenly develop a marked sensitivity to science that gives us cognitive dissonant indigestion. Even to put a C on AGW is pure sceptic framing.
You are the one suffering from cognitive dissonance and that was the word that came to mind with your logic in your first paragraph…just cos a solution doesnt exist doesnt mean the problem does not exist…duuuuhhhhh where did i ever say that?…..twisted words as usual to suit your paradigm.
what i am saying is
1. the science surrounding warming is highly debatable and the likelihood of significant rapid problems is unlikely…but
2. even if we really will warm up dramatically there is NO technology currently viable to cut global emissions.
3. even if we shut down australia it will do ntg to climate
4. spending money on things that we know will lower living standards and damage the environment, when we know they will accomplish nothing has to be stupid…doesn it??
I m not surpised you are still being sucked in by the warmist movement when you cant even read what i have said and respond logically??!!
i repeat “people pushing for things that will clearly cause hardship and lower living standards is insanity when the pay off is known to be basicaly zero.
Doing something that causes harm and little if any good can only be the actions of stupid people.”
could anybody possibly argue with that ?
as an example for you, a friend just returned from “camp leakey” and he makes this comment;
“We had a fantastic visit to Camp Leakey and met Dr Birute Galdikas , the founder. Camp Leakey is named after a distant relation (Louis Leakey) head of the well know palaeontologist family. Clearing rain forests to grow palm oil for export to Europe (the largest importer in the world) is the main issue they contend with (I thought Europe was clean?) and putting the orang-utans in danger of extinction. Loss of rain forest also changes weather forces (a little bit like removing a mountain), which may also change chances of rain.”..by the way he is a dux from cambridge uni and a brilliant mathematician that would leave you and i for dead in the intelligence stakes…and he cant believe the rubbish pushed by your mob as fact……..and the damage being done in the name of the environment.
once again i say we know without new technology ntg we do will change the climate and we also know what we are doing is lowering living standards and doing damage to the environment…ie china polluting itself with heavy metals to build solar panels etc…and of course palm oil etc that big business is making a fortune out of thx to govt policy……
“Even to put a C on AGW is pure sceptic framing.”..really?!…so a 1 c increase would be harmful for humans and the planet would it?? How about you consider what would happen if temp dropped by 2-3 degrees? Obviously marginal warming is better than cooling……
You can only gain traction because of the possibility of the “C” in CAGW. Without IT YOU HAVE NOTHING…AND THATS THE SCEPTICS FAULT???!!!
Do you really think anybody would consider using power thats 3-10 times more expensive if it wasnt for the fear created by the “C”?
Would we really be using productive land that could feed people for “ethanol” based energy , if it wasnt for the “C’??
The term AGW is perfect for GetUp style stunting, since it’s impossible not to believe in AGW, or AGC for that matter. It was supposed to be less of a GetUp style stunt than the utter meaningless “Global Warming”, but it’s simply an upgrade. It’s a bit like those words “record” and “ever” slotted into a context of graphs and stats. These people preach science but fear specificity on the simplest level.
Keep adding that C, guys, otherwise we may as well be discussing our favourite Spice Girl.
Poor ol’ Luke. Still just a “carbon” copy [in miniature] of his idol, Tim Flannery.
I wonder how Tim’s feeling tonight? Sitting in his new riverfront, waiting for the big flood, wondering if it will get him. Hoping Warragamba will hold.
Oh the irony!
And with all that ice melt and OHC lukey luv, why are the sea levels declining?
http://www.real-science.com/proof-ice-sheets-melting
So much for Toby’s ability to read and think.
Spangles retreats to wiggle watching…. pullease
Luke,
You doofus,
My post was clearly marked as a quote by Judith Curry.
And your mixing of good peer review with bad peer review is very, very revealing.
Between your inability to read for content, and your inability to discern good from bad, it sort of leaves your gang looking rather pitiful.
Who does this remind you of:
I’M afraid that the science around climate change is firming up fairly quickly . . . we’ve seen just drought, drought, drought, and particularly regions like Sydney and the Warragamba catchment—if you look at the Warragamba catchment figures, since 98 the water has been in virtual freefall, and they’ve got about two years of supply left . . .
