Hi, Stan. You're new here, like a whole lot of people. You've just shown up, and here's your very first comment.
I noticed that this blog is in the running for a Best Science Blog award.
I've looked over the site. Cna someone point out where the science is on it. I have looked but I can't find any.
Let me introduce myself. My name is PZ Myers. I'm an associate professor of biology at a small liberal arts university in the upper midwest. I make no grand claims for myself, but I have been exceptionally busy lately, with lots of travel and lectures, and it's all on top of teaching two courses, one of which is both new to me and a new course in our discipline, so I'm writing lectures at a frantic pace and trying to keep up with 80 students. I'm also working on a book and have a magazine column to write, in addition to other irregular writing jobs. I'm stretched very, very thin right now, I'm a bit frustrated myself that I haven't had much spare time for the blog, and I'm feeling extremely cranky.
Welcome, Stan Palmer, I'm going to unload on you as a proxy for all your fellow denialist idiots!
First, though, I'll help you out. Look on the left sidebard, for A Taste of Pharyngula. If that's not enough, there's an archive of my Seed columns. You didn't seem to look very hard before leaping to your rather clueless indictment; I suspect you were directed here by one of those right-wing sites and came here with preconceptions. I daresay you probably didn't look at all, but instead simply scampered over here to toss off your petty, ignorant comment.
And then, of course, what's bringing you and your fellow naive whiners here is the need to defend the climate change denialist, McIntyre — so many of you, after carping that I'm not meeting your demands, are protesting that he's not a denialist, and you aren't denialists, and you're all here in the cause of good science.
Bullshit.
My expertise is not in climate, but in biology, and I'm familiar with his type — it's a common strategy among creationists, who do dearly love to collect complaints. There are people who put together a coherent picture of a scientific issue, who review lots of evidence and assemble a rational synthesis. They're called scientists. Then there are the myopic little nitpickers, people who scurry about seeking little bits of garbage in the fabric of science (and of course, there are such flaws everywhere), and when they find some scrap of rot, they squeak triumphantly and hold it high and declare that the science everywhere is similarly corrupt. They lack perspective. They ignore everything that doesn't fit their search criterion, and of course, they're focused only on putrescence. They aren't scientists, they're more like rats.
And the worst of the rats are the sanctimonious ones that declare that they're just 'policing' science. They aren't. They're just providing fodder for their fellow denialists, and like them all, have nothing of value to contribute to advance the conversation. You can quit whining that you and McIntyre are finding valid errors; it doesn't matter, since you're simultaneously spreading a plague of lies and ignorance as you go.
So bugger off, denialists. I am not impressed.
Everyone else, please do vote for Bad Astronomy. Real scientists can see the big picture and understand that the real power of science lies in the explanations, not the pettifoggery with statistics — not that I expect the right-wing gomers at the Weblog Awards who nominated the purveyors of junk science for their award to to know that, or for the swarms of freepers and limbots to care.
Oh, and the next clueless ass to whine at me that they can't find any science here will be disemvoweled. I'm feeling peevish, so it's not a good time to prod.
- Log in to post comments
I just realized that PZ is the Gregory House of all Science blogs. (In a good way, of course.)
Not a bad analogy. All these pathetic concern trolls with their early toilet training have stuck in their heads the fallacious ad hominem belief that there's some connection between polite and right or ornery and wrong.
@ Pablo (# 493)
As even the IPCC abandoned the hockeystick graph (their former poster-boy), one should wonder why they did so if there is nothing wrong with it.
David.
You're a fucking paranoid idiot.
At least you got #4 right.
Indeed, you have strengthened my resolve Steve_C. Thank you,
Peace be with you brother!
IB
500th comment? Nice, I've never seen one this big.
Find a professor who thinks he's right and who has ideas like you?
That seems to be the thing with these wankers; they did poorly in college and blame the "professors". We see the same attitude over at UD.
I'm so happy for you Bob. Keep up the good woo.
McKitrick again (Science and Environmental Policy-Making: Bias-Proofing the Assessment Process, Dec. 2005)
He's a nut:
Counterweight Panel
As for the Counterweight Panel, in the climate context I envision an IPCC Working Group 4 assembled from among the expert community to publish, under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the case against the conclusions presented by the other IPCC Working Groups, primarily Working Group I. Such a panel would have to deal with both economic and scientific aspects of the IPCC's work since the emission scenarios are intrinsic to the Working Group I conclusions. It would be ideal to have the other IPCC Working Groups prepare a response, to which Working Group 4 would then prepare a reply.
So, IPCC is supposed to form a group to reach conclusions that contradict IPCC findings! Coming soon: a Counter-Counterweight Panel. This group will critique the work of groups 1 and 4 and recall all copies of whichever group offends them most.
This guy is living in la-la land.
belief that there's some connection between polite and right or ornery and wrong
Not really 501. It's just that it's so much easier to argue politely than to do so while ranting and raving. It is also much more dignified and more in the spirit of the scientific method. Arguing with expletives almost always ends up generating more heat than light.
Now you've done it, Stevie. Bob (who doesn't have Clue One as to what irony really is) is gonna drown us all in treacle.
Ryan,
thanks for keeping the debate on a civilized level. Amazing the foul language here!
But we read criticisms of peer review everywhere, so there must be something wrong with it? Are you a scientist? Have you written papers? Have you reviewed any? I don't claim to be right because I've done both, but I can claim to have some experience with the system. Gee, even after ten years out of academia, they still send me papers to review, you just can't escape!
If I were to disagree with Grove, it's that peer review does not so much prevent innovative ideas from being published as it allows a humongous amount of poor quality (boring) science to be published. How do you find the innovative idea in all the noise? You can get anything published these days. Do you know that there are over 1 million papers published every year?
I have sat on grant committees, and I can tell you how hard it was to get funds given to the young innovative applicants, when they have to compete with established scientists who know how to play the game. How many brilliant scientists do we lose because of that? Because you can write 20 insignificant papers a year, and it's worth more than one single innovative paper. You can have a lab full of graduate students doing the same boring stuff year after year, hitting the same nail on the head, and it's a self-perpetuating business.
And consider how hard it is to get out of your field and start another research thread. You need to refurbish your lab, you enter a field where you are an unknown, you need to have the grant agencies accept that. It is almost impossible, or if you still go ahead, you're in for a good 5 years or more of struggling.
There's no easy fix, but I know one thing. The anonymous peer review as we know it will not easily be replaced because it benefits a lot of people who are already in the system.
Well lets see.. elitism: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
I would say the moniker is appropriate, thank you for providing a concise illustration of a perceived superiority (totally without basis I might add) to prove my point for me. Thanks for playing.
Ya gotta love it when established morons say "I think" or "I would say" and then follow it with something utterly retarded.
Ok, cbone, fine, we all groundlessly think we we're smarter, more successful, and richer, than you -- we must, because you say so. And so we've lost the game. Hey, you're a winner! So, WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU STILL HERE?
Right back at ya Steve...
I find it uproariously hilarious that denialists such as this think all their years of prior claims have simply disappeared from the public records, and that their new amnesia about their absolute certainty and faith in those beliefs means they never happened at all!
But really, who can forget what wonderful denialist hits they were spouting as gospel waaay back oh a couple years ago: Global warming is just not happening, sure global warming is happening but has nothing to with humans, trees cause pollution (Saint Raygun!), the evil "tree huggers" don't care about the naturally superior place of humans in the world...
This new found fake skepticism mixed with woo, tree hugging, and ignorance of statistics is also teh funny, so I hope they don't stop keeping us amused.
There's a difference between an argument and asking someone to get the fuck out.
We're cursing because we DON'T CARE. We didn't ask for you CA trolls to come over and defend you're goofiness. We don't ask creationists to come here and explain how god created the earth 10,000 years ago. Or Scott Adams fans to come here to defend his "humor". Or Hovind fans to defend that nut job either.
Buncha boring conspiracy theorists. You make Ufologists look fun.
Okay, well, Francois, your comment #453 doesn't really seem to answer my question:
Which of the major holdouts during the "tectonic revolution" have been revisionist when looking back at their part in the history of that time?
which is what I interpreted your comment: ...and (2) how scientists can be good at rewriting history when it makes them look stupid.
to be saying.
But regardless, your characterization of how tectonic theory came about doesn't seem to jive with what I recall being taught in structural geology. The guy who taught me structure was a late player in the "revolution" but a player nonetheless, having gotten his PhD under Harry Hess and his MS under Ernst Cloos. He was pretty seriously into the history of it all and we spent a fair amount of time wallowing through the early literature. As I understand it, Wegner wasn't really supported initially because he lacked a compelling mechanism for causing it and much of what he said about how the continents moved around made little sense. The basic ideas were already out there based on continental margin shapes and paleontological data. It already had some supporters. Wegner brought it all together under an umbrella term, but none of them had much evidence to back the theory up at that time. Despite that, work was done...a lot of attention was paid to the theory before 1930 even and there doesn't seem to be any 30 year black hole in publications. Symposia were held specifically to discuss the theory. The geologists of the 1920s absolutely did know how to do science, you're correct...and they did what they were supposed to do. They pissed all over the theory...probing it for weaknesses...and there were many. It is like the snowball earth hypothesis, which is turning into a theory right before our eyes (magnificent to watch it happen). What do people do? Piss on snowball earth, trying to disprove it...or...doing science. Was tectonics contested? Yes, hotly...but before Hess did his stuff it was weak. Sorry, but it was. Still, I don't know where the conspiracy theory about suppressing drift is coming from. If there were suppression going on, it doesn't appear to have been very effective since I haven't seen any break in publications on the subject. Hess's work during World War II formed the basis of the mechanism and once that finally got published, people started to come around immediately. Were there holdouts? Yes, for a long time. Cloos almost went to his grave as a holdout. I would have been surprised if people accepted it quickly. As scientists, we're supposed to be skeptical as you well know. And this was a big deal...tectonic theory. Bigger than AGW I would wager. The globe warms, the globe cools...it's what it seems to do. That's not really in dispute. Whether anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are affecting the process at one tiny little sliver of geologic time to me seems like a far smaller thing than if the earth's crust is divided up tectonic plates that move around, recycling rocks and driving much of the climate system. So I'm not at all surprised that a bunch of people got their panties in a wad over tectonic theory. People are basically dickheads after all. Would I support the notion that there was an active campaign of suppression? No. Does that mean there wasn't? No. Structure/tectonics...not the stuff I publish on...I certainly could be wrong, but it didn't look that way when we were ready the early papers on the subject.
Whoever said that must be another right wing nut.
Close enough, moron.
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2007/11/06/andy_grove_rich_famous_…
Your. Damn it.
Fuck, the trolls haven't been this bad since the libertarian thread...
To the care trolls, go defenestrate yourselves, to the Climate Audit trolls, likewise.
And to Francis O whining about the IPCC report being an argument from authority, it's only a logical fallacy if the authority is a false authority dipshit.
Once more, you're a festering moronic "science" concern fucktard troll.
I don't know Jepe, maybe they had say more fucking accurate models? Scientists tend to look for better data and models most of the time, it's part of the whole process which keeps grad students busy and under-paid.
"As even the IPCC abandoned the hockeystick graph (their former poster-boy), one should wonder why they did so if there is nothing wrong with it. "
Assuming the claim that they abandoned it is true (although others have disputed you), perhaps the reason is because they don't need it to make a clearcut case for AGW? That additional evidence that has come out since it was originally released is even more compelling?
It's like a creationist complaining that a report on evolution doesn't contain anything about Lucy.
Professor says: And all my friends have used the same material and came to the same conclusions: I did a good lob!
Calgeorge and Dustin think: Wow, his friends agree with him! We want to be friends too, so lets agree with him!
Funny how the trolls insist that they're just skeptics and then proceed to blatantly lie before our very eyes.
Thanks for the good belly laugh. RC is an AGW spin zone run by the same PR firm that represents moveon.org and greenpeace. It is hardly an unbiased source of climate information.
Ah, so instead you come here ... yeah, that makes sense.
What a fucking turd.
Hey Rey,
You are right, I don't have the foggiest idea about what irony is. But that does not bother me one iota, hence I have nothing to fear.
As far as gushing treacle on the debate; I loathe to think that would be the ultimate outcome of my participation here. However, I'd much rather prefer to a put pint of ale in everyones hand to take the edge off.
Cheers!
Wow, the old playground tactic of regurgitating back a criticism on the commenter. I can't say I expected any better, but it is typical of those on the left. Strip away the hate and vitriol and all you have left is a little playground whiner with no orignal thoughts of their own.
That's right, we have no original thoughts of out own. SO WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE, FUCKWAD?
Of course Andy Grove is a right wing nut. The fact that he's one of the main reasons you can write this on your computer doesn't count. You know better than him and that's enough. Why listen to these guys?
Explain to me who anyone who isn't completely retarded would use such a ridiculous argument from authority?
And you call yourself a scientist... The point of peer review ultimately is to publish solid, correct data and analysis, innovation is a side effect and something that doesn't come all to often when there's a crap load of monotonous work to get through to give us the ground work. And finding interesting stuff? Perhaps this new-fangled device called a "search engine" might help you there, or possibly skipping down to your local university library for a skim through the major journals?
As a result of this thread, I'd like you to know that I plan to stay for a while. If you're this easy to wind up, and this incapable of defending your position with science rather than invective, you should be enormous fun!
How does that work for your hypothesis?
It validates my position that you and all your buddies are troll assholes. It also established that you personally are a moron, because you don't have a clue what's going on here.
I have lurked here for awhile because I thought that it might be entertaining to read the views of a few warmists "at home".
Bad mistake. Instead of being entertained by PZ and his defenders, I've been disgusted to the point of regurgitation. I've heard more rational discourse on the subject of AGW in Vancouver bars at 2:00 AM.
If you ignorant barberians are representative of the state of science in the U.S.A., America is doomed and so, by extension, are we all.
Maybe you're just a bunch of undergraduates, and therefore harmless, but I doubt that, and it makes me afraid, very afraid.
Although I jumped to conclusions in my earlier post, I couldn't help myself. I had to have a second look.
And hey, it turns out there has been interesting discussions here---especially the discussion between Francois O and CalGeorge among others.
Wow, you folks are pretty amazing...childish comes to mind, ad hoc also, definitely rude.
Yes, we are. We're childish rude nasty meanies,not worth your time ... so why are you spending it here?
To answer the question as to why we are here at this page imparticular, it's because we are attempting to refute a personal attack on us as a group.
That's a lie, and a rather stupid one.
I'll start worrying about comparisons to Venus when our atmosphere becomes 90 times denser, and is composed mostly of carbon dioxide, 96.5%. Earth's is only 0.037%. So Venus has around 234729 times the C02.
Venus also has an incredibly slow rotation rate. There are just under two days per year. Hardly a "sister planet" for the purposes of an experiment in runaway greenhouse effects.
Well boys and girls, I give up. I've tried to stay civil and polite and reasonable. Time to move on.
PZ maybe you should stop this thread.
Bad mistake. Instead of being entertained by PZ and his defenders, I've been disgusted to the point of regurgitation. I've heard more rational discourse on the subject of AGW in Vancouver bars at 2:00 AM.
Great, so go hang out that the bar. Why would you be here if it makes you barf? Try reading #157.
I think you succeeded in being polite, actually
Yes, this is the perfect encapsulation of The Debate, right here on this bit of HTML. And if you can't handle it, then it's off to the monastery with you where the sturm und drang won't reach for peaceful meditation.
[/sarcasm]
Look fellows, this is a blog, not a bloody symposium. A blog that has had a rather cranky host as of late. It's been rude and uncivil from the post that started it (and it's rarely this bad), but realize that anyone who has read this far and is still actively posting really doesn't care about any admonitions from the peanut gallery. Wading into the morass gets mud on YOU too, no matter how noble your intentions.
Time to move on.
Gee, only 377 posts after PZ explicitly told you "I don't want you here. You're a mob of quacks, and your promises that you won't come back are just sweet nothings whispered in my ear."
PZ maybe you should stop this thread.
There was a thread on demented fuckwits that got close to 1,000 comments.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/rapture_rubbish_and_apocalyp…
We have a lot of stamina.
Lee. There was no interest in debate. We were acting like assholes because we wanted them to go away.
But feel free to take your concern elsewhere.
I have lurked here for awhile because I thought that it might be entertaining to read the views of a few warmists "at home".
This isn't a climatology blog, moron, so you're in the wrong place for that.
I have a single observation:
truth machine wakes up and starts posting and Francois O gives up.
Sad.
"Yes, we are. We're childish rude nasty meanies,not worth your time ... so why are you spending it here?"
They get off on being concern trolls, etc?
It certainly seems to keep them occupied, maybe we can thank Zod that this might keep them from fucking up something important.
If you ignorant barberians are representative of the state of science in the U.S.A., America is doomed and so, by extension, are we all.
Isn't it funny how so many of these trolls shares the same sort of stupidity? As I wrote back in #195, "This thread is the result of an invasion of trolls and is not typical of the content of this blog. What sort of fucking moron comes to a far reaching conclusion based on a single data point ...?"
Mr. Machine..
Is there anyone on who presents an opposing view point to your own you feel is more intelligent than yourself; or at the very least feel any modicum respect for?
Just curious...
I have a single observation:
truth machine wakes up and starts posting and Francois O gives up.
Sad.
Yes, it is sad that you are such a moron. Once again, back in #157 PZ said that quacks like F.O. aren't wanted here.
Hi truth machine!
"It validates my position that you and all your buddies are troll assholes. It also established that you personally are a moron, because you don't have a clue what's going on here."
False generalisation!
But you already knew that. I want you to know, that insult just earned you another few comments from me. Want to try for more? It was an interesting hypothesis, this idea that telling people to "just fuck off" would work, but at what point do you conclude the hypothesis falsified? When it gets to a thousand comments? Ten thousand? Ever?
Because, you see, every time you ad hom, it adds more evidence to my case. Why would I ever want to stop, when you keep helping me out like this? I suspect PZ will eventually have to shut comments down to get it to stop (and by so doing lose the argument), because you'll never be able to collectively admit to yourselves that it's your insults that are triggering the "trolling", and that another approach is called for. That is, if you aren't secretly enjoying the fight and wanting it to continue, that is. If so, happy to oblige.
Mr. Machine..
Is there anyone on who presents an opposing view point to your own you feel is more intelligent than yourself; or at the very least feel any modicum respect for?
Yes, there are many such people, moron.
you'll never be able to collectively admit to yourselves that it's your insults that are triggering the "trolling"
I have no trouble admitting that. It makes some trolls go away, and it causes others, like you, to firmly assert that they are assholes. As I said, you haven't a clue what is going on here. (Hint: a lot of it is about social status.)
Re. #547 "I suspect PZ will eventually have to shut comments down to get it to stop (and by so doing lose the argument)"
What argument?
and by so doing lose the argument
OMG, PZ will lose an argument!
What you and your fellow troll assholes can't seem to grasp is that there is no argument for PZ to lose, and even if there were, he doesn't care.
Mr. Machine,
"Yes, there are many such people, moron"
Please name five. Surely you have the courage to elaborate.
"and by so doing lose the argument"
This is an argument?
Steve today at Climate Audit:
In 2003, Thompson took a new ice core at Bona Churchill. We haven't heard anything about it. On previous occasions, e.g. here , I've predicted that 20th century values at this site would be lower than 19th century values - using the mining promotion philosophy that if Thompson had had "good" results, we'd have heard about them.
Basically insinuates (becasue that's what he excels at) that this scientist Thompson is hiding data.
Steve is a nasty piece of work.
Let's consider Dr. Thompson's career (as provided by Wikipedia). Does someone achieve this level of success by being a liar and a data destroyer? Have any of his research assistants come forward to say that Thompson is a lying, data-destroying fraud? No. Just Steve.
2001: Thompson was featured among eighteen scientists and researchers as "America's Best" by CNN and Time Magazine.
2002: Thompson was awarded the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for Environmental Sciences by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
2002: Thompson was awarded the Vega Medal by the Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography.
2005: Thompson was elected to the National Academy of Science.
November, 2005: Thompson was featured in a "Rolling Stone" article, "The Ice Hunter"
2005: Thompson was awarded the prestigious Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, an honor often regarded as the environmental science equivalent to the Nobel Prize.
February, 2007: Mosley-Thompson and Thompson were jointly awarded the Roy Chapman Andrews Society Distinguished Explorer Award at Beloit College, Beloit, WI.
May, 2007: Thompson is named to receive the National Medal of Science. This honor is the highest the United States can bestow upon an American scientist. It will be presented to Thompson by President Bush sometime in July
What argument?
"LIBRULS SUCK", would be my guess.
Dammit. I finally have something to contribute and three other people make the same point.
Stevie_C: It must be a burden to be clairvoyant but I do not think that the war in Iraq is a success, its a disaster. And a right winger I am not, they expect far more from government than I do. As do leftists
Apparently an "elitist": You've corrected me rightly. Spelling error! Well as I am from the Netherlands ( see www.richel.org/resume ) maybe you will excuse me.
And in general, as to why we are all here, I guess it has to do with your LEADER (I mean, that is the way you look at these things don't you, he leads and you follow and he is always right). He started this thread with some remarks that most of us couldnt resist.
And I think it is really a pity, because both he and Steve McIntyre adhere to the scientific method, and I think he (as your LEADER!) is probably the only one who will realise that one of these days. And what that means for the future of this 'science-blog' only God - who I do not believe in - knows.
Some here have whined about us asking for an 'open mind' on your site. I will not, an open mind is often an open sink in which you can throw anything. I go for the ultimate skepticism, for the realisation that once a science (stem cells, climate) is in the news, on the government agenda, there is all the more reason to check it a bit extra. But all that is wasted on people (sheeple? ) like you with your follow the leaders mentality.
Btw. it now appears that the original tpoll - which got us all 'together' - was as leaky as a basket, so there may never be a real winner that everybody agrees on.