Maxine McKew: But. . . we won’t see a return to more normal patterns?
Flannery: . . . they do seem to be of a permanent nature. I don’t think it’s just a cycle. I’d love to be wrong, but I think the science is pointing in the other direction.
McKew: So does that mean, really, we’re faced with—if that’s right—back-to-back droughts and continuing thirsty cities?
Flannery: That’s right.
ABC 702, yesterday:
A FLOOD watch has been issued for parts of Sydney with continued heavy rain falling in the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment expected to “fill and spill” over Warragamba Dam.
Courtesy Andrew Bolt this morning.
I understand Flanners just can’t stand it anymore and has had to flee the country.
Quote from Steven Hayward of Powerline.
“Don’t forget that Gleick had been chair of the AGU’s task force on ethics. Evelyn Waugh couldn’t make this stuff up.
Second, it is beyond irony and parody to take in again the fixation with Heartland’s tiny $4.4 million budget last year next to the recent news that the Climate Works Foundation, one of the major climate campaign organizations, just got another $100 million fillip from the Hewlett Foundation. This brings the grand total of Hewlett grants to Climate Works to nearly $600 million.”
One hopes it’s not true, but it probably is.
It’s the age of the paid shill, isn’t it? GetUp, MoveOn are just grimy, obedient foot-soldiers compared to these august sounding institutes and foundations. You know, to get by in the bush and keep the cash coming in, I’ve had to do some grubby work. But at least I was cleaning away the faeces for a buck, not generating it.
Toby the Gillard govt’s concern about increasing co2 emissions is a total fraud and con.
It only concerns them when the increased emissions are produced by us here in OZ.
If the emissions are produced by China, India, Japan or Korea etc using our coal then thats a good thing and they encourage increases in tonnage every year.
If we now try and do the same and produce more industry and jobs here then that’s BAD but using our exports to do the same in any other country is definitely GOOD.
Have a look at this new monster that proves my point. This mine will produce 60 million tonnes per year for the next 100 years. What a total con and fraud they are pulling on the OZ electorate.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-14/indian-group-plans-qlds-biggest-coal-mine/3828486
Neville of course it is…its insanity but clearly many like luke are insane cos they cant think of teh consequence of their actions !
“So much for Toby’s ability to read and think”
so go on explain why i cant think? where is anything i have said illogical???
i am actually pretty gd at admitting when i am wrong, so show me?
Absolutely agree with you Neville
I also notice the resident dipstick has remained silent over this idiocy.. but feels fully liberated in berating all and sundry who question his version of the science, which is supposedly should have some logical defensability and consistency about it.
What steaming load of hypocrisy and humbug …the alarmists fraud/con have no where to hide..but these clowns press on with fraud..the morons have no shame
I was thinking about
sorry!
i was thinking about Luke’s role/ purpose on this blog.
It seems to me that luke must just have a sense of humour that gives him kicks out of winding us all up and getting us to explain again and again what he already knows to be true!!
That is he already agrees with our opinions but says he doesnt to get a laugh out of our anguish at his apparent lack of comprehension!!
Really luke is a massive scpetic that knows the worl is being conned, but he gets a kick out of winding other sceptics up!!
toby,
Remember that Luke started as a group of posters from some Australian agency, who were coming to give the AGW gospel to the unwashed.
His gang has been less than happy about their gospel being rejected.
It is interesting to ponder if they are doing this on work time or if indeed as part of the assignment.
Luke seems to be going through the motions more and more often.
That he could not even read the quote of Judith Curry as a quote, or bother to look at the link of her complete interview is not like the Luke. Perhaps some of them are feeling under the weather?
The interesting larger question is if the true believers react with such immoral stances on wire fraud by one of theirs (some leading AGW types write it off as a political stunt) the question comes to mind as to what other stunts these guys think are cool?
Hunter, do you really think he started out as a group desk?…I mean its certainly possible, and I believe there are groups / people like that around ( i am sure the political parties are doing it! and some green groups?) but I prefer to give Luke the benfit of the doubt and think that he is a genuine believer….or a joker….
That said his inability to comprehend even the most basic issues surrounding the issue…such as without the “C” AGW is nothing to be concerned about, and his inability to comprehend that spening money when you know the pay off is zero or close to it is even more stupid….and when the solutions actually create real problems it gets even worse….even an idiot has to see that?
Thats why I suddenly decided maybe he just has a wicked/ warped sense of humour and is just winding us up!!
re writing on work time…i suspect we are all guilty of that sometimes!?
I love the way we get preached at by the warmist movement about moral issues and morals…and yet they have no qualms in distorting the truth or even acting fraudulently…in the name of their cause.
Talk about warped ethics and morals!!
I ran into a lady the other day who is on anti depression tablets and incredibly unhappy…because she is so worried about global warming and her kids futures!!
seriously get a grip!! she should worry more about what this current govt is doing to our finances and economy ( for whatever reason…cagw or just mismanagement and incompetence and an inablity to grasp that we have limited resources and need to think carefully about how we use them, rather than just try and do anything that pops into their heads!!)…that is really going to cause some pain for her children at some stage ( if we dont get a govt who can manage their budget…and i aint so sure the libs are that good idea…but they cant b worse!?)!!
Well there’s taking the piss, pulling chains and being as equally rude in return to ranters. Always fun.
Probability is that there’s high enough odds that the science for fairly inconvenient (depending where you live) AGW (not necessarily CAGW) is probably high enough to take it seriously.
Any solutions are grand challenges and likely to be unpalatable. But that’s humanity’s problem not the physics.
I like the Luke desk idea – in fact it’s a testament to hunter’s stupidity. I obliquely suggested it to him once and he’s now confected a whole storyline and fantasy world. What a goober.
Although maybe hunter is a she or an inter-sex transgender person. Shouldn’t jump to assumptions should we? Me – what’s wrong with YY chromosomes? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vnjQPcrcZI
Fairly Incovenient (Depending) Anthropogenic Global Warming, eh? FI(D)AGW?
I wonder…
Refined GetUp stunt or new-found specificity?
Of course, if a few roofs blow off houses in Kansas or an ice-shelf calves, FI(D) can seamlessly morph to C.
I’d say, all up, it’s another GetUp stunt. New and Improved! Now with Greater Specificity!
errr Robert – are you obsessed with GetUp – I look out my window and on my TV -I don’t see them? Are they important?
And yes catastrophic AGW is a sceptic meme – what defines a catastrophe? It’s a good bluff point – oooo look there’s no catastrophe yet. But what would a catastrophe look like?
So, no C because no definition? What defines Fairly Inconvenient (Depending)?
GetUp aren’t outside your window or on TV. They’re all over the net, however, like a cheap suit.
Anyway, since there’s no C, Luke, we’ll relax. Who’s your favourite Spice Girl?
Milla Jovovich
Lindzen’s recent seminar at the House of Commons is here, part 1. 22-2-12.
No doubt about it they are incredibly effective with SFA resources. Don’t forget only a fraction of that whopping $6+ million is spent on climate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/01/follow-the-money-why-heartland-is-a-big-threat/#more-58028
Everything is relative and no more so than the the propensity towards getting the priority of issues affecting human kind, and our western slightly more enlightened approach to things.
But it beccomes completely bizarre when we deliberately turn a blind eye towards campaigns of hatred and disruption being mounted by an evil cult which has tried and tried to curb our freedoms of speach (at the infamous UN Durban 1&2 Conferences) for example….
and having failed at that, it seems that the anti Christian murder rate is rising
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/bulletin-of-christian-persecution-jan-29-feb-29-2012/
If only we sent our money and resource on alleviating things that matter ..and if we did this issue woud have to be in the top 20…. and GW wouldnt be anywhere to be seen.
so very true minister…it would be nowhere to be seen
Luke,
I owe you an apology: I allowed you to deceive me into thinking you were a group of guys posting under one name. I should have known to not to believer you. I am sorry I thought your nasty trolling was too much for merely one person. You are clearly capable of world class trolling all by yourself.
If there was a gold medal for trolling you would be in the finals for sure.
As to the Luke’s latest lie, that the idea of a climate apocalypse is a skeptic meme:
It takes a real lying coward to pretend that from Lovelock to Hansen to Schneider to the hypesters regarding slr, drought, storms, etc. they are not talking about a climate catastrophe. etc. etc. etc.