Goodbye to you all, it was fun and answered all expectations!
Who knew there were so many latter day Diogenes, wandering the intertoobs in search of civility? More to the point, why do they think anyone cares that they failed again, and won't be coming back? It's almost as entertaining as the Auditors; they must get a lot of rejection, to think that "get the fuck out, you're boring" is an attempt to argue the "merits" of their position...and what the hell is a blue bubbler martini, or whatever BA favors? Yeah, I know, I should do my own homework.
No, that's an observation and an emotional response.
What, no parting shot about we really don't understand science?
Well, thanks at least for admitting you came here with your mind already made up.
They get off on being concern trolls, etc?
It really goes to their base psychology; it's the same thing that drives them to be denialists in the first place. Witness GallileoWasADenier's (25 points on the crackpot scale right there) talk about "lose the argument" -- it's all about their precious egos, which is why they came here in droves to "defend" CA from the evil PZ who called it "conservative junk science". The nature of their response certainly tends to support his characterization.
After the initial shock at the original post, much to my surprise, this thread actually turned out to be great entertainment. This is the professional wrestling match of the "science" blogosphere. The "Truth Machine" kid was the best though. He is the chubby 12 year old that finally gets a chance to bully someone else for a change and is riding it for all its worth. It's almost cute in a pathetic kind of way. Great job all!
Now if we could only set up a match between the wingnuts on FR and the moonbats on DU. Then again, that might be too much hilarity for any one person to take.
Francois O:
What kind of funding did you lose out on? Did that grant application for the perpetual motion machine get denied? Is that why you're so angry about the system?
phat
Please name five. Surely you have the courage to elaborate.
Sorry, but not playing your stupid game doesn't make me a coward.
The "Truth Machine" kid was the best though. He is the chubby 12 year old that finally gets a chance to bully someone else for a change and is riding it for all its worth.
You obviously aren't a regular here. Which is what this is all about.
Francois O wrote: PZ maybe you should stop this thread.
Someone is forcing you to view this thread? Your only hope is if it gets stopped? You're an even bigger idiot than you first appeared to be.
Who knew there were so many latter day Diogenes, wandering the intertoobs in search of civility? More to the point, why do they think anyone cares that they failed again, and won't be coming back? It's almost as entertaining as the Auditors; they must get a lot of rejection, to think that "get the fuck out, you're boring" is an attempt to argue the "merits" of their position.
Entertaining ... yes, there's some delectable schadenfreude to be had.
#559
True.
Janine @ 235 - That "steven mosher" is almost as sad a case as this one.
For those tempted to follow that link - it's offered in the spirit of the-stupid-it-burns, the raison d'etre of this sanity-forsaken thread.
Now I'll be able to tell my grandchildren I'm a veteran of the legendary Pharyngula Stan Palmer Flame War! (unlike, apparently, Stan Palmer himself...)
Re: 554
" Does someone achieve this level of success by being a liar and a data destroyer?"
Well actually, yes, and you just proved it with your extensive list of honors that the enviro-charlatan has won.
Also, refer to the fame accorded to Hansen and Mann.
This thread is full of vulgar juveniles.
Steve_C: If one believes in the many worlds theory (what can exist, does exist), then one should not rule out the existence of God. If there is the possibility of a creator God, then there should also be the possibility that the creator God could have created things to be older than they are. It is also possible that people read the Bible too literally, of course. Either way, you sound like a classic bigot.
Dahan: The questions that I asked were meant for others to ask themselves. Be careful not to miss an opportunity to put other people down though.
Now excuse me for a while, I've gotta go drive my extra large gas guzzling SUV over some polar bears. I'm waiting for these tires in my backyard bonfire to burn down though. They sure do take a while.
"Denialists of all stripes use the same tactics. Doesn't take a science degree of any kind to spot them."
"Either there's a denialist invasion in full swing, or some people are posting under multiple different names."
"More rats. Rats with their moldy flecks of rotting garbage. You guys don't get it, do you?"
"You wouldn't know science if it bit you."
"Denying the inevitable outcome is dishonest, regressive and self-destructive. It must be hard to live in denial with oneself and it certainly isn't healthy."
"You're a liar."
"And an asshole. Go take your "good manners" back under the rock you crawled put from."
"Sorry, but the sanctimonious assholes who have charged over here to make accusations, and the fact that he's got the support of the junk science king, Milloy, gives me no cause to doubt my impressions of McIntyre, and I'm not at all interested in visiting his site."
So much of this sounds like "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
I wish there was a Pharyngula B that just contained science postings so I wouldn't get sucked into pissing away hours of my life reading, and occasionally contributing, to this kind of junk. All I really want is to check out PZ's normally-excellent summaries of recent bio papers - which sadly are becoming rare.
This is my favorite Steve M. post so far:
Dendroclimatologists Answer Back
By Steve McIntyre
This thread is dedicated to dendroclimatologists who are seeking for a way to answer alleged "misinformation" at climateaudit without having to defend themselves against dozens of follow-up posts. Any posts on this thread from non-dendroclimatologists seeking to argue or contest these comments will be deleted, although posters, including myself, will be free to discuss these pearls on other threads. Given the allegations against us, I'm sure that this will be the most active thread in our history.
Or maybe you just want to give information on site selection or resolving mixed temperature and precipitation signals in the tree ring data. Over to you, dendroclimatologists.
One brave soul responded to the challenge:
My response to this post is that I think you will get few, if any, responses from dendroclimatologists - for what I'll call 'sociological' reasons rather than scientific reasons. Underscoring my hypothesis are the responses to Peter Brown's post. If any of you knew Peter, you'd know that he is an honest, sincere and hard-working scientist, like Rob Wilson. Yet, the majority of responses to Peter and Rob are so accusatory [or worse] that it is completely a waste of their time to bother corresponding on this site. Only a small portion of what is happening here is of academic or scientific value.
I've read this blog for ~6 months now and have been offended by the discourse and personal attacks against many of the scientists discussed. What is most offensive is that few, if any, of the readers here know: 1) how hard-working most of the scientists slammed are, 2) the difficulties of academia [for example, NSF funding rates in paleoclimatology have dropped from somewhere near 20% in the 1980s to nearly 5% in recent years, despite an increase in the number of scientists in the field. On top of this, there are more stringent requirements about reporting preliminary results related, etc. these days; and this does not include the need for and competitive nature required to publish a new finding or idea. Free time is evaporating in the life of academics; most of the people you talk about work 6+ days/week and sleep much less than they should.], and 3) many of the scientists who are accused of being on 'the team' do not get along as well as is assumed here: many have extremely competitive personalities. To think that this science and its results is a collusion is a delusion. The discussion of people on this blog is uncivil and uninformed.
Why would anyone come here to defend their methods when the same battles are occurring within the science? There are many other time-consuming tasks to deal with on a day-to-day basis within the science that super cede posting here. Several, of the top scientists in dendro do not even subscribe [or rarely post] to the dendro listserv because they do not have the time.
The science is self-corrective as all science is. There has been some significant improvement in methods over the last 20 yrs. Is it complete? Nope. But which science is?
And, finally Steve M, though you are more civil than most here, you cherry-pick pretty well in making your arguments. One case in point - the quotes you copied from the discussion on the dendro listserv. A second case in point is the broad 'Project for the Dendro Truth Squad' stone you hurled up on this page. Those in the know, who really know the science, know not to use that chronology and know who still use that chronology. The work that uses that chronology for a temperature reconstruction is less-respected than others. Please, do not cast the whole field as deceitful or ignorant of this. You state that it is not your intention to slander the whole science, but why post the picture of that tree and make [b]road statements, make a separate post about it and string a long list of papers that use that chronology if you are not trying to undermine the science? Why not post the longer string of papers that DO NOT use that one site? The final point, you and others are beating some extremely dead horses. The people and papers you 'audit' is very selective. You ignore more recent work that surpasses others.
I know this post is futile, but I had to write it. Tear away.
Awesome.
This thread is full of vulgar juveniles.
Yes! Yes! We are vulgar juveniles! This is an awful place and you really don't want to be here!
Now excuse me for a while, I've gotta go drive my extra large gas guzzling SUV over some polar bears.
We're all so sad to see you go -- just ask JR.
Mr. Machine.
"Sorry, but not playing your stupid game doesn't make me a coward."
...just thought I'd give you the opportunity to demonstrate that, indeed, you possess at least a measure of humility. Although your response curiously begs the question of what actually would make you a coward?
Peter,
"Dammit. I finally have something to contribute and three other people make the same point."
Of course. It's a very predictable point.
What argument? Why, that filling a post and a subsequent comment thread with ever more vitriolic insult is a good way to persuade people that you really are a scientific blog committed to fighting fallacy and pseudoscience, and that you're opinion on AGW is correct.
If you don't want to discuss climate science, do not even mention climate science blogs or AGW sceptics or any associated topic. Especially do not devote entire posts to insulting particular climate science blogs and their readers. If you don't want an argument with someone, don't insult them. If you don't want an argument, don't keep on arguing with everything they say. It clearly doesn't work. Pass over the topic in silence. Refuse to debate or answer any further. Resist the temptation to get the last word.
I'm confident you won't be able to.
#576 "Although your response curiously begs the question of what actually would make you a coward?"
On an entirely unrelated matter, the increasingly common misuse of the exprssion "begs the question" drives me batty. Thanks for listening.
"Lee. There was no interest in debate. We were acting like assholes because we wanted them to go away.
But feel free to take your concern elsewhere."
You were acting like assholes because you are. Believe me, that's no act! As for "interest in debate", it is to laugh! None of you are capable of debate. You maligned a whole group of people, and then became disconcerted when they came here to set you straight. Many tried to help you understand, but did anyone listen? Umm....no?
I'll be back!
I wish there was a Pharyngula B that just contained science postings so I wouldn't get sucked into pissing away hours of my life reading, and occasionally contributing, to this kind of junk. All I really want is to check out PZ's normally-excellent summaries of recent bio papers - which sadly are becoming rare.
Sigh. Why are so many people so helpless? Go to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/archives.php and check out "By Category". Hint: don't click "Kooks".
You were acting like assholes because you are.
That's right! We are! We're assholes! You've won the argument! Congratulations!
So, why are you still here?
Crap.
We are announcing a tie between Bad Astronomy Blog and Climate Audit, so there will be two winners in this category. Both blogs agree with this decision. We thank them both for helping resolve the issues that affected this poll as voting closed Thursday.
Next year, I go back to cheating and I'm casting all my votes for Pharyngula.
..just thought I'd give you the opportunity to demonstrate that, indeed, you possess at least a measure of humility.
I don't need you to give me opportunities, asshole.
Although your response curiously begs the question of what actually would make you a coward?
Uh, no, it doesn't, either by the correct use of that expression or by your misuse of it.
I love when creationists call me a bigot. Warms my heart.
Creationists are such clueless godbots.
I'm a vulgar juvenile! Spank me. Pretty please... with a crucifix... while wearing a naughty nun's costume in latex... please.
Hey, Saul, you forgot "Can you really and truly be that stupid?"
What argument? Why, that filling a post and a subsequent comment thread with ever more vitriolic insult is a good way to persuade people that you really are a scientific blog committed to fighting fallacy and pseudoscience, and that you're opinion on AGW is correct.
That's not a claim that anyone has made, moron.
I'm confident you won't be able to.
No one gives a fuck what some cretin is confident about.
Touché Peter.
"On an entirely unrelated matter, the increasingly common misuse of the exprssion "begs the question" drives me batty. Thanks for listening."
Indeed, I felt quite low in the misuse of an actual logical fallacy (oh the irony) as soon as clicked the "Post" button. But hey, look around...When in Rome...
Personal apologies to you Sir.
They're godless?
They're godless?
The godless?
The godless?
The godless? The mind boggles, you're right, it's a godless conspiracy.
Well, in the current Bush-infused anti-science state of affairs, it's become incumbent upon scientists to be activists, rather than have their work white-washed over by the corporatists, Bush et al.
Would you just rather let the politicians redact everything they found, let's say, unpleasant?
> dendro thread
Thanks for the excerpt and pointer, CalGeorge.
Is saying "fuck off" over and over, feeding the trolls?
I didn't think it was. And didn't PZ even ask them to bugger off?
Yet they keep coming. I don't get it.
Do they think we just tell everyone to fuck off who's not a regular?
This is a special circumstance. It's just for you thick denialists specifically.
Usually we have fun for a while with our trolls. And we have a 3 post rule.
But with these guys... there was never a reason to hold back.
CalGeorge:
Like I said earlier, I liked the discussion you had with Francois O.
I think your dendroclimatologists on CA has many good points. I too think he is a brave soul to take on the whole lot at CA. That is a one-against-may situation. However, I would say that the same can easily be found in this thread or over on RealClimate.
As for the dendroclimatology---there is one passage that stands out
"Those in the know, who really know the science, know not to use that chronology and know who still use that chronology. The work that uses that chronology for a temperature reconstruction is less-respected than others. Please, do not cast the whole field as deceitful or ignorant of this. "
Isn't this the core of the problem in dendroclimatology: what chronologies can we trust?
Then why did the two peer-reviews of my thesis advisor's & my soon-to-be-resubmitted article praise it for its innovative approach?
I have seen glaring failures of peer-review published, several times. But it's like how democracy is the best of all bad forms of government: there is no better way in sight for preventing mistakes from getting published. Papers that are not peer-reviewed tend to have major flaws over and over; I can think of a recent example of an invited paper that certainly wouldn't have passed peer-review in the form in which it was published.
(And there were mistakes in the math and an unclear figure caption in our paper, and the reviewers did point that out.)
Truth Machine: "You obviously aren't a regular here. Which is what this is all about."
Come on, don't get all rational on me here. Where is my little red-faced bully yelling "Fuck you Go away!"?
I got as far as #128 before I saw where the data from this thread was leading. I'd just like to share an observation:
Notice how many variants on "you're a sore loser" the whinger horde has indulged in? In particular, the guy up near the top who took the time to assemble a list of words ("beaten, baffled, bested, circumvented, conquered, cowed, crushed...") that read like the Merenptah Stela?
That shows something very clearly: for our unwelcome visitors, the issue isn't anything remotely resembling science, good or bad, or about any of the technical aspects of climatology. For them, it's all about winning, and the psychological need to beat up on those they see as their enemies. Their "leaders" having told them that they've "won", they pile over here in a mob to take out their anger on what they think is a defenseless target.
This is something which anyone familiar with recent work on authoritarian personalities will recognize as classic authoritarian-follower behavior., i.e., authoritarian aggression (against PZ and the regular commenters) andauthoritarian submission (demonstrated towards the CA blogger). The high conventionality isn't so obvious, but it's most likely in there somewhere.
It's impossible to reason with people suffering from this personality defect. "Piss the fucking Hell off" is therefore a highly appropriate response.
In the meantime, I think I'll spend a little time having yet another "can we please do the decent thing and go extinct now before our species humiliates itself any further" moment, something which having my face rubbed in the vileness of RWA behavior invariably triggers.
a good way to persuade people that you really are a scientific blog committed to fighting fallacy and pseudoscience
What these moron trolls with their stupid contests aren't able to grasp is that PZ Myers never set out to persuade anyone about what his blog is or isn't, he simply posts what he posts and, as a result, has a very successful science/atheist/liberal/cephalopod/etc. blog with a large following. Some people appreciate what he writes and some don't; c'est la vie. What's really kind of funny is all these trolls who are addressing PZ here, who most likely is no longer reading this thread, having moved on to other things as he does constantly.
For them, it's all about winning, and the psychological need to beat up on those they see as their enemies.
Yes, I noted the same thing at #561
It's impossible to reason with people suffering from this personality defect. "Piss the fucking Hell off" is therefore a highly appropriate response.
Right on.
Come on, don't get all rational on me here. Where is my little red-faced bully yelling "Fuck you Go away!"?
See #595 for why that too is rational.
Mr. Machine,
Do you honestly believe you will ever vanquish the Hydra of Dissent on the Internet, or more specifically in your little corner of it?
Feeling a tad quixotic yet?
I believe tm already said this, but it bears repeating; morons often benefit from hearing simple concepts explained multiple times.
An ad hominem is a fallacious argument taking the form of "X is an asshole, therefore what X says is wrong."
Calling X an asshole when X (and Y and Z and several Cyrillic characters as well, since we long ago ran out of asshole tokens) is behaving like an asshole is just calling X an asshole. Like it or not, agree or disagree.
But don't use Latin to feebly try to obscure the fact that logic is not, well, your strong suit, let's say.
Is saying "fuck off" over and over, feeding the trolls?
It feeds a few like GallileoWasADenier (bonus crackpot points for incorporating a crackpot list item in his handle) who think they're oh so clever to claim that it feeds them. Most of the trolls are drive-bys who haven't read the other comments and are unaware of their fellow dittoheads. And there are a few of the crackpots like F.O. who somehow think this is a place to have a serious discussion about climate change, who get all offended when not everyone takes them seriously.
But the bottom line is that, as Ktesibios notes, telling them to fuck off is the appropriate response -- regardless of whether they do or not.
Feeling a tad quixotic yet?
Feeling a tad like a concern troll, asshole?
GallileoWasADenier
You fuckwits just don't get it. The majority of us aren't interested in discussing your "science" with you. This thread isn't about science, it's about an arrogant dickwad who waltzed in here and spouted off.
As it has been repeatedly stated, if we gave a shit about your opinions, we would come to CA. Now FUCK OFF.
And unless it's not been addressed. Gallileo wasn't a denier, he, as are the climate scientists, was trying to break the back of the established, dominant view. IOWs, Mann et al = Gallileo.
Indeed, I felt quite low in the misuse of an actual logical fallacy (oh the irony) as soon as clicked the "Post" button. But hey, look around...When in Rome...
Ah, but apparently you live in Rome, and are just visiting here.
Ooh. You used the word "liberal". How scary.
Ah, no. If correct, that would be the tu quoque fallacy. But it isn't. Pointing out oil ties (no idea if McIntyre has any) serves as an a posteriori explanation of why they seem to have overlooked so many important papers and why there are such large holes in their logic. It also increases the general level of skepticism... I thought that was a good thing?
Now, please go over to realclimate.org and disprove one of their articles.
----------
They are left-wing by US standards because the center in the USA is so far to the right. Remember: the conservative candidate in the presidential election of 2004, by all standards I know except the US one, was Kerry.
Hey great the ruck continued. Truffer is right, this is a phuck fight on this franger...fraght.. or whatever this phucken blog site is called. Did I mention you lost..hahaha. Cal George, truffer, dustin, stevie c great stuff go on phuck off, phuck off, phuck off. Science discussed on this site- hahaha- and did I say you lost- hahaha, phuck off, phuck off, phuck off
JohnS
No comments by Stan other then these:
Notice the economy of words and the effect it's had. I'm in awe. That plus he's probably some twelve year old kid who was just trying to figure out global warming for himself.
Science discussed on this site
Indeed, science has been discussed in a half dozen threads posted since this troll-bait was put up.
Not that I have the time to wade through the sterile muck of them all (I followed this thread, scrolling more and more rapidly, until about #150 and then jumped to here), but no one who cites a certain truthy sciency site that PZ referred to will ever command even a rebuttal for what they think in the future. Such things do make life easier.
Oh, and if the troll "truth machine" turns up on other threads and is not sent to Dungeon immediately, I won't bother following whatever threads he derails. What a maroon tool that chump is!
"Feeling a tad like a concern troll, asshole?"
LOL...not in the least.
Here's a prediction with an incredible grasp of the obvious: It's just gonna keep comin' and there ain't anything you can do about it. Unless, of course, you create a password protected message board to tickle each other on all day. I am not sure what makes you believe your attitude is productive in a forum that is ultimately public. You are simply past the point no return. It will give me guilty pleasure the day some script kiddy decides to mess with this blog you just for the sheer fun maniacal of it.
Best wishes and warmest regards! Peace out.
I come to this site because it is rational and calming. I started this thread and I hearby end the torture.
Oops...bad form...especially for a farewell post...hence I offer the following correction
It will give me guilty pleasure the day some script kiddie decides to mess with this blog just for the sheer maniacal fun of it.
Have fun with your unproductive GOAT Flames.
Very Truly Yours,
Bob
JohnS: Please stop huffing butane before you post.
"You fuckwits just don't get it. The majority of us aren't interested in discussing your "science" with you."
Except that you have been discussing it, by saying it's rubbish.
"This thread isn't about science, it's about an arrogant dickwad who waltzed in here and spouted off."
In response to another one who spouted off about a blog that he later admitted not to understand.
"As it has been repeatedly stated, if we gave a shit about your opinions, we would come to CA. Now FUCK OFF."
Ah! How sweet! Still doesn't work. Try a different approach.
"And unless it's not been addressed. Gallileo wasn't a denier, he, as are the climate scientists, was trying to break the back of the established, dominant view. IOWs, Mann et al = Gallileo.""
The established, dominant view changes all the time. At one time Mann was indeed challenging the scientific consensus at the time - for which I commend him. Now that he has succeeded, somebody else is. The entire point of science's history of never-ending revolutions is that consensus is never an infallible guide to truth. I will grant you, that according to Von Storch's survey of professional climate scientists, it was something like 55% in favour of AGW to 30% against a few years ago, and that does indeed mean there is a majority and a consensus in favour at present, but it is far too soon to declare the matter settled. Science doesn't work like that.
"Feeling a tad like a concern troll, asshole?"
LOL...not in the least.
Odd that you don't feel like what you are, and then follow up with two paragraphs of concern trolling. Snore.
Hey Rey Fox, I know you're a tad upset that I didn't include you as one of troll lancers, but you know what you can do so phuck off, phuck off phuck off. Hey truffer no science on ongoing threads, just less of a presence of phuckwits like you, but phuck off, phuck off phuck off. Did I say you lost- hahaha, phuck off, phuck off, phuck off
JohnS
Still doesn't work.
"Fuck off" is an indication of contempt; it works to convey it, and it works as social cohesion.
no science on ongoing threads
Factually incorrect.
Isn't this the core of the problem in dendroclimatology: what chronologies can we trust?
Gaaaa! He said the later ones were more trustworthy!
You can't claim that it's all untrustworthy just because there are problems with one chornology.
You either respect the scientific process or you don't.
If you think it's a politicized, bogus enterprise, you are going to get called a nut.
If you think that some climate scientists have a hidden political agenda, you need to explain why you think that is so, provide evidence for it, and provide solid evidence of how they have distorted their findings to achieve their political ends.
I just read a paper by Lonnie Thompson. The conclusion was full of words like "may" and "suggest" and "likely":
Implications
The recent, rapid, and accelerating retreat of glaciers on a near-global scale suggests that the current increase in the Earth's globally averaged temperature (Fig. 6D; refs. 49 and 50) may now have prematurely interrupted the natural progression of cooling in the late Holocene. These observations suggest that within a century human activities may have nudged global-scale climate conditions closer to those that prevailed before 5,000 yr ago, during the early Holocene. If this is the case, then Earth's currently retreating glaciers may signal that the climate system has exceeded a critical threshold and that most low-latitude, high-altitude glaciers are likely to disappear in the near future.
These aren't climate dogmatists. They are scientists, trying to figure stuff out.
The entire point of science's history of never-ending revolutions is that consensus is never an infallible guide to truth.
Silly strawmen like these is a source of much of the contempt.
it is far too soon to declare the matter settled. Science doesn't work like that.
You have no idea of how science works. As Myers said above, "There are people who put together a coherent picture of a scientific issue, who review lots of evidence and assemble a rational synthesis. They're called scientists."
Aw Shucks Mr Machine,
I can only leave you with the sentiment I clipped from the wit of another poster of my alleged ilk:
I am so sorry that you doomed to carry the burden of Clairvoyance.
Indeed, I'll pray for your soul brother.
In comment 285, I don't see how the two quotes contradict each other. So Mann et al. were the first to establish the connection... that doesn't mean they have been the only ones ever since, and in fact they weren't, as the first quote says.
Huh?
Sulfuric acid clouds reflect light, which has the effect of not letting heat in. Very little energy from the sun reaches Venus; Venus stays hot because, due to the carbon dioxide that absorbs the IR radiation from the ground, just as little energy leaves Venus as reaches it.
Wow. Has apparently never heard of realclimate.org. :-o
ROTFL!!! :-D :-D :-D
And extra points for misspelling the good man. In Italian, double-spelled consonants are pronounced as at least twice as long as simple ones; Galileo (who, incidentally, had a surname, too: Galilei) wouldn't recognize himself.
¿Quien es mas macho?
¿truth machine o Maquina Verdad?
Get your mexican wrestling mask ready!
"This thread isn't about science, it's about an arrogant dickwad who waltzed in here and spouted off."
In response to another one who spouted off about a blog that he later admitted not to understand.
Even if, for the sake of argument, that were true, how does it justify some moron coming here and saying he can't find any science? He simply proclaimed himself to be stupid to those who spend time here and have seen great amounts of science, science you can readily click on from this page. Regardless of whether PZ was wrongly dismissive of CA, those who have come here from CA have, over and over again, provided justification for the dismissal, whether it's Palmer who can't see any science or David who blathers about the Sierra Club being a left wing organization or you with your "Gallileo was right when he disagreed with the church so I must be right when I disagree with the scientific community" crackpot idiocy. It is you who are trying to win an argument about CA not being "junk science", but you have failed to convince anyone reading here.
And extra points for misspelling the good man.
I figured it would be petty to mention it. :-)
I'll pray for your soul brother.
You really are an idiot.
"You really are an idiot."
:-)
If you're over here from CA, or any of the other environment hating, right wing, non-scientific and creationist moron sites where they speak of nothing of substance, I would suggest not wasting your worthless time posting here any more. It's quite clear nothing you'll say is going to be discussed at any sort of adult level in a rational manner, so just go back to your fucktard ass hat fearless leader.
JohnS - By all means keep up the trolling, Dr Myers will eventually either disenvowel your posts and or ban you.
Have a nice day.
Wow, now even I am not goodly with da Engrish glammer...but I'm sure you get the message.
Science! At last!
Let me just mention that, according to what I've read, there is no "natural progression of cooling in the late Holocene". The beginning of the next ice age is scheduled for 50,000 years from now, and the next glacial maximum for 100,000 years from now. (...We may be preventing the whole ice age, but that's another story.)
A. Berger & M. F. Loutre: An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?, Science 297, 1287 -- 1288 (23 August 2002)
(Talks about Milanković cycles. Right now, "the amplitude of insolation variation is too small to drive the climate system", so greenhouse gas concentrations become much more important than they would be, say, during the beginning or end of an ice age.)
You of all people! :-D Just goes to show I have a few Asperger "symptoms", too. :-)
"Silly strawmen like these is a source of much of the contempt."
The natural philosophic consensus in Gallileo's time was that the Sun revolved about the Earth. Gallileo denied it. That does not, of course, mean that all who denied a consensus of their peers is a Gallileo, but it does demonstrate the lesson that had to be drummed in over and over, that a consensus of experts is not infallible. If you're prepared to accept that the current AGW consensus might be wrong, and that they might be overstating their confidence grossly, then we would be in full agreement. Since we're not, I can only conclude it isn't a strawman.
"You have no idea of how science works."
A brave assertion without evidence.
"As Myers said above, "There are people who put together a coherent picture of a scientific issue, who review lots of evidence and assemble a rational synthesis. They're called scientists.""
Agreed, that's part of what they do, although it does reminds me of the decadent collapse in Asimov's Foundation series.
We're not saying they haven't put together a rational synthesis, we're saying we think they've done it wrong. And that's normal and perfectly OK as part of the scientific process, up until the point where they refuse to either acknowledge or correct their errors, and try to label those who disagree with them as kooks and deniers. Scientists assemble their synthesis, and then other scientists try to knock it down, and if all attempts to do so fail, the hypothesis gains in credibility. After surviving the onslaught for fifty or a hundred years without substantial change, it approaches being an established theory. Natural selection in action. Even if you don't accept the validity of a particular attempts to knock it down, you can't argue against honest attempts without denying the scientific method.
That's for damn sure.
In this case, Galileo had the data. He performed experiments. He used old tools (ramps, balls, pendulums) in a new way. He used new tools (telescopes) to bolster his findings. He did the math. He published his work.
He didn't deny on a friggen whim.
Bullshit. Galieleo was the expert, because he did the damn work.
Those he was refuting were not experts. They were ideological morons who did no work, performed no experiments, used no tools, published no data, and had no evidence.
Just like the ideological morons who "deny" the scientific consensus on global climate change.
The natural philosophic consensus in Gallileo's time was that the Sun revolved about the Earth. Gallileo denied it.
If you're prepared to accept that the current AGW consensus might be wrong, and that they might be overstating their confidence grossly, then we would be in full agreement. Since we're not
Who says I'm not prepared to accept that? I actually understand scientific epistemology. But we are in disagreement about much else.
I can only conclude it isn't a strawman.
It's a contemptible strawman regardless of what I accept or don't accept, moron.
A brave assertion without evidence.
You also don't understand what evidence is.
you can't argue against honest attempts
No, I argue with dishonesty, which we've seen plenty of here.
Oops, I edited out part of my response:
The natural philosophic consensus in Gallileo's time was that the Sun revolved about the Earth. Gallileo denied it.
You don't know the history of science; there's a reason that it's called the Copernican Revolution, not the Galilean Revolution.
If it ever was large enough to be a theory.
Indeed not. We're just saying those who have tried so far have exhibited a lack of knowledge of important data -- and acted as if everyone were just as ignorant as them.
To be a little more specific:
The natural philosophic consensus in Gallileo's time was that the Sun revolved about the Earth. Gallileo denied it.
No, Galileo's astronomical discoveries and arguments were well received by natural philosophers. Rather it was his challenge to the biblical passages stating that the world cannot be moved that got him in trouble. It isn't natural philosophers who put him on trial.
The references to Robert Altemeyer's research on right-wing authoritarians was spot on by the way. These denialists are perfect examples.
phat
truth machine,
what is not to LOVE about you?
After surviving the onslaught for fifty or a hundred years without substantial change, it approaches being an established theory.
If it ever was large enough to be a theory.
Aside from the fact that this is a completely incorrect characterization of scientific theory formation. The theory of evolution, for instance, has undergone substantial change throughout its history, and numerous scientific theories have become well established in far less than 50 years. It isn't time or failure to change that matters, it's supporting evidence and predictive capability.
what is not to LOVE about you?
I can think of a few things.
You should really get off the whole Galileo thing by now. Obviously, the screen name was meant to be an ironic metaphor, albeit a poor one, clearly a point that's been made well enough. Move on.
At one time I thought that PZ, Tara and Orac could have a contest to see who could draw the greatest quantity of idiot trolls to a single post- PZ would post something about religion, Tara about HIV and Orac about anti-vaccination nutbars, and after a set period of time the comments would be counted up and the winner declared.
I gave up on that idea a couple of weeks ago when one of Tara's posts on HIV denialists drew over a thousand comments. I really couldn't envisage anyone ever topping that.
Now, however, I'm not so sure. Perhaps the contest wouldn't be completely one-sided after all.
You should really get off the whole Galileo thing by now. Obviously, the screen name was meant to be an ironic metaphor, albeit a poor one, clearly a point that's been made well enough. Move on.
Fuck off.
I gave up on that idea a couple of weeks ago when one of Tara's posts on HIV denialists drew over a thousand comments.
How long did it take? I'll be too busy this weekend to continue my steady stream of troll bashing; it's been fun, but after a while shooting ducks in a barrel loses its appeal.
"Even if, for the sake of argument, that were true, how does it justify some moron coming here and saying he can't find any science?"
I think he probably looked at what was up on the front page, and noted that virtually all of it was political commentary or trivia. At the moment, I see a comment on a paper about synesthesia which probably wasn't actually synesthesia, and a picture of an octopus with teeth. Yes, if you look through the archives you can find much better, and the comment was over hasty and probably a bit bad tempered, but compared to CA, where roughly every other post is doing some sort of analysis or discussion of technical papers, there isn't really a lot of science going on here. It was a bit of a tu quoque back against the claims made against CA, and not something I really approve of, but I understand why it was made.
"He simply proclaimed himself to be stupid to those who spend time here and have seen great amounts of science, science you can readily click on from this page."
Good! Well done! So why not just point him to the science, and get on with it? Why make such an extended point of calling him stupid?
"Regardless of whether PZ was wrongly dismissive of CA,..."
Thanks. That's the nearest I've seen to any graciousness on this. For that, I'll drop a few comments I was planning to hang around and make.
"... those who have come here from CA have, over and over again, provided justification for the dismissal, whether it's Palmer who can't see any science or David who blathers about the Sierra Club being a left wing organization..."
Some people, who are probably not actually from CA so much as fans of it, haven't made the best of points. To be fair to them, this was often in response to provocation, but I won't excuse it. But by the same token, an extended series of comments telling people to "fuck off" in capital letters doesn't speak too well for Pharyngula, does it?
In my experience, you either maintain the moral high ground and discuss the science with them, or you ignore them. Insult never work.
"... or you with your "Gallileo was right when he disagreed with the church so I must be right when I disagree with the scientific community" crackpot idiocy."
I neither said nor implied that. I said that no consensus of learned experts is infallible. That doesn't mean that anyone who argues against such a consensus is a new Gallileo, most are not, but it does mean that arguing against the consensus is not necessarily crackpottery, and it does mean that arguing from peer reviewed authority is still a fallacy.
I do not claim to be Gallileo, but I do claim that Gallileo's lesson is still of value. Gallileo was a denier, and was right to be so whether he was ultimately right about the sun/Earth thing or not. What matters is not consensus, but evidence.
"It is you who are trying to win an argument about CA not being "junk science", but you have failed to convince anyone reading here."
Some people tried that early on, but it soon became clear that no amount of reasonable arguments would be able to budge people. Failure to convince is not evidence of being junk science. (You would have to show a failure to follow scientific method.)
But my intention wasn't to convince you about CA, but to suggest that your tactics were counterproductive. The more you insulted CA and its readers, the more complaints you got. It was obvious to me that the insults were driving the "trolls" as you called them. Classic runaway positive feedback. In a way, I hoped to help you out by breaking the loop, but I also wanted to make the point that you had brought it on yourselves with your attitude. Nobody is asking you to necessarily agree with CA, it would be a sad world indeed if everyone had to agree to everything, but we'd be ever so grateful if you could manage to disagree with us without using all the insults. At least, not until you had tried to interact with us on a civilised level for long enough for us to have deserved them.
How long did it take? I'll be too busy this weekend to continue my steady stream of troll bashing; it's been fun, but after a while shooting ducks in a barrel loses its appeal.
I'm done, too. These people have nothing interesting to say.
Insult never work.
They work to show contempt, moron.
in capital letters doesn't speak too well for Pharyngula, does it?
We don't care, you stupid fucking moron. PZ speaks for himself in what he writes; if you don't like it, you welcome to go away, fuck off, and die.
"I can think of a few things."
i can't. i've been reading you all day lover boy, and i'm pretty sure it's you. you might not remember me, but i have always had a thing for you. got to go.
sweet dreams! XOXO
You've completely missed the point of Galileo haven't you?
He didn't deny anything insofar as he observed things that forced him to deny the consensus. That consensus was not a scientific consensus. It was an ideological and theological consensus. There is nothing remotely comparable between the AGW denialists and Galileo and it's pure ego that makes anybody who thinks otherwise.
phat
I'm done, too. These people have nothing interesting to say.
Indeed. GallileoWasADenier's moronic concern trolling above is just a repetition of the same themes that have been over and over: we're rude, we're not productive, reasonable arguments don't budge us, blah blah blah ... none of which can be concluded from a response to an invasion by a horde of troll assholes. The control troll morons are so arrogant, they actually think they are telling us something novel or subtle, something we don't already know, just because we aren't engaging them is some deep intellectual conversation. This thread is troll bait, a vehicle for troll bashing, not a place to have a serious discussion about climatology, the philosophy of science, or the ins and outs of social etiquette. The only really insightful thing said by any of the CA folks was #251.
you might not remember me
I wouldn't know, since I don't know who you are.
Hey truffy you got it wrong again. Shooting blanks, at ducks or in life has been your your single claim to fame here. And you're starting to screech some pretend science-what sort of phuckwit are you, little bovver boy. And Jay Hovah, I don't give a phuck about PZ banning me-only proves who can and cannot take the heat, phuckwit. Joke Science at the other threads- factually correct truffer phuckwit. Phuckoff, phuck off, phuck off
JohnS
At least, not until you had tried to interact with us on a civilised level for long enough for us to have deserved them.
But we don't care about you; you're trolls, invaders from another space.
JohnS, even your friends think you need to take your meds.
"In this case, Galileo had the data. He performed experiments. He used old tools (ramps, balls, pendulums) in a new way. He used new tools (telescopes) to bolster his findings. He did the math. He published his work."
Yep. And CA has the data (where it's been published), performs experiments (from experiments in data processing, to Stevenson screen paint IR absorption, to collecting tree cores), uses old tools (standard statistical techniques) in new ways (applying it to climate data properly). They certainly do the maths. They publish the results on the web, where peers and all comers can review it to their hearts content. And do.
"He didn't deny on a friggen whim."
Quite right too. Wouldn't think of it. And in fact, the word denier is inaccurate. Many of us don't deny AGW - if there are indeed a bunch of unknown positive feedbacks in the climate system that triple the CO2 sensitivity, it might even be true - but we do consider it unsupported by the evidence. The proper term is "sceptic".
"Bullshit. Galieleo was the expert, because he did the damn work."
Yes, but many people at the time thought Aristotle was the expert. Or the Church.
"Those he was refuting were not experts. They were ideological morons who did no work, performed no experiments, used no tools, published no data, and had no evidence."
No they did lots of work, reams of textual analysis and interpretation, a coherent synthesis of the classics. But it was all wrong, because they relied on authority and consensus over going out and looking at the evidence. They were considered to be the experts at the time.
It wasn't the climatologists who went out to look at the monitoring stations to check they were OK, it was the sceptics over at surfacestations. McIntyre and Watt publish all their data and working. The professional climatologists often do not.
Your analysis is most apt, just not the way you think it is.
"Just like the ideological morons who "deny" the scientific consensus on global climate change."
Will you please stop talking about consensus - 55% is nothing to get that excited about anyway - and talk about the scientific evidence instead. Do you even know what the evidence actually is? And yes, I'm well aware of the absorption properties of CO2, and just as well aware that they're not the issue.
"He didn't deny anything insofar as he observed things that forced him to deny the consensus. That consensus was not a scientific consensus. It was an ideological and theological consensus."
The popular opinion was that the Earth could not be moving at a thousand miles an hour because people would feel it if it were. Under Aristotle's idea of physics, they'd be thrown off. That's a scientific opinion, just a wrong one.
The current AGW "consensus" is also, to some degree, an ideological one. Yes, there's a certain amount of science in it too, but not very good science.
But my intention wasn't to convince you about CA, but to suggest that your tactics were counterproductive.
Counterproductive at what? Why do you repeat the same nonsense when we've already been over it? See above about getting this thread over 1000 posts; it would be an achievement. Of course, it would also be an achievement if all you trolls really did fuck off and go away, but it doesn't matter one way or the other, really.
The more you insulted CA and its readers, the more complaints you got.
So what? Why should anyone care about getting complaints? What do you suppose your complaints achieve? You're idiot troll assholes, you complain, it's in your nature. Big deal.
The current AGW "consensus" is also, to some degree, an ideological one. Yes, there's a certain amount of science in it too, but not very good science.
Crackpot.
Can you find me a specific instance that shows that the AGW consensus is inspired by ideology? Can you find me some evidence of this?
You may be able to find some evidence that it's junk science, although I don't expect you to find that either. But do us a favor and find the evidence of ideological bias.
phat
"We don't care, you stupid fucking moron. PZ speaks for himself in what he writes; if you don't like it, you welcome to go away, fuck off, and die."
If you really don't care, why do you keep replying? Why do you keep using language that befouls Pharyngula's reputation as a place of science? Why do you do exactly the things that I've told you will ensure I hang around even longer, if you really want to be rid of me?
Like I said, if you don't want an argument, don't argue.
Wow, 650 comments, mostly from dumbass cranks and trolls. I'm feeling a bit ornery at the moment (helping my geologist friend on his research on spectroscopic dating of fluorite crystals is driving me up the walls), so I figure why not take my frustration out on some deserving targets?
Francois O (if you're still reading -- if not, well, tough, I'll talk much deserved shit about you anyway):
Oh joy, not only are you selectively blind to both PZ's science posts, which are awesome, but you also fail to notice the fairly fucking obvious statement that PZ didn't care about wining you moronic wannabe troll.
GallileoWasADenier, fuck up. This thread is pure troll bait, perhaps so we can gleefully fill our kill-files or more likely just to make fun of the morons it attracts. And your knowledge of the history of science? It's shit.
If you really don't care, why do you keep replying?
To show contempt, as I have said more than once.
Why do you keep using language that befouls Pharyngula's reputation as a place of science?
Why are you too fucking stupid to grasp what I just wrote about the irrelevance of "reputation"?
Why do you do exactly the things that I've told you will ensure I hang around even longer, if you really want to be rid of me?
Why are you too fucking stupid to understand "it would be an achievement" to reach 1000 posts?
Like I said, if you don't want an argument, don't argue.
"You're a stupid fucking asshole troll" isn't an argument, cretin.
Truffy comes because he lost. Big bro FZ got dudded by his mates who couldn't rig the woggle contest, so FZ cracks the shits. Truffy tells people to go away from big bro site as wankers want to cry alone. Did I say you lost.. francid... fryburg or whatever the name of the site is. Hahaha At least phat spells his own name correctly. O yeah, phuck off
JohnS
GallileoWasADenier says, in essence, that he keeps coming back here to demonstrate to me that, as long as I keep insulting him, he'll keep coming back here. Could anything be more stupid than that? He can't get it through his head that I don't really care; if he keeps trolling, I'll keep insulting him (except that even my available time isn't infinite and I'm about to run out), if he doesn't, I won't. And the reputation of Pharyngula as a place of science is irrelevant to me; it's not my blog, one would have to be an idiot to judge it by my posts, especially in this thread, and its reputation as a place of science is a function of the science that PZ posts here -- biological science, not climatology, which isn't his field -- which is plentiful. It's somewhat bizarre that someone so concerned about the science of climatology and AGW would keep coming back to a blog that simply isn't a player in that arena.
"Can you find me a specific instance that shows that the AGW consensus is inspired by ideology? Can you find me some evidence of this?"
Excellent question! Polite, too. Exactly the sort of approach you ought to take. (And as a reward, I think I might go to bed soon.)
It's hard to come up with a brief case, a lot of it is the accumulation of many minor events that all seem to go one way, but how about this?
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but -- which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.)
You might also be interested in this one. Here's the NOAA on climate reconstructions.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
First look at the first graph and pay particular attention to the Briffa 2001 series up at the right hand end. Now click on the link to Briffa 2001 below, scroll down to plate 3, and look at how the graph ends. Why the difference? And why does a study done in 2001 end its reconstruction in 1960? I can assure you they have data from after that, but they didn't publish the result. See if you can find out why.
And while you're at it, find out why all the other reconstructions have endpoint errors all in the same direction. A one in thirty two coincidence?
Seriously, I'd be quite interested if you can find a good explanation. I know what the sceptics say, but have been unable to find a good "official" justification.
Steve_C: You share a lot in common with Creationists from what I can tell. You believe in the Universe being created out of nothingness, and you worship a god. It might be the god of secularism, science and technology, environmentalism, and/or money, but a god nonetheless. Everyone worships something. You should not judge others so harshly.