Luke, You are such a practiced deceiver. Please keep up the good work.
hunter – I didn’t deceive you – you talked yourself into it. I didn’t say anything to that. So gullible in fact that you are the most stupid commentator I have ever come across. Gullible and prone to fantasy – a spreader of untrue gossip – hence my total scorn at your philosophical position. You sir are an imbecile. A first class twit. And a hypocrite.
This also goes to your disgraceful slander of professionals you don’t know. You’re the troll – make a science point for a change.
Luke,
Your position is rather obviously politically based not scientifically based. Along with the extreme views on ‘the other side’ you are clearly using scientific material that justifies your political views.
I did however like your point that the atmosphere doesn’t care.
Obviously the climate/wiggly weather doesn’t care either. It is just proving how little it cares for the views of our climate commissioner in his own back yard (which you have to admit is a perfect case of irony).
In my patch, we’re having a perfect Autumn break.
Seems you’re correct that all our blustering and waving of an oversupply of models and information and an insistence that ‘managing’ human behaviour for ‘the common good’ will actually have some type of productive influence on climate is pretty damn shonky.
Adaptive management and a recognition of generational/primary source information ALONG with science may be a better approach than inflexible and restrictive legislative terms of reference? Perhaps?
Looking for short term political outcomes does not appear to sit well with the political view of ‘climate’.
Climate doesn’t care about politics and is not interested in assisting any of you. Just yank your head space out of your political agenda, and your computer, and have a gander at what’s really happening and has been happening for at least 2 years.
How long can we call weather that is not conforming to projective modelling wiggles? Maybe forever? That just proves it doesn’t care and never really has.
The favoured solutions have nothing to do with climate and everything to do with popular political ideology.
Deb, I think someone eager to identify as a “climate scientist” right now is like someone identifying as an “investor” in 1987. You may not be a superficial tosser, but you probably are.
You can be Professor of Physics at Princeton, and the Number One poster boy for science, but if you don’t go along with CAGW or FI(D)W or whatever we’re supposed to call it, you’ll be out of the game. Not a climate scientist. Senile. In the pay of Big We’ll-Think-of-Something.
Anyway, the biggest climate doofus of them all is soon to be Australia’s Foreign Minister. Like everyone who boasts about reading “all of Proust”, this guy is seriously thick, but he knows how to trash an economy. He’s got more telfon coating than Rudd, and better chances of carving out that UN position which is the final goal of all posh leftists. If he starts flushing funds out of Oz in the name of climate justice etc, in the direction of all the usual trough-swillers, we’ll be wishing Craig Thomson was Foreign Minister.
Debs you are simply making stuff up and waffling way out of your depth as is evidenced by your inability to cite any references for your arguments. You’re just raving and saying whatever comes into your mind.
Robert – you’ve never had it so good. Stop whinging.
Luke, I want to keep having it good – by supporting the people who made it good (you don’t know them) and by sacking the mugs and wreckers. I’ll keep whinging.
Luke,
Tell us how you really feel. And you did deceive me and others who talked about it at the time.
As to who is a troll, shall we take a vote?
hunter – I never said anything – you auto-suggested on someone else’s comment. Then you repeated the it 100s of times and you all convinced yourselves. SO this goes to the heart of your rabid denilalism – you just run on any rumour that suits you. I haven’t told you about Luke – you told yourself about her. And this is why you’re unfit to comment here – you have no discriminatory ability – and are in fact a brainless idiot.
You sir are a twit.
I may be a twit to you, and it clearly making you crazy to realize that those you see as twits were right on the climate issue.
How could such self-declared geniuses like you get it so obviously wrong?
Luke,
Which arguments do you believe need references?
The argument that this is more about politics than science or the argument that projective modelling is being used inappropriately?
Where does one find references to cite for those 2 arguments?
The input data in both the climate modeling and the hydrology modeling is far too dirty and the errors are being magnified by the politics and what you call cognitive dissonance.
You must know that this type of projective modelling is inexact. Every scientist I speak to knows it and has explained why.
History is littered with examples of govts attempting to use inexact science to solve ‘grand challenges’.
This one is political Luke, not scientific.
The burden of proof is on you, not me.