I'll say it again: Consensus science sent THOUSANDS of women to their DEATHS by recommending hormone therapy and giving these women breast cancer. So while you were all out there wearing your pink ribbons, marching in parades, looking down on others, and worshiping at the alter of science and technology, it was your god who was killing these people.
But at least GallileoWasADenier is somewhat more effective in making an impression (I would be a lot more gracious, GWAD, if this weren't a troll-bait/bash thread) than that JohnS wanker who appears to be truly mentally defective.
Exactly the sort of approach you ought to take.
Ought, if the aim is what, moron?
Quoted in Discover
WHO is quoted? And this doesn't show what was asked for, moron -- that the AGW consensus is inspired by ideology. What it shows is someone who already accepts the consensus is seeking ways to communicate that consensus to the public, given the urgency of doing so.
Not just a troll asshole, but a stupid one.
That quote you use is not evidence of ideological bias. It's a quote of someone trying to articulate the problems of discussing science in modern times.
you might be inferring some sort of bias based on a disagreement you have with AGW. That's not evidence of anything but your bias.
phat
And what truffy, you are the peak of decorum. Hahaha. You got 666 items above yours to read what phuckwits you and your mates were.
JohnS
P.S. If you're going to offer evidence to show that the AGW consensus is inspired by ideology, you ought to at least make it clear what ideology you're referring to. In the quote you gave, the closest I can find is wanting to see the world a better place, wanting to reduce the risk of potential disaster, wanting to be effective -- not the sort of thing one usually thinks of as pejorative when talking about inspiration.
Meds, JohnS, meds.
TM,
It wasn't inspired by ideology, it was inspired primarily by the low resolution analysis of the Vostok ice core and a few other bits and pieces, before they knew which way round the peaks were.
I said the current consensus was to some degree an ideological one. That's as a result of the early (and perfectly sensible and scientific) results and ideas being taken on by the save-the-world ideology that then kept it going in the face of weakening evidence. They have their doubts, but they portray it as a more solid consensus than it is for political reasons.
You say they have doubts but won't portray these doubts for political reasons.
I have two questions.
1) Show me the evidence of this.
2) Show me the political reasons.
phat
That quote you use is not evidence of ideological bias. It's a quote of someone trying to articulate the problems of discussing science in modern times.
Indeed. Funny how the "polite" request led to the sort of bullshit that we already expected, from experience with the denier types that PZ discussed way way above.
Yep, I'm not surprised.
Altemeyer strikes again.
phat
What sort of evidence would you accept, if you won't take a leading pro-AGW scientist saying it was appropriate to put forward scary scenarios and play down scientific doubts for the sake of getting the public to take action?
The political goal is to get the world to take action: to cut fossil fuel emissions primarily. The pro-AGW political groups are not monolithic, and push the need for urgent action for many different reasons. In any case, their reasons are not germane, except for ad hominem arguments which I'm not interested in. What happened to the end of that Briffa data? The evidence, not the motives.
Anyway, I'm taking a break now. I'll be back later if you haven't broken the 1000 mark by the time I get up.
It wasn't inspired by ideology
Hey, asshole, you were asked ""Can you find me a specific instance that shows that the AGW consensus is inspired by ideology? Can you find me some evidence of this?" and that's what you offered up. So you're just another run-of-the-mill liar.
They have their doubts, but they portray it as a more solid consensus than it is for political reasons.
There are always doubts -- that's the nature of scientific epistemology -- but the significance of the doubts get twisted, as ExxonMobil does day in and day out, so yes of course there are political reasons for toning down doubts as part of the communication process, but that doesn't make the consensus any less solid. You're mixing up different things, stupidly and dishonestly.
the save-the-world ideology
Ah, I suppose from a certain thuggish conservative ideological standpoint, wanting to address threats to society is an ideology. But it's the same ideology that inspires a great deal of science, and there's only good to be said of such inspiration.
Why does it seem like whenever there are more than two or three hundred messages in a thread we always find that it's a couple of people nit picking semantics or listing mistakes in logic at the end of it? It's not worth it guys, really. Take some nice deep breaths and go visit the nice toothed octopus thread instead. It's Friday, maybe even have an adult beverage or two.
What sort of evidence would you accept
Evidence that actually supports the claim, moron.
if you won't take a leading pro-AGW scientist saying it was appropriate to put forward scary scenarios and play down scientific doubts for the sake of getting the public to take action?
No, I won't take that as AGW being ideologically inspired, because it obviously isn't. Why would anyone want the public to take action on something that they didn't genuinely believe, for independent reasons? Your taking this as "ideologically inspired" is circular.
The sort of ideological inspiration that we do see is people who believe in free markets and unfettered corporations denying global warming because dealing with it would involve applying restraints -- facts are denied because they don't like the consequences of them being true (we see the same thing with evolution); and a number of those people, like Milloy, are heavily funded by economic players who have a lot to lose if such restraints are applied. On the other side, you would have to show that AGW is being upheld because, say, people dislike corporations and want to see their power limited. There are such folks who are ideologically driven, but you have failed to show that any of the science is a result of such ideology.
It's not worth it guys, really.
Troll troll concern troll.
kept it going in the face of weakening evidence
From "skeptic" to denier in one easy step. The evidence for AGW, as a whole, has only strengthened over time.
I'm working, partaking in an adult beverage and as my computer crunches numbers I check out websites.
Besides, this isn't semantics. If you think expecting evidence is anything but a plea for science, well...
I'm also having a little bit of fun baiting the troll. I don't do that too often.
phat
This sounds like a Monti Python skit.
Meanwhile he's arguing global warming.
This is your justification? Two wrongs (alleged) make a right?
Funny, I thought it worked just fine.
I disagree. AGW's never been the dominant view. The concept's been fought since the possibilities were first proposed in the late 19th Century. When all the "old-timers" die (Gray et al), is usually when there's a paradigm shift.
Until them and the creationists give up on the idea God created the climate for them, and there's nothing they can do to screw it up, the new paradigm will never take hold.
Meanwhile he's arguing global warming.
Yeah, I'm a bad bad person, sometimes arguing and sometimes not.
Where do knuckle draggers like "truth machine" breed and multiply? Oh well, he's a tad more out of it than the typical warmist lobotomate but, nevertheless, he is illustrative of the species. I'll be linking this thread to as many blogs as possible so that a few rational people can get a glimpse of what conversion to apocalyptic warmist theology leads to.
I've lingered here too long, so I'm off to remove the warmist contagion in a very hot shower.
Zog wrote: I've lingered here too long, so I'm off ...
This is the 79th troll to announce a departure yet they just keep coming.
"Warmist"
That gives me a chuckle.
Is "warmist" the new "commie"?
phat
Nothing required truffy, keep them all for yourself, but I'mutraged that you are starting to sound even a teeney bit sound of mind- a phuckwit joke yes, you must be tied, yes. I thought you were shooting blanks tonight or tomorrow, or whenever. Come on- we got the 1000 to make. Wildflower- running- petal has returned, dropping phuckwit paradigms everywhere. You kids are wonderful, big bro PZ goes away and because you all failed miserably in the beauty contest vote rig, you puff chests out and stamp feet.
JohnS
Oh man, PZ, you've got a moron infestation! You should call the exterminators, or disemvowelers, or something. Because although this is pretty funny to watch, my only worry is that some poorly-informed highschool student might actually believe one of these unfortunate little denialists.
It's like the Diggtard coalition got in here or something. The funny part is what they're saying...the sad part is that they actually probably believe it. How can people be so easily led by what they wih twas true?
*wish was true. Sorry, typing drunk.
Wow, I continue to be pissed off that all these denier wankers think we're all still undergraduates! Not that there would be anything wrong with that; it's just not even close to true.
If you weren't merely ideologue trolls with strong corporate, neoconservative, and "Daddy in the Sky" predilections arguing here incessantly due to your authoritarian subservience to your hockey stick idol, perhaps you could each post one of your journal publications that have contributed to environmental science. How about it?
Francis O (or whatever your moniker was) are you still out there? Because you are claiming a moderate amount of scientific and academic accomplishment for yourself while, at the same time, saying lots of things that sound like something you just heard or read somewhere about the entire scientific endeavor.
I've peer-reviewed a butt-load of journal articles and reports and have not been hesitant whatsoever to trash the work of colleagues who I knew and liked in the interest of good science and I always enjoyed it (masochist?), appreciated it anyway, when they did the same to me. Your statements about grant applications eliminating the talented and innovative young researchers (or however you put it, that was several hundred posts or so ago) is utter rubbish. I've seen many proposals from departments where a student's potential results could damage the hypotheses under which his/her professors had been operating for years.
I've said my piece. Good luck with these one-trick ponies Truth Machine. My condolences to you PZ on having to host this lot; except this might drive your blog traffic rating even higher in Minnesota. If I didn't know better....hmmm
truth machine, I applaud your tenacity. How about changing your moniker to PZ's pitbull? Good work...
Those who adopt Orwellian tactics such as calling people "deniers" and changing the lexicon to fit their purposes are little more than fascists. They throw out politically correct terms and make up words that start with "eco". Talk about being mindless robots.
Global warming does exist, it just isn't human induced. 0.038% of the atmosphere is CO2, which does reflect some heat back to the surface, but:
1. It also reflects heat away from the earth in equal amounts. This cancels much of the trapping effect out.
2. Heat flows from hot to cold. Ocean currents carry much of the heat to colder parts of the earth (say the side not facing the sun, or depths where the sun does not reach, or to the poles, etc.)
3. Water vapor makes up a larger part of the atmosphere (around 1%), and it is a much greater greenhouse gas. The hotter the earth gets, the more water vapor, the more clouds, the more reflected heat, the more cooling evaporation, etc.
Greenland used to be green and England used to be known for its wine. This hasn't happened again. Even if it does, why should we worry about it? It is not in our control.
Does this mean that we should continue to dump stuff into our environment? No. Does it mean that we should adopt socialistic policies and cry that the sky is falling and blame Capitalism and "Neocons" for it? No.
CO2 is transparent to visible light that's why it's a greenhouse gas, and why the effect doesn't cancel out. If you don't understand this basic bit of the argument you're just a moron.
Hey the phuckwits decrease and clowns arrive. Chembob as peer reviewer- classic, outright fib, but classic. Typical almost- biology major, he's one of the PZ students trying to suck his way through to degree. And he criticises Francis for only reading about the process. Octopod warning highschoolers- laughable- its the high school answers by truffy that brings them here and gives them a chance to cuss and such when if they did that to their betters they would get a clip on the ear. Juice running out around the 700 mark. You silly buggars can't even rig this response number.
JohnS
Which is why we can't see the sun when there's a lot of CO2 out!
... wait.
Yes, this *actually* is why it is called GLOBAL warming, as opposed to "industrialized-area warming".
If water is a "much greater greenhouse gas" it can't be a negative feedback loop. You just contradicted yourself.
And here we have the real reason for the AGW denialism: they want to feel helpless, because if we weren't helpless, we might actually have to do something.
God I love this site! I can remember when a troll was something a gay man didn't want to pick up in a bar - but I guess it still is...
Thanks, PZ, for a great blog!
By the way, I'm a liberal atheist scientist who would really like your site if you didn't allow obscenities and people were nicer and agreed with me and treated me with respect no matter what I posted.
Oh, piss off.
Zarquon, you stupid fuck - go fuck yourself. Dumbass. Hey, that's kind of fun, even if the shithead hasn't been a troll until telling me to piss off... Ok, maybe not a troll, but a... fucktard? Yeah, go fuck yourself you stupid fuck fucktard, Zarquon. If you don't understand this basic bit of the argument you're just a moron.
Now I can see how much fun truth machine had in this thread... and if the piss off wasn't directed at me, never mind!
"It might be the god of secularism, science and technology, environmentalism, and/or money, but a god nonetheless. Everyone worships something. "
You might want to drop the projection there, Dave. I worship nothing. Worship debases both the worshiper and the worshipee. I will have no part of such behavior.
"So while you were all out there wearing your pink ribbons, marching in parades, looking down on others, and worshiping at the alter of science and technology, it was your god who was killing these people."
So if we project and anthropomorphize everything we don't happen to like into gods or godlike beings that are "worshipped" by those who support them, then we can make all of life into some sort of warped morality play. I'm glad I don't live in your head, it sounds like a scary place.
hey truffer, thats not bad. Call yourself MB and Zarquon, you get three responses, I make it four and you're on your way over the 700 mark. MB says nice words about you, nothing like self congratulation, Now thats what I call rigging. Good effort. Come on Cal George, Dustbin, rigging standard has been set. Dicks to the grindstone boyos.
JohnS
must be some West Coast trolls - or maybe the midwestern crank trolls - usually no one's on after overtime in the west coast hockey games...
Yes, JohnS, thank you, bad paraody noted. Though as Truth Machine has repeatedly and vulgarly mentioned, we're all regulars here, you don't happen to be one. So you have quite the task up to you. We'll still be here tomorrow reading and commenting like we always do, and you'll have to spend alot of time teasing Truth Machine for being a jerk that you could be using on other things you normally do. You do see the advantage we have, yes? Whatever fun you're having badly attemting to tease someone who holds not but contempt for you, you can't be dim enough to realize that sooner ot later you'll have to leave and that we'll be here regardless. So unless you're making the ill informed choice to become a regular, then I'd advise you to retire, otherwise you'll only allow Truth Machine to reach 1000 posts. And how does that benefit you?
And Rey you beat me to the "everyone worships something" line. I do hate to argue from the dictionary, but damn. Understand your words people! Diluting the word worship not only makes us all polytheists, but hey theists, it also degrades the word worship. Not that I mind or you understand...
Ducks 3 Sharks 2 in a shootout - I know, I know, nobody gives a shit. But please do continue, science weenies, to fight the good fight against the freepers, wingnuts, theocrats and trolls... and provide late night entertainment.
But Michael X, very mysterious designation too, good boy, I look forward to you reaching 1000 posts. Great for the CV- frisulus... fregal.. or whatever this blog is called, we defended the PZ honour by wacking trolls in 1000 messages, unfortunately, proving what phuckwits we were by not making same effort in rigging the beauty contest that PZ wanted to win this year. Yes I know he said he didn't want it, but boyo, read between the lines. Hint- Dummy spit straight after realising he hadn't a hope.
As I said in my first post, I'm here for the ruck. I thought when all you boys went home, there may have been a few cold beers in the fridge. Found you were all kids drinking low alcohol beer- what a bugger.
Anyway Michael Y, we moved it along a few more numbers. Truffy will be proud. Common-you're not truffy are you playing a little joke again. You jokers at this site, ah you kill me.
JohnS
And thus ends my reasonable approach.
JohnS you seem to have no drive but an idiots one. I already explained as to why your looking for a ruck will only exhaust you, and not us. My handle was suggested to me by other commenters by the way, because Michael is such a popular name. Much like john. Though thankfully I don't share that name with you.
As for the contest you people don't really seem to be playing along with reality. PZ has already won this popularity contest once. I don't remember, was CA was even listed that time around?
And no, I'm thankfully not Truth Machine, if only for the reason that I don't often choose deal with your type.
I'm thankfully not Truth Machine, if only for the reason that I don't often choose deal with your type.
It's quite amusing to me how these fools have allied me with folks I've had run-ins with like you and Marjanović; I'm even being viewed by some as some sort of hero of this blog ("PZ's pitbull"). But I explained that in #616: "social cohesion". A real triumph would be for Azkyroth to show up and applaud my performance. :-)
Yes, Truth Machine, while we've had our run-ins and I don't envy your position or reputation, we do have our agreements: Mainly, the blockheadedness of the few assholes still hanging around and obviously the existance of particular deities.
I may begrudgingly come to accept the fact that we have anything else in common. Though I'm sure JohnS will give us reason enough to chuckle in unison without having to delve into that morass right now.
As for Azkyroth, lets not be silly.
I may begrudgingly come to accept the fact that we have anything else in common.
Well, your very first comment to me, IIRC, was an ad hominem slam about me habitually coming late to the party, but (except for #322) you're the late one this time, so that's something in common, sort of.
Funny, I do remember that comment and still somewhat agree with it. Though lately you've spent more time actually talking to people other than yourself, which I'm only pleased to see.
My comment was of course in reply to your off base misinterpritation of my post. But that is neither here nor there in regards to this thread.
You'll forgive me of course for not jumping into the ruck earlier, I thought this would burn out like most troll infestations do. Though as it hasn't I thought I'd help bat a few around as I tend to be up late. Otherwise, like I mentioned, I don't tend to get mixed up in such forum bar fights.
What I'm seeing at the moment though make me laugh the most. Our conversation seems to have quited the whole place down.
Only 714? How disappointing!
In any case 5:15am wins. I'm sure we'll have our time another day. As for you JohnS, your feigned inability to spell "Fuck" or understand a biological term leaves me to laugh. I'll simply tell you to go where you're wanted and appreciated. If such a place exists.
Stick around my boy, I'm sure someone will stay up to play.
Boys, Boys, Boys- common, stop putting on the show for me. Back to the trolls. But Michael Y, how do you know I'm not truffer. Seen us in the same room together? Truffer, the question, have you seen Michael Y and me together. Spooky. I felt the disturbance in the force, Luke,came to see, and found the force very disturbed. And now Luke, the last posts are loveins. Well bugger me, and still low alcohol beer!
I'm counting 713 posts. Longs way to go boyos.
JohnS
OK, JohnS, where are those environmental publications of yours that I asked about? I don't care what area of environmental science, just some evidence that you have the slightest credibility in science that doesn't flow from only between your own ears, but is considered actual science by others as well. Do you have even one, just one, peer-reviewed journal article?
FYI, I'm 57 and have been a practicing scientist for 30+ years; I'm not saying that as an argument from authority, only to tell you that no, we're not all undergraduates and that many of us are quite experienced at the scientific endeavor and have plenty of experience in recognizing bullshit. I call bullshit on you.
Crap, I thought I "said my piece" before I went to bed. Oh well.
Well, PZ musta done something right to get all of these trolls here. I think this maybe the longest amount of comments i've ever seen on here. Thanks trolls, for making this such great reading!
Global warming does exist, it just isn't human induced. 0.038% of the atmosphere is CO2, which does reflect some heat back to the surface, but:
1. It also reflects heat away from the earth in equal amounts. This cancels much of the trapping effect out.
2. Heat flows from hot to cold. Ocean currents carry much of the heat to colder parts of the earth (say the side not facing the sun, or depths where the sun does not reach, or to the poles, etc.)
3. Water vapor makes up a larger part of the atmosphere (around 1%), and it is a much greater greenhouse gas. The hotter the earth gets, the more water vapor, the more clouds, the more reflected heat, the more cooling evaporation, etc.
Greenland used to be green and England used to be known for its wine. This hasn't happened again. Even if it does, why should we worry about it? It is not in our control.
Does this mean that we should continue to dump stuff into our environment? No. Does it mean that we should adopt socialistic policies and cry that the sky is falling and blame Capitalism and "Neocons" for it? No.
You've pretty much summed up the moronic mainstream what-me-worry approach to this whole issue. Thank you for putting it so well.
#721
And your point is....?
Here is IMO where the AGW movement looks like a religion:
they never state what positions they hold.
1 The earth has warmed the last 100 years.
2 This warming is unprecendented
3 The warming is caused (in part) by human action.
4 The warming is caused by CO2 emmisions.
5 The warming will increase because CO2 emmissions are
still going on and because of the "Greenhouse effect".
6 The (only) solution is to cut CO2 emmissions (by taxation)
and thereby stopping the forecasted rise in temperature.
Is this the AGW package?
I agree with 1 and 3, and am interested in 2,4 and 5.
Does this make me a denialist?
have a nice weekend
Harold, even the questions that you ask betray your ignorance of the science of this issue and of science in general. In your head, any problem that requires people to organize towards a common goal is evidently a "religion." This is probably because you are so effectively brainwashed by religion that you can't understand people coming together for any other reason than to worship bronze-age mythology. Science, properly done, has nothing to do with mythology, bronze-age or otherwise.
Scientists who, based on the preponderance of evidence, have a pretty good level of confidence that global climate change is being caused by human activities, do not have a common "position" that they hold except that the evidence seems to support this contention. Again, we aren't reading a global warming "Holy Book" written by dead shepherds thousands of years ago to get our concepts and solutions to everything.
Your number 6 is the nail that really shows where you are coming from on this issue. Taxes, naturally. Hah, what a wanker.
So, if you're not a denier, that means you accept AGW then? There are zealots on both sides of the issue, but aligning yourself with the zealots of the "right" because you oppose the zealots of the (godless) "left," is irrational.
Too funny. The atmosphere reflects 6% of incoming solar radiation, clouds reflect another 20%. The atmosphere and clouds absorb another 19% of incoming radiation. The earth absorbs 51% of incoming solar radiation while it reflects a mere 4% that reaches it. Your little ocean current ditty means what wrt AGW? Nada.
You really should fact check your bull shit.
I can't believe you think that eliminates the forcing quotient of CO2. Water vapor does not cause warming, as you even wrote. It's a feedback. You can't pump water vapor into the frozen atmosphere and cause it to warm. It's basic chemistry.
CO2 on the otherhand absorbs radiation and re-radiates it in all directions, including back to the earth. As CO2 levels increase higher in the atmosphere, the slower the process of radiation escaping back into space.
I'm sure the operators of England's wineries will be very disturbed to hear that.
As for Greenland, all the evidence shows that was a regional warm period, not global. You dittoheads keep having to be reminded of that fact.
Well, seeing how it's corporatists (facist capitalists) who are the real puppetmasters of our elected officials - on both sides of the aisle - they are to blame for the politicalization and polarization of the problem.
Scare words like "socialism," when they really mean "godlessness" is just more evidence against them.
Thank you for replying Chembob,
Do you have a suggestion to lower CO2?
Nuclear power perhaps(or even better a return to the B.A.)?
Or does this also "show where I am coming from" ?
The doubling of CO2 leading to a rise of 2-4% is
an interesting conjecture.I would favour more
real world solutions to upcoming problems
(oops..now i have really blown my cover).
Is CO2 the cause?
An interesting lecture by professor Bob Carter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
Qubit,
"Fine, you don't want to look at an extreme case as an example. Fair enough."
Exactly right and I proved my point.
To disprove nonsense doesn't take an exact calculation. It's enough to know they are not analogous.
You didn't mention cloud cover does that make you a "consummate idiot"? You didn't mention distance from the sun, etc. Your goal was far higher than mine and you didn't even do any calculations.
For your information I do have the math background that you assume I don't.
I know all about black body radiation, absorption spectra, and all the other crap that goes with it. I'm also aware of the behavior of light, even the quantum behavior. I understand for instance how holograms work, and that light doesn't really go in a straight line but takes all potential paths, etc.
You are yet another instance of the rude thought police that infest P Z Myers blog.
Thanks for posting the lecture JePe,
You know that's what I do not like about science,
you find out things are always more complicated than you expect.
Now ..off to watch part 2.
Except you, I trust.
Are you alluding to the fact that the temperature changes always lead the greenhouse gas concentration changes in that core?
This is not at all surprising. We are living in the first time in the last few million years when a change in greenhouse gas concentrations happens for a reason other than a temperature change.
This doesn't mean changes in GHG concentrations can't lead to temperature changes. As I mentioned near the beginning of this thread, we've had a few cases in the last few hundred million years where GHG concentrations changed for other reasons than temperature (flood basalt eruptions, large-scale weathering of newly exposed silicates, methane burps), and in all those cases the temperature followed suit.
The effect of GHGs probably explains why glacials and interglacials are as binary as they are, as opposed to being a continuum. The GHGs dampen the influence of small changes in insolation and increase that of large changes.
Show me that, say, the IPCC agrees with this statement made by one person in 1989.
Before trolling, take note of the fact that truth machine is unique.
Argument from ignorance. Heat doesn't come in as the kind of long-wave IR that CO2 absorbs. It comes in as light and as short-wave IR, to which it's transparent.
Did you really believe the climatologists don't know that?
Yes, and? Where's your point?
By that logic, the average global temperature would have had to be completely stable for the last few billion years.
Come on, dude. The hotter the earth gets, the more evaporation happens, the water vapor is transported to cooler latitudes, condenses, which releases the heat the evaporation has taken up, and rains out.
The hotter it gets, the lower are the differences between the tropics and the poles. The tropics have always had more or less the same temperature in at least the last 90 million years; the poles have been much hotter and much colder than today.
The name is a marketing gag. It hasn't been ice-free for over 400,000 years.
That's a plain lie.
You have distorted out of the fact that wine was grown in England in the Medieval Warm Period. The quality was horrible -- nobody would have bothered if drinking water wouldn't have meant getting cholera.
Nowadays, however, growing wine in England starts getting a serious business. Here, read, if you can.
Wishful thinking.
What socialistic policies?
He did indeed. Water vapour is a major greenhouse gas. Unfortunately it's not one we can do much about. (We wouldn't want to get rid of the the greenhouse effect of water vapour--goodness no! Just reducing it slightly would be enough). David is confused about how the greenhouse effect works: the "heat" from the earth is infrared radiation and the "heat" from the sun is (in large part) visible light. The two do not interact with greenhouse gases in the same way.
There are no easy answers and there is mounting evidence that it is too late to avert very serious consequences. There are numerous recommendations being made, including the use of more nuclear power which is, unfortunately, only economical when subsidized and you clearly don't like taxes.
Some of these ideas include truly interesting engineering concepts, like huge pipes that float at the surface of the ocean while penetrating its depths and allow the wave action to cause the deeper waters to be pumped to the surface, generate more algae and act as a CO2 sink. There are other innovative ideas for actually reducing the CO2 already present, but I'm no expert on any of these.
I don't even understand most of your last post; e.g., return to B.A.? Doubling CO2 leading to a 2-4% rise in something? It's all out of context to me. At any rate, there are a lot of things we could be doing but most of them are poorly tested or untested (such as atmospheric removal approaches, above), carbon sequestration from power plants, harnessing tidal action to generate energy, wind farms, more solar power, diplomacy with other countries (such as China) to reduce their emissions, etc.
What are your ideas?
BTW, I've got things to do today and, while I might read this thread from my iPhone, I will probably not have the time to comment.
By "socialistic policies" they mean "tax hikes". Petty, small-minded, selfish troglodytes.
Oops, my last post should have been addressed to Harold to avoid confusion.
Have a nice weekend Chembob
corrections:
- 2-4% = 2-4%C
- B.A. = Bronze Age (joke)
I am not against taxes, but trying to adjust the Earth's
thermostat by controlling a CO2 knob seems like a
wrongheaded and pretentious idea.(I could be wrong)
CO2 has been shown as a greenhouse gas in laboratory
experiments but not in the complex real world.
Does it mean that we should adopt socialistic policies and cry that the sky is falling and blame Capitalism and "Neocons" for it?
I blame Harold and all Harold-like people.
I blame anyone who chooses to ignore our pressing environmental problems, puts all their effort into explaining them away (badly), and think we live in the "best of all possible capitalist worlds" no matter what happens.
Sorry, Harold. "So what?" and "been there, done that" are not adequate responses to the climate crisis.
2-4% = 2-4 degrees Centigrade (oops)
Undeniable.
What do you mean?
The temperatures it has caused so far are unprecedented within the last 8,000 years or so (and will soon be unprecedented in the last 120,000 years... if we run out of luck, we'll reach temperatures unsurpassed in the last 410,000 years).
The speed of the warming, which is an important factor in how fast anything can cope with it, is unprecedented in the last 11,000 years.
Solar activity hasn't increased for decades, so all warming since 1940 or so is manmade.
Mostly. There's also soot, methane, and laughing-gas.
Yes.
That's your point 4.
That's not part of the science, that's politics. Yes, if we want to stop the rise in temperature -- and the alternative is to evacuate Bangladesh --, we have to stop the emissions. The "how" is a different question. Taxation alone clearly won't work, because for a lot of uses there are currently no alternatives to burning fossil fuels; research on alternatives has to go on.
Why do you ask us evolutionary biologists? Why don't you spend a few hours reading on http://www.realclimate.org?
Spare me the lecture, what does Carter say? I bet it's not anything new.
This is precisely what we are doing. We can either try to turn the knob in the other direction or evacuate Bangladesh.
This is ridiculous. What reason does anyone have for supposing it might not absorb IR in the real world?!?
BTW, you don't need to press Enter at the end of a line. Line breaks are made automatically when you click "Post". Is this the first time you write on a computer?
WildLifer: "Scare words like "socialism," when they really mean "godlessness" is just more evidence against them. "
That's ridiculous. Socialism is scary (maybe worrying is a better word) for a lot of reasons, but I doubt religion even ranks in the top 3 or 5. It puts the state above the individual and is an anathema to personal liberty. Socialists, communists, fundamentalists (the far lefties and righties alike) all want state control over peoples lives. The difference is only in degrees. I know leftists think they are enlightened and well intentioned, but they don't realize the rightists feel the same way about themselves. (Not too mention that leftist ideology leads the body count last century by quite a bit) I am sure that todays far lefties and righties think they are different incarnations than the murderers of yore. But with both groups it all eventually leads to the same place.
As Pol Pot used to say: "To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss"
@David Marjanović(#737)
You said: "Spare me the lecture, what does Carter say? I bet it's not anything new."
I can't read minds, so I can't answer that.
But he talks real science, not the crap type sloppy science that realclimate produces.
That's funny. It's possibly the funniest thing on this thread...
No, the guy who called the Sierra Club commies is still the funniest.
phat
"BTW, you don't need to press Enter at the end of a line. Line breaks are made automatically when you click "Post"."
From my experience on another web site with a fillable form on it, I know that certain browsers (like Safari) sometimes automatically insert the line breaks from the original comment box, regardless of how long the lines are set in the output. I don't see that here very often, but I would guess that the formatting isn't harold's fault.
Calling greens "commies" is a common Limbaugh talking point. It is Rush's contention that after the fall of the Soviet Union, all of the discredited commies moved into the environmental movement.
Makes one wonder, can Theodore Roosevelt retroactively be called a marxist?
Anyone who brings up socialism when talking about AGW and reducing pollution is an idiot.
Cleaner fuels, renewable energy, lower CO2 emissions are all such scary worrying things... and all the money making industries spawned by new technology are so socialist.
Al Gore totally wants a socialist state where your right to drive a Hummer to Taco Bell is totally stripped away and everyone has to ride on solar powered sailboards and wear clothes made of hemp.
Buncha babies.
When we're all driving hybrid hondas and toyotas in 15 years and most new buildings are green and fuel efficient won't you all look like whiney little children.
Unfortunately all these denialists are doing is slowing progress down. I'd rather the new technologies were american made rather than in asia or europe.
"The temperatures it has caused so far are unprecedented within the last 8,000 years or so (and will soon be unprecedented in the last 120,000 years... if we run out of luck, we'll reach temperatures unsurpassed in the last 410,000 years)."
Be careful with terminology. Temperatures are far from unprecedented. Global mean temperature anomaly is very likely to be unprecedented in 400 years, and might or might not be unprecedented in a thousand years or longer. It depends how you interpret the error bars and whether you're willing to compare values between different time sources of data for which the conversion factors are uncertain. (And to what extent you think the data has been fiddled with, of course.)
It isn't unprecedented by much, if it is. And it isn't entirely clear what this is supposed to mean. I think the argument goes that the global mean temperature anomaly is unprecedented, and the CO2 levels are unprecedented, therefore the latter causes the former, maybe. That seems to be how it is used by popularisers, anyway.
"The speed of the warming, which is an important factor in how fast anything can cope with it, is unprecedented in the last 11,000 years."
I haven't seen any graphs of that, except those I've plotted myself. Do you have a reference or source? I know it's been said of the northern hemisphere, and if you look at the plot the number does come out a little higher than all the other spikes, but it is by no means exceptional. It's about 2.7SDs above the mean in about 1800 datapoints for Mann's 04 northern hemisphere reconstruction, compared to 2.25SDs for the 1920s-1940s peak which is the next highest. There was a -4.3SDs drop back around 900AD, when it dropped 0.4 degrees in ten years! It obviously depends on what smoothing you apply, and I wasn't particularly careful nor calculated error bars (which I couldn't really do anyway without knowing what Mann did to construct it), but it doesn't seem a very firmly established result.
Steve C "Cleaner fuels, renewable energy, lower CO2 emissions are all such scary worrying things... and all the money making industries spawned by new technology are so socialist.
Al Gore totally wants a socialist state where your right to drive a Hummer to Taco Bell is totally stripped away and everyone has to ride on solar powered sailboards and wear clothes made of hemp.
Buncha babies.
When we're all driving hybrid hondas and toyotas in 15 years and most new buildings are green and fuel efficient won't you all look like whiney little children.
Unfortunately all these denialists are doing is slowing progress down. I'd rather the new technologies were american made rather than in asia or europe."
I know, you have some righteous utopia that the State needs to impose for the good of us all. Though the transition might be difficult, well all be happy when we achieve it.
We haven't heard that before. (Yes, Yes I am sure this time its different)
Its always fun to argue with ideologues, but the fundies are probably the best. Many of them also have some version of utopia where by State imposition people will go to church and lead a clean moral life. With the virtual elimination of crime, hedonism, family break ups, out of wedlock births, etc the benefits to society would be enormous.
Though you don't recognize it, you are a different face of the same coin. Your goals are no more righteous, or well intentioned then theirs. But the means to those ends are equally as dangerous. (At least in the long run)
I see the trolls have gotten around to demonstrating that their denial is ideologically based; it was just a matter of time.
My comment was of course in reply to your off base misinterpritation of my post.
You do understand the difference between a disagreement with a position (even if, as you tendentiously put it, it is an off base misinterpretation) and a stupid ad hominem about posting habits, don't you?
At the L.A. Auto Show, the winner of the 2008 Green Car of the Year is expected to be the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid (winner to be announced on Nov. 15).
This miracle of green technology gets 22 mpg highway, 21 mpg city.
Only in America.
Oy! I got started reading this thread, thought about abandoning it after 30 or so comments and then found myself unaccountably drawn in. I have now read all comments while drinking a pot of coffee and smoking too many cigarettes. I am a tyro on climate change science,so I followed some links that the CA folk mentioned and will read them. I do not post often, here or anywhere, but I read Pharyngula and 8 or 9 other Scienceblogs every day. Not being a scientist myself I have learned to trust the people who consistently demonstrate that they know what they are talking about, whatever that might be.
I am thoroughly bored with the interjection of politics into every discussion, everywhere. I expect to find out that there is a correct position regarding the evolution of jawbones or Zebra fish and that I may be condemned to an eternity of tightening up my backstroke in the Lake of Fire for holding the incorrect position.
On to something more substantive. Thanks everyone for an entertaining afternoon!
Wow. Thanks Lar for proving my point.
Yeah, because Europe is so fucking scary... would hate adopt ANY of their ideas.
Grow up.
I would just like to point out that the U.S. Energy Star "climate zones" are being pushed further north for qualifying products. I was just at a conference at ASU and a DoE representative showed us the new maps. The changes are being made because data (yes, data) collected over the last two decades have been showing increased average and maximum temperatures.
Human caused? Maybe. But the trend is definitely toward warming.
Great blog P.Z., weather the trolls.
"An admittedly brief search through McIntyre's site finds no reference to the phrase "I am not a denialist" by McIntyre."
Well for a "science" site I really have to wonder at the reasoning that goes on here.
I'll bet a brief search though McIntyre's site won't turn up phrases like "I am not a murder" or "I am not a child molester" or "I am not a wife beater" either. Does that mean he is one or more of those things? What exactly was your observation supposed to prove?
Isn't it interesting that showing the errors and inconsistencies in an argument automatically makes one a "denier?" Isn't that like calling someone an atheist when they point out errors and inconsistencies in a theist argument? There is absolutely no chance that anyone could just be with an "I don't know one way or other" position or maybe just can't abide by erroneous argument? And if a person does point out a fallacious argument from a theist why would that person suddenly incur an equal-time obligation to point out the fallacies of an atheist?
Hurling epithets is not only a demonstration of low class but a very real demonstration of the lack of intelligent response.
Sure, it might argued that intelligent response is a waste of time. I wouldn't think so but then I've never been here before. After seeing some of the posts I can now see what that might mean.
The Hockey-stick graph is a total fraud, as are all other replica's.
You want prove?
Read this:
http://homepages.tesco.net/~kate-and-david/2007/Holland(2007).pdf
Lar R:
I hope you realise how ironic it is that you're comparing socialists and environmentalists to fundies, considering your less than subtle implication that ALL State intervention is evil, regardless of individual circumstance.
Also, you seem to have little to no knowledge of either socialism or environmentalism. You should read up a little on these topics before you post again because you sound like a total Rush Limbaugh jackass.
DAV. Your declaration means nothing. If you want science.. go to a different article. When PZ posts about climate change, feel free to join in with and denials or nondenials but this was never meant to be a debate about AGW. It's about telling CA trolls to fuck off.
So.
Go take a head first dive off a cliff. Bugger off. Kiss my ass. Suck it. Shove it. Eat it.
DAV. Fuck off.
And yes I must be a low class uneducated barbarian. It's just so obvious.
I've never been here before.
Yes, we know. And your first appearance is in a thread 2 days old, a thread that is troll-bait stemming from a troll attack from another blog due to a stupid web contest that this blog essentially bowed out of. And guess what? This isn't a climatology blog. So why are you even here? You're just another troll drive-by, one of so many.
Hello,
just stopped by to say goodbye.
It seems that after a hard (and bitter) fight
the BA and CA votes are tied: 20k vs 20k. :-)
I see truth machine has woken up
(...and not used the F word ... yet!).
I still am puzzled by the sharp divide.
I will leave you with an ("right wing") explanation:
First, what do I mean by global salvationism? The salvationist doctrine has
two main strands, which originally were separate but have long since come
together to form an influential world-wide consensus. The first strand is
developmental salvationism, and relates to the economic fortunes of poor
countries. The second strand is environmental salvationism. In both strands,
two elements are combined. One is a relentlessly dark - not to say alarmist -
picture of recent trends, the present state of the world (or 'the planet'),
and prospects for the future unless prompt and far-reaching changes are made
in official policies. The second is a conviction that known effective remedies
exist for the various ills and threats thus identified, remedies which require
action on the part of governments and 'the international community'. 'Solutions'
are at hand, given wise collective resolves and actions. Global salvationism
thus combines alarmist visions and diagnoses with confidently radical collectivist
prescriptions for the world.
From a speech by David Henderson
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/David-Henderson.htm
All the best
harold
"DAV. Fuck off."
Yep. Nothing like "intelligent" response to a reasonable observation, Steve_C. You poor thing. Feel better now? Thanks for providing more evidence for what I initially suspected.
More with the jokes.
phat
"And guess what? This isn't a climatology blog. So why are you even here? You're just another troll drive-by, one of so many."
Not a climatology blog??!! No kidding??!! Not a science blog either from the looks of it.
Gee I wonder why PZ was referring to "deniers" and expressing his opinion on climate at all. Maybe he just never expected any response because his loyal followers NEVER hold differing opinions? Weird.
As to what I'm doing here is quite simple. The real reason behind the Blog Contest is to provide a kind of advertisement for the various blogs. I've been going around to the various science ones and came across some that I really liked. This one has gotten quite a reputation after the poor loser invectives spewed forth. No need to take my word for it. Go google for some of the sites commenting on the behavior here.
I was kinda hoping they were wrong and decided to see for myself. Seems they were right, though.
Don't worry your little brain over it, sweetie. I'm not sticking around. I really don't need to be stepping in what comes out of your mouths.
Bye, Bye, kids!
JePe,
I read the 1st 3 pages of that paper and encountered nothing but an apparently neverending rant against the IPCC with only a mention of the "bad" data. It was nothing but an industry propaganda piece and I'd be stunned if it had ever been impartially peer-reviewed. The author wants to address bias and begins with complete bias on his part. FYI, real scientic journal articles are not written in that format. It was written for people exactly like you, the sort who think that Limbaugh and O'Reilly actually do research and present their viewers with facts. You need to broaden your science reading to include actual science.
Woohoo! My potty mouth works!
Crackpot denialists.
Whoopee!!! We've got to over 750 on this thread.
That's if we ignore the diluation of quality, since as much as 50% appear to be the spambot Machine telling everybody to effoff. Thank god for cut and paste!
On dilution of value, I seem to recall wildlifer's foray into CA in recent months. Wildlifer offered a number of abrasive assertions but nothing of substance. Seems to be the way of things around here.
Great for CA to have won the poll, but on reflection not such a big deal given the level of the competition.
I better effoff before the effin spambot Machine tells me to effoff and adds to the amazing number of posts.
"You do understand the difference between a disagreement with a position (even if, as you tendentiously put it, it is an off base misinterpretation) and a stupid ad hominem about posting habits, don't you?"
Of course I do. That's why I went on to discuss the matter then at hand in that very same post. I'm sure you of all people can understand such rhetorical schemes as our entire conversation went: A slam and an argument, an argument and a slam, etc.
No,as you say, water vapor is in fact a much greater greenhouse gas - much greater than CO2, given the same molecular/atomic mechanisms, and concentrations. So the more relevant question, perhaps, is why we have not had run-away atmospheric warming due to water vapor physics.
Something is stopping it.
Posted by: efrique | November 8, 2007 7:00 PM:
"I worry about America (how did you guys ever get people on the moon?), and as a result I worry for us all."
Not to worry -- engineering isn't science, it is much more reality based.
Scientists couldn't have done it (go to the Moon); and they won't be able to do anything about global warming.
For instance, regarding CO2 emissions: an engineer might recommend we put out the coal fires in China and Indonesia. This would be straightforward (technically, and probably politically as well), and would have an order of magnitude more effect than Kyoto (whatever that might be), even if the Kyoto goals were being met (which they aren't). Climate scientists will keep insisting that we must revamp our whole economic system (something else they don't understand -- but hey! If it wasn't in their PhD syllabus, how hard could it be?).
Oh, and keep throwing more money at climate research!
To have a successful career, scientists only have to convince their peers that they are right -- engineers have to be right. Good engineers have attitudes more like Francois O's -- skeptical about all untested claims -- than PZ's -- I'm right, so F.O.! (BTY, would that be the Francois O Bochud who has published in the optical journals?)
Bob Carmack, your post is absurd rubbish and you should be ashamed of yourself. You haven't a clue what you're talking about, do you? Honestly, fess up.
The reason for so many new posts from people who agree with the outdated views of this site is simple.
Links to this site are being all over the net as an illistration of how completely out of touch with reality most AGW cultists have become.
I see what they mean.
People! Its almost 2008. The world has been accepted as round for years now. DDT has been proven harmless, the Ozone hole was found to be natural and the great ice Age never came.
Your religeous devotion to this dying cult is really pathetic.
I will of course post links to here where ever I can to make sure everyone sees the true depth of the AGW cult.
Cheers:
"DDT has been proven harmless"
Not to birds of prey, you clueless twit.
Ok, Cormack, so engineering is totally separate from science is it? My God (if you existed), aren't you trolls the most ignorant bunch of verbose crap on whom I've ever wasted my time. All of engineering is merely the application of scientific theories and discoveries, you ignoramuses!
I bet none of you have ever done any actual science, e.g., come up with new and testable ideas and concepts to explain reality and then tested them to see if they or the alternative hypotheses are superior. My guess is that if you've ever done any engineering it was while playing with your toy choo choo trains as children. You've no concept or understanding of anything that you post, you are completely out of touch with any meaningful definition of reality, and yet you think you are intellectual giants of some sort.
It is sad and sickening to me to realize that I have to share a world with intellectually lazy and dishonest dolts like you who have no goals other than hanging on to their chests of gold like they are your Savior while smugly believing you've won arguments when you are not even in the fight. You are truly depressing and serve primarily as individual indictments of the elementary and secondary school systems and the failure of the mass media in this country to provide factual information and impart the ability to think rationally and clearly.
"DDT has been proven harmless"
Rachel Carson is rolling in her grave (metaphorically speaking).
"AGW cultists" -
We are mainstream, you doofus.
YOU are the cultists.
Time Magazine in 2006:
A large majority of Americans -- 85% -- say global warming is probably happening, according to a new TIME magazine/ABC News/Stanford University poll. An even larger percentage (88%) think global warming threatens future generations. More than half (60%) say it threatens them a great deal; 38% feel that global warming is already a serious problem, and 47% feel that it will be in the future.
[..]
Six in ten Americans (62%) think much can be done to curb global warming and 52% favor government mandates. A majority (61%) say they would support a government mandate on lowering power plant emissions, and 87% support tax breaks to develop water, wind and solar power. But 81% oppose higher taxes on electricity, 68% oppose higher gasoline taxes and 56% oppose giving companies tax breaks to build nuclear power plants.
This thread is still entertaining. I don't know why!
phat
What do these idiots offer as an explanation for the hockey stick if they don't believe it is the result of our influences on the environment?
Do they think that our industrial society - which has been going full-tilt for more than a century - has no influence on the environment?
I don't understand how they could think that.
It seems they want to discount all that we have done to change our environment - pretend that the earth and atmosphere can absorb all that abuse and remain fundamentally in the same, age-old patterns.
That doesn't seem likely.
What is most scary is that they are hindering positive action on climate change.
That is bound to have a human cost!
Oh, I forgot, "there are public health benefits to climate change."
Any denialists out there want to explain some of the theoretical health and environmental benefits of climate change?
J Peden:
Rain.
Cal:
The thing is about denialists and any sort of human harm is a little bit difficult to figure out.
But I suspect (and Robert Altemeyer's research points to this) that it doesn't much matter to them either way. It strikes me at this point to consider if this climate crisis weren't human influenced. Would they be arguing against mitigating the damage anyway? I suspect so. Given a perfect set of tools that we could use to mitigate the problems caused by this crisis, with some cost of course and the savings of lives and property, I suspect they would chose not to do anything about it.
They either adhere to this perverted obsession with "the market" or an obsession with religious dogma.
None of the potential, and likely, serious human suffering matters to them.
phat
Oh, and I forgot to add this. The evidence that shows that human activity is making the situation worse just causes them even more fits. That causes their ideology to get even more tweaked.
phat
Rachel Carson is rolling in her grave....
And well she should. She was an idiot. And very much responsible for millions of deaths in Aftrica from malaria.
(But they don't count do they, they are just africans after all)
And Cult is the correct term. It's just a big cult.
There are going to be a lot of depressed people when this all blows over, (soon) their great noble cause to save the world will be shown to be nothing more than a devious political scam.
Enjoy it while you can. GW will turn to GC soon enough and all this silly nonsense will be laughed at.
Remember the words of the main architect of the Kyoto Protocol (Maurice Strong) in the late 80s:
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
His dream is close to reality. AGW cultists are working hard to make it come true.
Before he fucked off, Jordan quipped:
Nutjob creationists always find the truth abrasive.
CalGeorge,
It seems to me that many of them bring up money, taxes, fear of government, and not wanting anything that might cause them to have to alter their lifestyles (as vapid and unfulfilling as their life-styles appear to be); typical right-wing talking points. Also they seem to suffer from a self-indulgent pretense that they are better educated than they actually are. Not one of the accepted my challenge to show us a peer-reviewed environmental science paper that they authored.
They also are highly subject to finding an "authority" that spouts verbiage that is in coherence with their thoughts on certain issues, no matter how ludicrous they and the authority figure are with respect to evidence and reason (sort of like religion, imho) and appear to be John Dean's authoritarian followers (or however he put it).
We are sadly saddled with the fact that half of the IQs are below average among our fellow persons. However, I can't imagine how far below 100 they have to be to retain the foolish belief systems we've witnessed in this thread (and a few others). I'm sure you noticed, as did I, that no matter the facts or the logic, they could not be persuaded about anything, not one iota. I, on the other hand, not only can be persuaded that there are mistakes in climate change science, I'm certain there are mistakes. However, as we know on this blog, the discovery of mistakes and their correction and refinement of hypotheses are what science is all about. With regard to climate change, although I'm not an expert in the field, it seems pretty apparent that the preponderance of evidence leads to the ineluctable conclusion that it is indeed happening. Our trolls don't seem to even understand the multiple lines of evidence beyond the hockey sticks.
I'm tired and rambling. Goodnight all.
And very much responsible for millions of deaths in Aftrica from malaria.
Oh, fer crying out loud, not this bullshit topic!
You people are sponges for all kinds of wacko theories!
Gary, if DDT is harmless, then, why is it that ever since DDT was used and manufactured in Southern California, all bald eagles that try to live in the wilds of coastal Southern California die?
Does the giant pool of DDT that lies beneath the waters at the base of the cliffs of Palos Verdes have anything to do with this phenomenon?
Also, Gary, are you aware that there are several strains of insects, including mosquitoes, that are resistant, and or even immune to the effects of DDT?
One more quick thing:
Gary, don't be an idiot. It's not environmental scientists who are destroying the industrial bases of this and several other countries, it's the neoconservative fascists enabled by the sexually-closeted and repressed religious fanatics who want to impose some sort of Religio-Corporate servitude on everyone who's not in their club. I actually work with many industries on their environmental issues. I don't know any of them who are as anti-enviroment as you and your troll squad seem to be. How old are you, 20? You probably don't even remember the burning rivers and the intense city smogs, do you?
You are sickeningly ignorant. Go enroll in a college or a university, I beg of you.
GW will turn to GC soon enough and all this silly nonsense will be laughed at.
How is that going to happen, exactly?
Is Stevie really going to convert the world to his pet theory?
I'm having a hard time envisioning how this great awakening is going to take place?
Will Exxon flood the airwaves with commercials for Steve's "brilliant" deconstructions of Al Gore's presentations?
Give me a break.
No one has to be too brilliant to deconstruct Al Gore's presentations.
These denialists people are nutty. They complain mightily about the manipulation of statistics by scientists but they are more than happy to provide their own anecdotal evidence for what is happening to the climate, based on the temperature where they live.
From Climate Science blog:
1) Harold
Here are the results of analysis of the temperature records from the lighthouse at Quatsino, BC, which is located on the West Coast of Vancouver Island
[some data from the beginning and end of the last century]
These data speak for themselves, as they always do, and they say: No change in the mean daily minimum temperature at and around the Spring Equinox at the Quatsino Station for a century.
Absolute truth is in the treasure chests (filling cabinets with temp records) of the lighthouses.
Absolute truth? Really, Harold? Are you going to show the world that global warming is not happening by amassing lots of Canadian light house temperature data?
At least he stopped shot of drawing a conclusion about global warming based on the data he got from that one lighthouse. He deserves credit for that. Maybe there's hope for Harold.
2) Bruce Hall
Although I do not have access to the exact location of the stations reporting the higher readings, I suspect that they are situated such that the late afternoon sun is baking them in a way that significantly raises the temperature readings. In both instances, the maximum temperature difference occurred around 6 p.m. with a bright sun. Right now one of the reporting stations is still 3 degrees higher while the other is one degree higher than my thermometer which suggests that there may be residual heating from pavement or buildings. The one that agreed with my thermometer earlier is about 2 degrees below mine now, but that may be because of the slight residual heat in my porch while the one lower than mine probably is located completely outdoors. Obviously, there may be calibration issues as well, but the directional differences are very obvious.
There's no hope for Bruce. Completely, certifiably nuts!
Obviously, nuclear energy is the way to go, that is, if you think the World is going to die otherwise from fossil fuel CO2. So why do the Kyoto Protocols exclude countries containing 5 billion of the the World's 6.5 billion people from having to follow them, thus allowing fossil fuel use - and massive increase - to run ad lib in places like India and China?
You've made your bed, now sleep in it.
You should be just the man to do it then.
phat
Creationist? Not me wildlifer! That's just another example of your abrasive assertions.
So where did you and spambot woof machine get your degrees in Applied Arrogance?
Anyways, I reckon I know what your problem is: you guys have no credibility. And that means no authority.
Go ahead, tell me to effoff if you want. No cred.
1. Much of the Sun's output is in the Infrared range. More CO2 in our atmosphere means that more infrared gets reflected back into space. I'm sorry that some of you seem to think that the word reflected only applies to visible light.
2. Water vapor overpowers and negates anything that the measly 0.038% of CO2 in our atmosphere can do. If most of the greenhouse effect comes from the visible spectrum, and heat leads to more water vapor, and water vapor reflects visible spectrum back into space, then the earth will cool.
3. My phrase that everyone worships something is true. If you don't understand symbolic analogy, I cannot help you. The line between genius and retarded is very thin for many of you. Get a hold of your Aspergers and take a deep breath.
4. Green movements are mostly socialist movements. This isn't Rush Limbaughisms, this is truth. I'll give examples: The Green Party is as close to a socialist party as one can get. Earth day sprang from the hippie commune movements (commune ~= socialist/communist). The WWF, Sierra Club, and Greenpeace are all far left organizations. IMHO, this is clear as mud when you start looking into who is behind them and what they support.
5. High taxation is only a small part of socialism, nobody has said otherwise that I know of.
Obviously, nuclear energy is the way to go, that is, if you think the World is going to die otherwise from fossil fuel CO2.
How many of them do you want to see built?
In the U.S., a couple hundred of them should do the trick.
Where do you want 'em?
Earth day sprang from the hippie commune movements (commune ~= socialist/communist).
I don't think Gaylord Nelson, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, was a hippie.
Wikipedia:
The story goes that Earth Day was conceived by Senator Gaylord Nelson after a trip he took to Santa Barbara right after that horrific oil spill off our coast in 1969. He was so outraged by what he saw that he went back to Washington and passed a bill designating April 22 as a national day to celebrate the earth.
Any thoughts about Arbor Day?
Water vapor overpowers and negates anything that the measly 0.038% of CO2 in our atmosphere can do. If most of the greenhouse effect comes from the visible spectrum, and heat leads to more water vapor, and water vapor reflects visible spectrum back into space, then the earth will cool.
Quoting from How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic:
...any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.
And here's a study that says Water Vapor Feedback Is Rapidly Warming Europe.
Nope:
The Earth's surface absorbs this visible light and re-radiates it as IR. Some of the re-radiated IR heats up the atmosphere due to R absorption by greenhouse gases. You don't seem to understand this basic point.
Negates? What does the water do? Give off negative energy? Water and CO2 absorb in different IR bands. That's why there's a positive feedback.
If you don't understand the pretty basic physics of what is happening (and you obviously don't) you should try getting a better education.
You're killing me, seriously. Hollywood couldn't write this stuff.
"Clear as mud," that phrase, you use it, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
You're right though, that senator George Perkins was a real socialist. You've got that point going for you.
phat
CalGeorge: I'll take a few nuclear plants in my backyard. It's no problem. France has about 1 plant per million. We've got about 1 plant per 3 million. We simply have to go nuclear. I've about given up on alternative energy, although I am probably more energy efficient and alternative than 99.9% of people in the U.S.: I have no electricty in my house in the Summer. I heat with wood in the Winter and Summer, when needed. I can get all my hot water from wood for the major part of the year.
Look, you can't even get people to drive slower, which would conserve energy proportional to v squared. Driving at 50 mph uses 1/2 of the gas compared to driving at 70 mph.
Coal supplies about 50% of our electricity. If you want to get off coal and oil, you have to go nuclear.
Then the environmentalists want to tear down the hydroelectric dams, to save the Salmon, for example.
I say, give it up and go nuclear. I've been hearing and struggling with alt. energy and conservation for nearly 40 years, and I just don't think it's going to work, given energy demands and human nature.
No, David, CO2 absorbs infrared and at particular bandwidths only.
The different temperatures of the earth and sun mean that their black body radiation is at different frequencies also.
Furthermore, technically reflection occurs a the interface of two different media. If I recall correctly the boundary between space and our atmosphere is not sharp enough in relationship with the wavelengths involved for reflection to occur.
So what happens is that radition does enter the atmosphere and is absorbed by CO2 and reradiated. Half that reradiation continues in an earthward direction. So it does end up warming the atmosphere by some percent.
All that increasing CO2 does is move that net warming upwards in the atmosphere.
No, it's additive. Again, no reflection. In the case of visible light no absorption, reradition, or reflection.
Oh, please. Not everyone worships something. That's just silly. People may hold their beliefs dogmatically in this area but that doesn't mean they are worshiping them.
Well I've heard of analogy but why add the qualifier "symbolic". Why can't you help me, you not understand it yourself?
Well you see since I don't believe what you are claiming I'll take it that I'm one of your targets.
J. Peden, I'm neither pro nor antinuclear as many are, there are both good and bad arguments for nuclear, but here are some of my thoughts on what you've mentioned:
Nuclear power is expensive in this country and is currently highly subsidized by the government. What are you willing to pay in increased taxes (because the corporations won't let their subsidies lapse)? Are you willing to have the extremely radioactive waste stored in your back yard too? Fortunately there is some good research (science, wouldn't you know) going on regarding future designs that will fully deplete the radioactivity. Will be ready in perhaps 20-30 years was the estimate I heard.
Heating your house with wood is more harmful to the environment than using the power from natural gas (in particular) and coal-fired electricity (provided the power company is meeting its air emission permit requirements; this will be even more true when carbon sequestration is in place). Don't get me wrong, I'm no lover of coal, but I am a realist. Wood was fine at low world population levels, but not so much at those we have now. Fires, such as those recently in CA, are natural (usually), but also not particularly beneficial to human civilization and health. I must say though that I admire your intent to minimize your personal environmental impact.
With regard to driving, indeed people won't slow down very easily. Plus, do we really want our economy slowed down by delaying people and products? What we need in that regard are at least two things: 1) CAFE standards that force greatly improved fuel economy, 2) much better mass transit both within urban areas and between urban centers, 3) a reduction in urban sprawl to reduce the requisite travel distances; this would be accompanied by increasing the remediation/reuse of Brownfields in blighted and underused urban areas. OK, so I came up with three things rather than two.
Hydroelectric dams can't supply all our electrical needs, but dams can be designed to improve the situation for salmon runs, etc.
We could have bought massive amounts of oil from the middle east, Venezuela, etc., and, in the meantime, been making huge investments in massive solar, wind, tidal power, etc., with the trillion+ dollars we've spent in Iraq on nothing. Then we could have sold our technology to the rest of the world and helped rebuild our industrial/technological base.
Most scientists want to move forward on these and other similar fronts (I could have gone on); it is the Luddites, the neoconservatives, and the radical religiosos who are against change. This is because they fear everything except reality, which they do not understand due to their inane beliefs in phantom powers that rule everything. When one begins to accept such beliefs it damages one's judgment about virtually everything.
I'll take a few nuclear plants in my backyard.
Can we store the waste there, too? (I hope you don't live anywhere near me.)
Is there enough uranium available to power - for the long-term - all of these plants you want to build? I don't think so.
How amusing. Steve McIntyre and crew have one of the most important ideas of the 21st Century well in hand, and you, PZ, make jokes?
Soon, maybe next year, when it is obvious the globe is cooling, Steve will finally get credit.
====================================
Science Daily (Mar. 22, 2007)
Lack Of Fuel May Limit US Nuclear Power Expansion
That shortage of uranium and of processing facilities worldwide leaves a gap between the potential increase in demand for nuclear energy and the ability to supply fuel for it, said Dr. Thomas Neff, a research affiliate at MIT's Center for International Studies.
[...]
Currently, much of the uranium used by the United States is coming from mines in such countries as Australia, Canada, Namibia, and, most recently, Kazakhstan. Small amounts are mined in the western United States, but the United States is largely reliant on overseas supplies. The United States also relies for half its fuel on Russia under a "swords to ploughshares" deal that Neff originated in 1991. This deal is converting about 20,000 Russian nuclear weapons to fuel for U.S. nuclear power plants, but it ends in 2013, leaving a substantial supply gap for the United States.
Further, China, India, and even Russia have plans for massive deployments of nuclear power and are trying to lock up supplies from countries on which the United States has traditionally relied. As a result, the United States could be the "last one to buy, and it could pay the highest prices, if it can get uranium at all," Neff said. "The take-home message is that if we're going to increase use of nuclear power, we need massive new investments in capacity to mine uranium and facilities to process it."
I don't think we should be depending on nuclear to save us.
Soon, maybe next year, when it is obvious the globe is cooling, Steve will finally get credit.
Poor guy. Can't get no respect (except from a bunch of nuts).
I wonder why.
Kim, perhaps you'd care to make a bullet point summary in a post explaining McIntyre's "most important ideas of the 21st Century." I'm always open to alternative scientific explanations, provided they are truly scientific and not just repeated talking points and/or propaganda. Then those explanations have to be compared to the other lines of evidence within that same context and examined with respect to current and past measurements and predictability.
If this is merely going to be another "hockey stick was wrong" discussion, please go ahead and post the relevant points (bullets, remember) that are causing you so much aggravation, but you must be aware that there are lots of lines of evidence that have to be examined. Not just that one. Also, don't just start harping on taxes and Socialism; those are not the topics really. Broaden your scientific perspective please, if one certain type of descriptive statistical plot is your sole focus.
So what? Is anyone claiming that humans are ruining the environment by producing too much water vapor?
Dubious claims. What is too much and not enough mean? This is also misleading to the uninformed because it makes it sound like natural water vapor is a minor factor. It is not and it doesn't just "rain out". If it did then the claims of the next sentence would be moot.
A very poor attempt at trying to say that human contributions to water vapor don't matter in the extreme long run, which is absolutely true. Of course continuing contributions have an effect but are so tiny that they don't need to be considered.
Of course, no one cares about any of this. No one is talking about artificial water vapor concentrations having any important effect whatsoever. Everyone on the several sides of this issue are talking about natural water vapor, not artificial. So it's a straw man. Why waste our time.
Well, while it's true that water vapor in the atmosphere is exculsively a greenhouse gas this is only a half truth in that increased water vapor may mean increased cloud cover which does reflect insolation. Water in the atmosphere is better thought of as a buffer gas, like sodium bicarbonate is a buffer for PH.
Of course, increased CO2 is going to cause increased temps all other things being equal. There is no mechanism for it not to. The question is how important human contribution is, and whether the economic hardships caused by any attempt to abate the changes are worth it.
If temps would have increased by 5 degrees anyway and we can change that to 4.98 degrees while destroying our economies then what's the point? Further, if after the 5 degree increase the temperature was due to decrease by 10 degrees as we exited the interglacial then maybe the increased CO2 might be a good thing.
What certain is that superhurricane, mega droughts, and tidal waves aren't going to destroy the country. Like the movie "The Day After Tomorrow". I'm still pissed that this movie got my mom all upset over nothing. She called me because she thought this was based on science. I had to tell her it was nonsense. It required quite a bit of explaining that made certain scientists look quite bad.
Some people seem to think that any lie and any behavior is moral for a good cause. I just happen to think this kind of thinking is foolish.
Yes, it's quite probable that human action is having an upward effect on temperature. No, it's not the end of the world. No, trying to limit our consumption of oil etc. will not reduce oil consumption in total. Simple economic fact. It will merely raise our production costs which will just restructure the economy so that others who don't restrict their consumption will pick up the slack and use the oil instead. Of course, now in a less efficient manner since they are not as capitalized as we are. If you don't understand that then all I can say is get educated.
I don't understand why some people can understand when Dawkins explains mechanisms that undermine group selection, like migration and mutation, but cannot then understand mechanisms that undermine socialistic policy prescriptions. Often to the extent that they are totally ineffectual.
It requires guns and military and economic might to enforce reduced oil consumption on the unwilling. Those things tend to be less effective when you are rolling around on bicycles instead of tanks, and living hand to mouth instead of in prosperity. How do those who advocate reduced consumption plan to force this on the unwilling without increased oil consumption? War is a costly thing, and who's going to police broke energy treaties?
First step is you have to honestly convince people there is such a serious problem, and you've failed at that step. Then you have to overcome human nature, but to try to do so might cause more carbon emmissions than just doing nothing.
I haven't read the last 100 comments... I'm just saying:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/sokald.php
Also, at the present speed of consumption (or rather at the speed of a few years ago), there's enough uranium for the next 60 years, and of course the speed of consumption is supposed to increase drastically. Either people figure out how to make a viable brood reactor, or nuclear energy won't last much longer than the oil.
We need alternatives anyway. We might as well invest real money into the research now.
Therein lies the rub. We have no idea on what the "economic hardships" would actually be.
Many of them would be an investment anyway. Better insulation for buildings means lower costs for heating and cooling, with lower CO2 emissions as a nice side effect.
ChemBob, a simple idea, really. That carbon is not the culprit.
Have you read Gerlich and Tscheuschner? Or are you too busy with taxes and socialism?
===========================
David,
A big "So what?". You don't think there are idiot environmentalists out there who are suckers? Remember the "Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide" scam. I'm well aware that Rush Limbaugh is not a source for good science. I abhor his tactics as much as I do those on the left.
Oh, sorry, CB, I note you asked for alternative explanations. It's clouds, my dear man, which are determined by cosmic rays, determined by the earth's magnetic field, determined by that of the sun, determined by the wiggle of the sun around the gravitational center of the solar system. Google Svensmark, and CERN.
I think I've never heard so loud,
The quiet message in a cloud.
=========================
Broaden my perspective. Hah, he wants me to broaden my perspective. Honey, if my perspective were any broader it would be so thin as to disappear.
==================================
And listen, childe, if you continue to sacrifice my virgins for your superstitions, there are gonna be consequences. Everytime the Gorebellied Fool opens his mouth, somewhere something sentient freezes. Not good karma, me boy.
=================================
@Chembob #762
I read the 1st 3 pages of that paper and encountered nothing but an apparently neverending rant against the IPCC with only a mention of the "bad" data. It was nothing but an industry propaganda piece and I'd be stunned if it had ever been impartially peer-reviewed. The author wants to address bias and begins with complete bias on his part. FYI, real scientic journal articles are not written in that format. It was written for people exactly like you, the sort who think that Limbaugh and O'Reilly actually do research and present their viewers with facts. You need to broaden your science reading to include actual science.
In all fairness, you should read the whole paper, instead of starting to rant and dismiss it as a piece of propaganda because it does not fit your believe-system.
Check the references, point out where the author is wrong, substantiate your allegations.
And please refrain from stupid remarks like:
"It was written for people exactly like you, the sort who think that Limbaugh and O'Reilly actually do research and present their viewers with facts. You need to broaden your science reading to include actual science."
It makes you look stupid, not me.
@Kim #811
I think I've never heard so loud,
The quiet message in a cloud.
GREAT!
What certain is that superhurricane, mega droughts, and tidal waves aren't going to destroy the country.
Water shortages will have a significant impact.
In California, we are going to lose a lot of the storage that happens in the Sierras.
From a California DWR report:
The ability of the SWP and the CVP to meet the water demands of its customers and the environment depends heavily on the accumulation of winter mountain snow melting into spring and summer runoff. A warming planet may reduce this natural water storage mechanism. Projected increases in air temperature may lead to changes in the timing, amount and form of precipitation - rain or snow, changes in runoff timing and volume, sea level rise effects on Delta water quality, and changes in the amount of irrigation water needed due to modified evapotranspiration rates.
I'm thankful that planners in California are working on these climate-related problems so that people will not face shortages in future.
Thank goodness they don't have the cavalier attitude that you bring to the subject of climate change.
What do you mean by "global mean temperature anomaly"? I'm talking about the global mean annual temperature.
For the speed of the warming, I don't have references, because that's the first time I see someone doubting it. But I'm sure a few hours in realclimate.org must find something.
Yes, but it isn't your ignorance. It is the fact that water vapor condenses and rains out. CO2 doesn't do that.
If it got so hot that it wouldn't rain anymore, we would have a runaway greenhouse effect. But making it that hot isn't easy. 55 million years ago, the poles had a subtropical climate, and there still was no runaway greenhouse effect.
(Ah, Indonesia too?)
Yes, there are lots of huge coal-seam fires in China, and their combined emissions are impressive. I agree they should be put out.
Politically it would be, of course. Technically it doesn't seem to be; many are huge. Small ones are being put out in China all the time.
On the other hand, I have yet to see evidence that putting them out alone would have a sufficiently large effect.
I also wonder where your "revamp the whole economic system" strawman comes from. We "merely" need to find a substitute for oil.
Argument form ignorance. Science consists of testing hypotheses. Against what? Against reality.
Ever seen a university from the inside?
Argument from ignorance. The mosquitos were already evolving resistance. Keeping on spraying would have killed the non-resistant ones and would have left the resistant ones to spread completely unchecked. Restricting the spraying made the competitive disadvantages of the resistant ones visible.
Also, never mind the fact that many countries have never outlawed DDT completely. It's still being used in plenty of places, even though not on such large scales. Yet again we have an ignoramus who believes there's no difference between the USA and the world (and can't even read Wikipedia, let alone the sources it cites).
Wrong. Go back to reading.
You are right on that one. You have overlooked that since the late 80s no serious climatologists believed that the next ice age would come soon. All evidence that ever existed for it was 1) the tiny cooling of the 70s and 80s, which was due to sulfur dioxide emissions, and 2) mistakes about the durations of previous interglacials.
No. If the CO2 concentration had never increased above preindustrial values, the next ice age would start in 50,000 years and have a glacial maximum in 100,000 years. I posted the reference about 100 comments above this one.
That's diplomacy for you. "Politics is the art of the feasible".
It's also hypocrisy for you. Coal fires included, the US emissions are still way above those of China.
Incidentally, a few years ago China introduced fuel economy standards for cars that were higher than those the USA had at the same time. I don't know what has changed since... I do know that by European standards a large part of US cars would have to be taken off the road, and yet we still survive on this side of the Big Pond, somehow.
Hey, look, an argument from ignorance. How unusual!
1) Much of the sun's output is in the short-wave IR range where CO2 doesn't absorb.
2) That's right: it doesn't reflect, it absorbs. In the process it heats up, and then it distributes the heat to neighboring air molecules by ordinary heat conduction.
What do you mean "overpowers and negates"? Water vapor is ephemeral. Evaporation and condensation happen all the time, and in different places. CO2 is distributed evenly in space and time -- except that it started increasing over time in the late 19th century and has been doing so at an accelerated rate lately. Water vapor concentrations depend much more on temperature than the other way around.
Water vapor doesn't reflect anything. When it condenses, giving off the heat it took up in evaporation, it forms clouds, and those reflect light and IR. That works in both directions, which means that the effect of clouds on the climate is quite complicated and depends on things like height and time of day. But it is included at apparently sufficient complexity in the latest climate models, including those used in the latest IPCC report.
If you don't know the difference between socialism and communism, go read, and then come back...
BTW, I'm not aware of any country with an "Earth Day" other than the USA. And I live in two countries where one of the two biggest parties calls itself "Social-Democratic" and is mighty proud of that.
For each temperature, air has a certain capacity of water vapor. Stay under it, and there'll be evaporation; reach it, and you'll see condensation. Don't tell me you didn't know that.
Indeed not. It's only the end of Bangladesh, if it goes far enough. (Never mind southern Florida etc. etc. etc..)
You wish. The oil is running out anyway, and its market price keeps increasing. In a few decades at the latest we'll need alternatives anyway.
To all the libertarians out there: What would you spend your money on if it wasn't taken for carbon emissions reductions? A bigger car? Some nice jewellery? Seriously, fuck off, you're lucky you have a roof over your head and food on the table, you childish swine.
Which one?
Sure there are. For the record, there are also outright communistic environmentalists (not many, though -- remember that communism was about "the primacy of the economy" and meant heavy industry by "economy"). I just don't see what that tells about the reality of AGW.
Ah yeah. That was a very nice idea. What a shame it was wrong.
(That's not the last word either. Search that blog for "cosmic rays" and you'll find more.)
So what? What do I care about Gore? I haven't seen his movie -- there's nothing new in it as far as I can tell. No suprise, because Gore isn't a climatologist.
Thank you, jepe. I've been posting that couplet for years, back when I thought water vapor could be both a positive or a negative feedback depending on circumstances, and before I'd even heard about cosmic rays. Your's is the first favorable comment. Perhaps it is a couplet whose time has come.
===============================
DM. please don't give me RealCllimate. That is the echo chamber. And you, my good sir, are out of date about cosmic rays.
=========================
Hint, I suspect that cosmic rays come only in one flavor and energy level at RealClimate. Really.
================================
It requires guns and military and economic might to enforce reduced oil consumption on the unwilling.
Does this means that legislating higher fuel economy standards isn't on your list of possible solutions?
Oh great, Gore is not a climatologist, the Piltdown Mann is not a statistician. So, why the fuck do you believe these guys? The temperature is static for ten years while carbon dioxide rises. Do you not recognize the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy? Might not it be coincidental the late 20th Century rise in temperature with the rise in CO2?
Look at the facts, folks. We are cooling. Explain that with greenhouse warming from carbon dioxide.
=========================
First of all, I don't listen to Al Gore, I listen to climatologists who say the Earth is warming.
Second, the climatologists are using a technique called logical abduction, or inference to the best explaination. Look it up.
Third, you're a stupid troll and you deserve to be shot. Good day.
@Kim #820
Your's is the first favorable comment. Perhaps it is a couplet whose time has come.
From what I have observed here on Pharyngula you won't get much approval from PZ Myers acolytes. In their mindset the science is settled, so all AGW skeptics must be stupid.
And because the science is settled they don't have to examine disproving evidence: they disqualify it beforehand as Chembob illustrated.
That's not a true scientific attitude but a religious one.
JePe wrote: From what I have observed here on Pharyngula you won't get much approval from PZ Myers acolytes.
And yet you keep coming here spouting your ignorant nonsense. Unbelievable.
tomh wrote:
And yet you keep coming here spouting your ignorant nonsense. Unbelievable.
If that's the only reply you can produce, you have proved my point!
Onias, you deserve a look at the evidence. climateaudit.org in case you missed something.
=========================
Kim and JePe... Are you kidding me? We have tag teaming trolls now?
Take it to your echo chamber please. CA misses you. We will not.
There's no evidence there, just pedantic quibbling.
JePe and Kim,
I don't have time to read the article(s) at this point and trust me when I say that real scientific papers DO NOT begin with the first three pages as a political indictment of those with whom they disagree on the meanings of the data (as per JePe's article).
If you bothered to read my other posts, I stated quite clearly that I'm certain there ARE mistakes in portions of the climate science data and analysis, but those have to be considered in the context of the preponderance of the evidence. That is what science is all about, testing and refining or rejecting hypotheses. It is pointless anyway to argue over this aspect of a cloud or that aspect of a cosmic ray. Our brains (at least mine) can't possibly integrate all the possible combinations of atmospheric circumstances and derive probabilities. That is why real practicing climate scientists are working ceaselessly to develop and refine computer simulations and models of these data. That is why I asked both you and Kim for bullet points salient to your arguments from these papers that you toss about and how those points would overwhelm the data which indicate otherwise.
I just don't have any more time for this, so I will argue from authority knowing full well that is what I'm doing. Sometimes it is better to pay attention to an authority than a layperson and I suspect that is considerably more true when something like 99% of said authorities are in 90% statistical agreement about a topic.
I am a Senior Project Scientist and Project Manager for a corporation (gasp!) that assists other corporations, government agencies, even Native American tribes with environmental issues that they might encounter. My specialty is not climatology but, rather, soils, ground water and surface water, in particular with regard to contaminant transport, fate, and remediation. In prior parts of my career 35 year career I've worked with some of the smartest people imaginable, both at USEPA and within the US national laboratory system (Los Alamos in particular). I don't have the time to waste with you (I've already terribly overdone it) unless you or your heroes have some sort of actual credibility on these issues and, so far, I've seen nothing but misunderstanding, incomplete or just plain incorrect comprehension of the facts, no awareness of how these facts can be assembled into testable models, and arguments from non-authority. In fact, forget it, I just don't have time to spend on you anymore.
If you are really, truly interested in climatology and the intersection of science and politics, I strongly urge both (and the others of you) to go back to school and enroll in graduate programs that will allow you to study and develop theses in these areas of your interest. Perhaps you will change your minds, or perhaps you will confirm what you currently believe and then you can write the real scientific papers that will correct the current wrongs that you perceive; but either way you will learn a lot and you are bound to find it a rewarding experience.
Good luck, good lives, and good bye.
Well, PZ was feeling cranky, but we're just getting cranked up.
The evidence? tinyurl.com/2szwh8 Untechnical enough for those intimidated by the scientific gravitas of climateaudit.org.
=============================
Well... that was fun. for a time.
It really reminds me of some aruments I have had with Creationsists only less civil.
But I really don't have time to banter with such closed minds.
I would really suggest that anyone with an open mind do a little broader search for information.
Try researching the history of this little cult movement.
I am old enough to have lived through the begining of it.
What you find will shake your fervent beliefs to their core.
But it won't matter the least in the long run since it is all just about over now anyway.
A couple more years and sanity will again return.
If we can just keep the zealots from blowing the budget on nonsence in the mean time we will be OK.
ChemBob, you argue eloquently for the democratic theory of science. A consensus, you say. Well, if Steve is wrong, why does it take a multitude to show it?
==============================
What about "fuck off" do you guys not get?
We don't care about your little denialist quibbling arguments.
"And although McIntyre never explicitly states that he doubts AGW in general, he's definitely doing it a disservice by focusing so narrow-mindedly on some errors in a study that don't even significantly effect the outcome of said study!"
One last comment. I won't be looking here for any replies. If you really have something intelligent to say then e-mail me. I'm sure PZ would be glad to give it to you. For those whose minds still need to be flushed, by all means repeat F-O as often as necessary. Just be aware I won't know it.
There clearly seems to be a great deal of confusion between effect and cause in this blog.
EFFECT: Is there Global Warming (GW)? Sure looks like it. Still the evidence should be examined with caution. Climate is clearly cyclical. It wasn't all that long ago that there were dire warnings of a coming Ice Age (If-We-Continue-As-We-Are-Currently). Sound familiar? That evaporated and the lyrics changed when the temperatures began swinging the other way. There is no reason to not believe this could happen again.
CAUSE: Is Man causing GW (called AGW)? The cute answer is: only if it's spelled "Mann." A more serious answer is: maybe but there doesn't seem to be any evidence.
The reason for continued focus on the HS is largely due to the fact it is continually trotted out as evidence for AGW even though it's been discredited. Why is that?
For example, Al Gore's film used a graphic from Thompson presumably as proof that MBH99 is correct. Funny thing is a) Thompson's graphic used z-score values of an oxygen isotope, which is not normally associated with temperature; b) the title of the graph was changed to "Northern Hemisphere Temperature" but was otherwise unchanged; c) the rightmost part of MBH99 was grafted onto Thompson's; and d) hilarious, but unimportant, the scale of the Y-axis was reversed so the graph was implying severe Global Cooling! For those thinking this little piece of clip-art proves anything, it doesn't. MBH99 is being used to prove the correctness of MBH99.
So, what's wrong with the HS?
1) it contains a serious mathematical error -- top U.S. statisticians concur with this assessment,
2) the error forces the output to a HS shape -- most evident when fed red noise.
In the light of (1) and (2), how exactly then is the result unaffected? (2) in particular says the HS will tend to appear regardless of input. Because of the constant referral to the HS by AGW folks, it is necessary to re-issue that litany of errors. Most everyone I know also regards this as tiresome.
You'd think the AGW proponents would present their BEST evidence. What are they doing? Presenting garbage and keeping the BEST close to their chests awaiting to pounce in the future? C'mon already!
Again I ask, where is the evidence for AGW (as opposed to GW)? Why is it not being used to forward the AGW cause instead of the HS? Occam's Razor leads to believing it doesn't exist.
It's fascinating to see how the minds of trolls like kim and JePe are wired for following people and not ideas or data.
They're here to defend their cult leaders, while squaring off against those they perceive to be leaders in the other tribe like PZ or Al Gore.
They even keep bringing up this science=religion nonsense, which reveals that at the most fundamental level, they just don't get it. They seem incapable of understanding how independent minds can argue and come to conclusions based on observation and data rather than faith and followership.
Thus, every scientific argument gets hopelessly mangled as it passes through the lens of their perception. While this is amusing to watch -- at least for a while -- it's also infuriating. (For example, it's sobering to think that these cretins vote and influence policy.)
But now, they've just become tiring, trying to make up with mouth what they lack in brains, continuously trolling with their insults, high-school debate tactics, and feeble attempts at argument.
Besides, even if they were receptive to argument, they seem incapable of correctly processing it. Their minds operate on a different plane. Their intellectual stimulation comes from the mechanics and tactics of argument, not the knowledge that comes from the correct use of it. Engaging dimwits like JePe and kim on the scientific merits is hopeless.
I hope they're disemvoweled soon.
When I follow threads like these, I always get depressed about the future of our world. I start walking around town and thinking that maybe the person who just passed me is a denialist troll on Pharyngula; sure, the guy looks normal in real life, but what if when he goes home he repeatedly posts spam on science blogs for fun? It's unnerving.
Oh, let me add DAV as Exhibit 3 to my earlier post about the denialist focus on people and authorities rather than data or methodology. Just pick a paragraph at random from 837 and see what you can find...
Steve_C: I'll second that.
The tar pit is still working, I see.
wh dnt ll f th plpl hr jst f 'n d?
stpd fkrs, whnl bbs, whhhh, wnt r mlk?
fgs
N mr srs nt, s m d
And God so loved the world, he fucked them up the ass with stupid ideas of his gay little kid.
Seriously, fuck you.
"I raped God's mom in the mouth, and I read Climate Audit."
Yes, indeed.
You fucking retarded faggots.
Suck dick, eat shit, go to Hell.
Your nonsense will be proven in time, so until then, suck my left tit until the right one gets jealous.
Yours in faith
KB
Coming back to something mentioned above:
"No,as you say, water vapor is in fact a much greater greenhouse gas - much greater than CO2, given the same molecular/atomic mechanisms, and concentrations. So the more relevant question, perhaps, is why we have not had run-away atmospheric warming due to water vapor physics.
Something is stopping it."
As I understand the way it works, water vapour is not part of direct Enhanced Warming(that is, excluding the proposed feedback mechanisms). The IR bands are pretty well closed in the Troposphere. That is what stops run-away warming due to water vapour as a greenhouse gas.
If there is a direct Enhanced Greenhouse Effect (and I phrase that as a question) it would be due to the accumulation of CO2 in the cold, dry stratosphere.
Water vapor uses a lot of energy to change to a liquid. Fucking so what.
The globe is warming! It's warming and people caused it! Wake up! Get your head of the the sand! We MUST do something about it! We have to SAVE the environment!!
I suggest we drop nuclear weapons on China, India, Iran and Poland, turn them into sheets of glass, and bomb the rain forest for a few months, light that baby on fire, fuck yeah!
Yours in faith
KB
Wow. I wish I could check the referrer logs for this site so I could see where THAT one came from...
"My phrase that everyone worships something is true."
Even granting you the enormous boon of assuming that you know what you're talking about, your "phrase" is still only true in the rhetorical sense (which is apparently all you're good at, what with the way you keep trying to scare us with the socialist bogeyman). And, of course, based on an extremely tortured definition of the term "worship". And when you get right down to it, all you're really saying is that anyone's devotion to anything (science, political movments, justice, etc.) is as blind and stupid and debasing as your devotion to the Phantasm in the Sky. Better be careful with those double-edged swords.
"their great noble cause to save the world will be shown to be nothing more than a devious political scam."
Okay, a scam...for what? Speaking fees? Research funding? Seriously, there are a great many easier ways to scam money out of people that require far less coordination of thousands of colleagues in every part of the world and pay out way more in money and power.
Yeah, bye bye Gary, keep adjusting that tinfoil hat.
Does anyone here play NFL Fantasy Football?
Can you believe Westbrook today?
I wonder if this has become the longest thread on Pharyngula (and this my first and only post on it)?
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house."
Sastra, I wouldn't be surprised. Looks to me like a semi-coordinated attack, attempted saturation-bombing, coming here just to muck it up. It's got all the hallmarks of an infestation
It's amazing anybody would bother after the first several hundred comments just to root out the rats. Got to wonder if it's tenacity or just folks in search of a life. "Pest and Vermin Control." Honorable living, that. Except that the concentration of feeders draws more of them. What a way to spend precious time.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Fucking creationists' tune never changes. Maybe it's the irrationalism associated with faith that makes them believe they're prophets?
Actually, the demented-fuckwit apocalyptic thread was longer than this one. Thanks to the persistent spamming of Alexander Vargas, we managed to get to almost 1000 comments; I think we stopped at 993. It looks like this thread won't break the record though.
Tinyurl.com/2szwh8
You got responses like reasoning humans or insults like savages?
================================
Sure, it might argued that intelligent response is a waste of time. I wouldn't think so but then I've never been here before. After seeing some of the posts I can now see what that might mean.... Thanks for providing more evidence for what I initially suspected....Not a science blog either from the looks of it....I was kinda hoping they were wrong and decided to see for myself. Seems they were right, though.
Don't worry your little brain over it, sweetie. I'm not sticking around. I really don't need to be stepping in what comes out of your mouths.
Bye, Bye, kids!
Oh dear, PZ and the rest of us are all so devastated that yet another clueless moronic arrogant troll showed up, blathered about this not being a science blog, and then departed. (How many is that, now?)
I won't be looking here for any replies. If you really have something intelligent to say then e-mail me. I'm sure PZ would be glad to give it to you. For those whose minds still need to be flushed, by all means repeat F-O as often as necessary. Just be aware I won't know it.
How do people this stupid get this arrogant?
When he gets no email, will he conclude that it's because no one here has anything intelligent to say? Most likely.
I've come to the conclusion that Steve McIntyre's favorite activity is harassing people.
Every other post is about how he was denied information from someone.
"This the 39th email in my correspondence with Science..."
"After about 26 emails and nearly 10 months, Crowley provided by email..."
"I sent several emails to the Bureau of Meteorology this year..."
"I've requested information through an email (this will be my 3rd request)..."
By now, I bet everyone has him in their spam filter.
Yes, it's quite probable that human action is having an upward effect on temperature. No, it's not the end of the world. No, trying to limit our consumption of oil etc.
The debate is about AGW; if you concede that you concede everything; talk about how we should respond is a red herring. You're acting no differently from those who complain that evolution leads to eugenics or a godless purposeless world -- the social consequences of the answer to an empirical question have no bearing on the answer.
Soon, maybe next year, when it is obvious the globe is cooling, Steve will finally get credit.
I wonder if Steve "I've never claimed to be a denialist" McIntyre knows that his moronic fans are representing him as that and then some.
"And very much responsible for millions of deaths in Aftrica from malaria."
Oh, fer crying out loud, not this bullshit topic!
You people are sponges for all kinds of wacko theories!
Sooner or later these ignorant nutjobs show their true colors. I wonder if McIntyre knows how CA is being represented here. If he did, do you suppose he would "audit" any of their blatant errors?
1. The sun emits a lot more infrared than visible spectrum. Go look it up. More CO2 would mean more heat emitted back into space.
2. CO2 traps heat, which causes evaporation, which causes clouds to form, which causes visible spectrum to be reflected back into space, which means less visible spectrum to be converted into heat by CO2.
3. I cannot believe that so many smart people on this thread cannot see that everyone has a religion of some sort. Everyone worships something. Think of the term "idolize." Where do you think it comes from? If money drives you more than anything, then you worship money, etc. Who cares if you don't physically go to some literal temple, the result is the same. Quit being bigots.
4. Yes, I know the difference between Communism and Socialism. Hitler was a Socialist, Stalin was a Communist. They both shared a lot in common for being such enemies. My point was that some Hippie communes were Marxist/Maoist, others were more Socialist. And before you start babbling about how Hitler was a Fascist, I must explain that Fascism was nothing more than socialism + dictatorship + strong nationalism. The first earth day was in San Francisco in 1970, if that doesn't tell you enough.
Aha!
Source Watch:
McIntyre does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.
I has a feeling there was something funny going on with those articles I was coming across on the denialist blogs!
Bogus people publishing bogus articles in bogus journals.
I'm sure you of all people can understand such rhetorical schemes as our entire conversation went: A slam and an argument, an argument and a slam, etc.
I understand that this is a red herring; you said that "My comment was of course in reply to your off base misinterpritation of my post" -- that is, you justified your personal attack as a reply to what was an attack on your position.
I cannot believe that so many smart people on this thread cannot see that everyone has a religion of some sort.
It's no surprise that a stupid person doesn't understand the thought processes of smart people.
as much as 50% appear to be the spambot Machine telling everybody to effoff.
And these morons pass themselves off as statisticians?
P.S.
It's amusing how these moronic trolls can't grasp context; the topic of this thread is: "So bugger off, denialists."
Not a pretty picture (Physorg.com, Oct. 22, 2007):
Human activities are releasing carbon dioxide faster than ever, while the natural processes that normally slow its build up in the atmosphere appear to be weakening. These conclusions are drawn in a new study in the early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, October 22-26. The report states that "together, these effects characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected climate forcing sooner than expected."
Between 2000 to 2006, human activities such as burning fossil fuels, manufacturing cement, and tropical deforestation contributed an average of 4.1 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere each year, yielding an annual growth rate for atmospheric carbon dioxide of 1.93 parts per million (ppm).
"This is the highest since the beginning of continuous monitoring in 1959," states the report. The growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide is significantly larger than those for the 1980s and 1990s, which were 1.58 and 1.49 ppm per year, respectively. The present atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 381 ppm, the largest concentration in the last 650,000 years, and probably in the last 20 million years.
While the worldwide acceleration in carbon dioxide emissions had been previously noted, the current analysis provides insights into its causes. "The new twist here is the demonstration that weakening land and ocean sinks are contributing to the accelerating growth of atmospheric CO2," says co-author Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology.
Changes in wind patterns over the Southern Ocean resulting from human-induced global warming have brought carbon-rich water toward the surface, reducing the ocean's ability to absorb excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On land, where plant growth is the major mechanism for drawing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, large droughts have reduced the uptake of carbon.
Emissions from the burning of fossil fuels constituted the largest source of anthropogenic carbon, releasing an average of 7.6 billion metric tons each year between 2000 and 2006, a significant jump from 6.5 billion tons in the 1990s. Emissions generated by land-use changes such as deforestation have remained constant, but shifted in geographic focus.
Oh yeah? So why don't they mention the hockey stick?
So, CalGeorge, with the CO2 continuing to rise, why has the temperature not risen for the last ten years?
=====================================
#868, may I paraphrase your characterization of the theme of this thread as 'lalalalalala'?
=====================================================
It isn't up to me how you demonstrate your cluelessness, kim. But lalalalalala is as good a response to your type as any.
So you are smarter than me. That happens to be the case with geniuses who develop the technology I purvey to the masses. It's never ceases to amaze me how you brainiacs consistently step on you dicks when it comes to closing a deal. If you would just focus your energy on delivering a practical solution while checking your ego at the door, perhaps we may get on with solving this "crisis".
For all the brilliance you profess with self-accolade, the hubris that begets blindness to your severe lack of intuition is glaring. It's as if you are totally unaware that the meathead bouncer letting all hot chicks and the hipster taglongs into the bar ahead of you doesn't sense you are mocking him while you doddle at the velvet ropes in your Members Only jacket.
Emergency or not, we can all benefit from the ultimate result of a workable solution (e.g. alternative sustainable energy taking the place of fossil fuels). So all of you Titans of Science, please stop wasting your gifts and energy conjuring verbal thunderbolts to hurl at us mortals, and go create something useful to save us. At least Chicken Little got of his ass to do something after he rang the alarm bell.
You give something I can sell and I'll do just that...perhaps you'll even get rich saving the planet. There may be hope of getting you in the VIP room yet.
Can you believe Manning with 6 interceptions tonight???...must have been the heat in San Diego. Gotta be global warming.
I noticed. Now read the linked Tinyurl.
=======================
A shocking suggestion, SM. Why would you want to foul up the earth's natural regulatory mechanisms, like the sun, the water, and the wind, by deriving significant amounts of energy from them in untraditional ways? Google Boedelle Depression and contemplate what wind farms in Africa would do to the Amazon Basin.
================================
Temps globally and in the U.S. appear to be going up, up, yp!
Oh, I forgot, the evil people at NASA put this together, never mind.
Please explain what's wrong with this one.
Or this one.
Or this one.
The trends are pretty clear.
All available here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Words don't mean whatever you want them to, David. But if I am to take you at your retarded point, then fine. I worship science and the biota of the planet I live on. You appear to worship the burning of fossil fuels. Big deal.
I cannot believe that so many smart people on this thread cannot see that everyone has a religion of some sort.
It's no surprise that a stupid person doesn't understand the thought processes of smart people.
It was smart of you to understand your own shortcomings. You did not have to point them out to everyone though.
As far as I am concerned your all fiddling while Rome's burning. That's why us salesfolk play so much golf...because we are waiting for the geniuses to deliver something that can actually be sold. We may not have all the brains, but we know when were getting should on by the geniuses who know better. screw you too truth machine. Why don't you shut your pie hole until you can change your moniker to something like reality machine or inventor of the millenium; and do so with straight face.
Now excuse me while I go sell something, that will put food on the table of the employees and secure the pensions of institutional investors (of which many of you will benefit) of my employer.
SM, Pebble Beds. Learn Chinese first.
=======================
It was smart of you to understand your own shortcomings. You did not have to point them out to everyone though.
You are the one who said you couldn't believe that smart people think what they think, moron -- thus they are your self-confessed shortcomings, and you here prove your stupidity yet again.
Gerard Roe, recently:
"Some warming is a virtual certainty, but the amount of that warming is much less certain."
"We already know about as much as we are going to about climate system's response to greenhouse gases. We already have the basis for making the decisions we need to make."
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14155
End of story!
Sales Machine seems nearly as deranged as JohnS.
End of story!
But he doesn't mention the hockey stick, so there's no global warming, nanananana.
Rey, my point was about bigotry.
I am all for not putting anything excess into the atmosphere or environment if at all possible (or feasible). I just don't agree that man has caused the earth's global temperature to rise. We give ourselves way too much credit. I think that it is an ego thing.
I don't mind government regulation of pollution in general. Neither does anyone who I know. That does not mean that I am for "progressive" solutions. The free market is already developing solutions as we speak. All it needed was the current incentives (higher oil prices, higher customer demand for alternative energy, etc.).
CG, the precautionary principle is a useful precaution, but only if the science stands. Did you read the Tinyurl I referenced, or the G&T article debunking the IPCC's conception of the Greenhouse Gas Effect? Why has the temperature of the earth not risen for the last ten years while the CO2 levels continued to rise?
=============================================
It was smart of you to understand your own shortcomings. You did not have to point them out to everyone though.
You are the one who said you couldn't believe that smart people think what they think, moron -- thus they are your self-confessed shortcomings, and you here prove your stupidity yet again.
I was being figurative, but judging by your statements, you don't know what that is. Either way, you don't have to get your underwear in a bunch just because I turned your statement around on you.
In the middle of laughing my self sick over Sales Machine, I noticed my wallet was empty, and I have no idea what he sold me.
=======================================
I just don't agree that man has caused the earth's global temperature to rise.
It doesn't matter what an obvious ignoramus and idiot thinks.
We give ourselves way too much credit. I think that it is an ego thing.
Which shows what you're a moron you are. It's an empirical science thing. We don't believe that "The present atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 381 ppm, the largest concentration in the last 650,000 years" because we give ourselves way too much credit, we believe it because that's what the evidence shows.
I was being figurative
You were being stupid, and you continue to be. Even your fellow denialists think you're an idiot.
You were being stupid, and you continue to be. Even your fellow denialists think you're an idiot.
Wow, you must still be reeling. Sit down and take an aspirin.
Ah, CG, I just noticed your post #877. If you'll look closely at those graphs you'll see a flattening of the curve around ten years ago, which diverges from the continued upward slope of carbon dioxide concentration. That shouldn't happen if CO2 is the culprit.
=============================================
It's an empirical science thing.
Yes, and so was the whole "hormone replacement therapy for hot flashes" thing. How many women were given death sentences? Yes Virginia, your god failed you.
How many times have you been told that being overweight is bad? A recent study just said that being a little overweight is actually good. Now if they cannot even get this right (and they can study people directly), how on earth do you think they are going to get climate science right? Yes Virginia, your god failed you.
Climate science relies heavily on interpretation of proxies, bad statistics, inadequate computer models, thousands of variables, and poor peer review. It is very much in its infancy. I definitely don't put my full trust in the studies, at least not yet.
The warmers will be driven to distraction as the divergence between global temperature and CO2 levels continues to increase, as it does daily.
================
I have to admit that David is even more stupid than I could have imagined.
That shouldn't happen if CO2 is the culprit.
And kim is no brighter.
Ad homs are a sign of a losing argument, tm. What about his last paragraph about the mess in climate science?
===========================
So, Bright One, why does CO2 continue to climb and the temperature stall out around the turn of the century?
===============================
I don't mind government regulation of pollution in general. Neither does anyone who I know. That does not mean that I am for "progressive" solutions. The free market is already developing solutions as we speak. All it needed was the current incentives (higher oil prices, higher customer demand for alternative energy, etc.).
Yeah. Like Green SUVs. Great technology. A whopping 22 mpg for the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid.
Woohoo! Technology! Way to go!
That's real progress.
My Honda got 35 mpg in 1987, but hey, no worries, technology will see us through!
Forget Hondas, CG, what about temperatures? See them flatten? What's next? Global temperature cycles.
=============================================
Ad homs are a sign of a losing argument, tm.
We've been through this many times in this thread, moron. That was an insult, not an ad hominem, and insults aren't any sort of sign about what arguments are valid. Sometimes something is so stupid, such as implying that there's a strict relation between CO2 levels and global temperature, or implying that because someone somewhere said something that isn't true that somehow empirical evidence of CO2 levels is irrelevant, that there is no better response than to ridicule the idiot who offers it. It is obvious to any halfway intelligent person that you and David are idiots; that you think that me saying so somehow loses some argument further demonstrates it -- my written words don't have the power to change the empirical facts.
We have less than 100 to go. With the help of our latest, and perhaps stupidest, trolls kim and David we be able to make the target sometime tomorrow. See ya later.
P.S.
Change in average global temperature, 1987-1997: 0.22 degrees C
Change in average global temperature, 1997-2007: 0.21 degrees C
Thanks for the useful lesson in insults, tm. Now would you care to address the science. It bugs you that CO2 is rising and temps are not, doesn't it? CG at least attempted to bring evidence rather than insults.
I'll alter my previous comment. Insults are a sign of a losing argument.
It's obvious to me that it will take more than a thousand comments to convince some of you. Will a cooling globe convince you? Look around. Carefully. We are no longer heating at the rate from the seventies to the nineties. Why not?
=================================
Did you look at CG's curves, tm? I'm dubious about your figures.
===================================
Yeah. Like Green SUVs. Great technology. A whopping 22 mpg for the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid.
Battery technology has not advanced much because science has not advanced much in this area. Blame it on your god, science. It isn't because people haven't poured money into developing better batter technology either.
my written words don't have the power to change the empirical facts.
Like the medieval warm period was localized? Empirical evidence points towards a global MWP. Like replacement hormone therapy is safe for treating hot flashes? Like being even slightly overweight is bad? Like pseudophedrine is perfectly safe? I'm still confused about whether caffeine is good or bad for me.
I hope you've gotten over your temper tantrum.
I'm dubious that you have an IQ over 95, kim -- you certainly don't demonstrate it.
Of course it will take more than 1000 comments to convince intelligent people of something absurd, especially when your comments are to repeat a false claim over and over.
Now would you care to address the science.
It's already been addressed, you stupid fucking cretin. Global temperature is rising, and did rise .21 degrees C over the last decade; picking out one period when it didn't increase is stupid, because there isn't a strict relationship between CO2 and average global temperature -- there are other factors that vary over time.
I'll alter my previous comment. Insults are a sign of a losing argument.
Once again you demonstrate how stupid you are; insults are a sign of contempt, nothing more.
Post #877 has CG's curves.
================
You want to source your data in #904?
=========================
Wow, what you don't know about insults and arguments.
==================================
my written words don't have the power to change the empirical facts.
Like the medieval warm period was localized?
No, you stupid dickwad, that "The present atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 381 ppm, the largest concentration in the last 650,000 years". Whether you or that other moron thinks that CO2 causes global warming, the CO2 increase is something that man caused -- not a matter of giving ourselves way too much credit; that was your stupid claim, which you are apparently too stupid to remember. If you accept that the CO2 rise is human induced but continue to think that attributing global warming to human activity is a matter of ego, then you are not merely stupid but incredibly dishonest.
Historically, there is no relationship between CO2 level and global temperature. Why should there be now?
=======================================
No, tm. It is possible to think that CO2 rise is from burning fossil fuel, without believing global warming is from human activity. All it takes is to believe that CO2 is not the reason the globe warmed in the last quarter of the last century. That is why we are called AGW skeptics.
========================================
Wow, what you don't know about insults and arguments.
If all men are mortal and Socrates was a man, then Socrates was mortal, you stupid fucking moronic cretinous retarded idiot.
No, tm. It is possible to think that CO2 rise is from burning fossil fuel, without believing global warming is from human activity.
I didn't say otherwise. You're clearly too stupid to understand what I did say.
This is getting too boring even for me; at least people like GallileoWasADenier demonstrated a modicum of intelligence. I'll check in again tomorrow to see what other slime goes after this troll-bait thread.
Silly sophistry, my good man. Surely, you said that I would have to be stupid or dishonest to deny anthropogenic global warming if I conceded CO2 rise from fossil fuel burning. I then showed that it would not be dishonest. The charge of 'stupid' might still apply, but why is it you that stoops to stupid insults? If CO2 is not the real cause of warming, then I'm not stupid, either.
====================================
Surely, you said that I would have to be stupid or dishonest to deny anthropogenic global warming if I conceded CO2 rise from fossil fuel burning.
No, I did not say that. I wasn't even addressing you, I was addressing David.
So so so stupid.
While we're at it, do you know the difference between a moron and an idiot?
==============================================
Now I think you are getting a little untruthy. You did refer to me in that post. And what did you mean to say if I have not adequately paraphrased it?
=======================================
People, our god, the great and powerful Sci'enz, has failed us. We must go back to reading chicken entrails now.
Hey Truthbot! I just dropped back in. Most of the posts on here are yours! If you get over 1,000, don't you think that's cheating a little? After all, you're only talking to yourself. What gives?
No, your politicians and your echo-chambered climatologists have failed you. Science is going strong, and busily debunking the Piltdown Mann.
================================
You did refer to me in that post.
The post in question is #912; you are not referred to in it, cretin.
And what did you mean to say if I have not adequately paraphrased it?
What I meant to say is what I did say, idiot.
The post in question is #912; you are not referred to in it, cretin.
Excuse me, but I did refer to you -- as "that other moron" -- but that you were referred to is irrelevant; as I said, it was addressed to David, not you. David, not you, claimed that attribution of global warming to humans was a matter of ego, of giving ourselves "too much credit". My claim about dishonesty applied to David, not you. But my claim about stupidity certainly does apply amply to both of you.
Oh, I'm so sorry. I was sure 'that other moron' in post #912 referred to me. If not me, then who, buster?
And if I did not adequately paraphrase what you said, can you point out my error? How did I mistake your meaning?
You've got to be 'truthy' if you are the genuine 'truth machine'. So far, you are more like the Deus Ex Sophistica.
=========================================
No, your politicians and your echo-chambered climatologists have failed you. Science is going strong,
You stupid stupid stupid fucking moron -- Rey Fox is referring to David's comment "Blame it on your god, science".
Most of the posts on here are yours!
Another innumerate moron. "most" means more than half, but most of the posts are not mine. With such a level of accuracy, it's no wonder you idiots have so many erroneous beliefs.
I was sure 'that other moron' in post #912 referred to me. If not me, then who, buster?
See #925, dumbfuck.
And if I did not adequately paraphrase what you said, can you point out my error? How did I mistake your meaning?
Uh, If I say "1+1 = 2" and you paraphrase it as "5*7 = 99", how should I point out your error other than to note that you're a stupid fuck? Your error is that your "paraphrase" isn't; it doesn't mean the same as what I wrote. That you can't understand what I wrote is because you're stupid, and being that you're stupid, repeating it won't help.
David saying that 'too much credit' is given by humans to their role in warming is structurally analogous to my saying that carbon is not the culprit. You have found an irrelevant, nay sophistical, objection and labelled me stupid because of your finding. Look again at that worm you pulled up in the dark. It is straw.
================================
You've got to be 'truthy' if you are the genuine 'truth machine'.
No, moron, I'm truthful, you're "truthy": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
I'm a dumbfuck because you posted #925 while I was composing #926? In your dreams.
=====================================================
This is amusing. You are raving because I don't interpret Rey Fox's posts the same way you do? How do people ever have a conversation with you?
=======================================
David saying that 'too much credit' is given by humans to their role in warming is structurally analogous to my saying that carbon is not the culprit.
More incredible stupidity; David was talking about ego.
You have found an irrelevant, nay sophistical, objection and labelled me stupid because of your finding.
You're beyond stupid -- you made a claim as to what I meant; you were wrong, and I said so. Your stupidity is in your inability to understand what I did say, and mean, which surely I am a better authority on than you are.
We're getting closer to 1000 posts, but do you think you're getting any closer to convincing anyone of your position? Obviously that's not really what you're here for; you're just trolling, and continuously making PZ's point in his original post.
I'm a dumbfuck because you posted #925 while I was composing #926?
No, you're a dumbfuck for a host of other reasons.
This is amusing. You are raving because I don't interpret Rey Fox's posts the same way you do?
Uh, you mean the way he obviously meant it? Hey, why don't you ask him, idiot?
How do people ever have a conversation with you?
By being smarter than a turnip.
Oh, my. There can be only one legitimate reaction to Rey Fox's post? So just why was David's argument dishonest, and if man isn't causing the temperature to rise, why was it stupid?
=================================
Actually, I think you are making Stan's point. I'm happy to discuss global climate regulation and the state of the art of knowledge about it. You seem to think this is a tutorial on rhetoric and insults.
Where's the beef? What about my Tinyurl?
=====================
I think you are making Stan's point
That proves that you're a cretin. It also would subject you to disemvoweling if the host of this blog still had enough interest in this thread to carry out his threat.
I've talked about science and I've been more respectful than most of my correspondents. Furthermore, I think PZ is still interested in this thread. With any luck he'll look at my tinyurl. It's not difficult. That's Tinyurl.com/2szwh8
That Bob Carter lecture is one not to miss, either.
==============================================
I think PZ is still interested in this thread. With any luck he'll look at my tinyurl.
My word but you are a stupid fuck. PZ's interest, as he originally stated, was to tell you denialist trolls to bugger off. Since then (but 4 days ago), he wrote "More rats. Rats with their moldy flecks of rotting garbage. You guys don't get it, do you?", "I'm greatly irritated that the average intelligence of the commenters here has plummeted since you and your lying ilk have been diluting the threads here. You can go away now.", etc.
I've been more respectful
How so, when you were repeatedly told by the host of this blog that you aren't wanted here?
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Truth Machine,
There only so much name calling you can do before you start to embody the above quotation.
Chicks must really dig you!
There only so much name calling you can do before you start to embody the above quotation.
Aside from the idiocy of that comment, Neither Emerson nor his quote have much to recommend them.
Chicks must really dig you!
Quite a few do, actually.
Oh, after I've read these comments I got the feeling we got a new church:
"The Holy Church of Climate Change (HCOCC)" providing Mr. Hansen/GISS as Pope and the UN climate council as the conclave. I'm curious when we will watch the first heteric court case and subsequent auto-da-fé of evil devil obsessed denialists. Hey, Mr. PZ Myers, will you apply for the job as the hangman?
I propose instead: please calm down, take a cup of good green chinese tea at your living room window and watch the weather outside; sometimes it is warm, sometimes it is cold, sometimes sunny, sometimes cloudy and finaly please consider then: in 1000 years nobody will recall your fashionable anger.
TM, what is your honest assessment of your work here on this thread, and what does it say to the world about you, your character and general disposition?
Peter Hunter
Another fucking asshole rat troll.
Read the Tinyurl. I doubt PZ would call that garbage. I'm curious if you do.
=================================
TM, what is your honest assessment of your work here on this thread
See #695
what does it say to the world about you, your character and general disposition?
What does your trolling say of yours?
I doubt PZ would call that garbage.
Again proving you're a cretin.
I'm curious if you do.
See ChemBob's comments in #762
So you fancy yourself a pitiful? Hmm...very interesting choice.
If you I am as you say "trolling", I'm not really sure I care, do you?
I doubt PZ would call that garbage.
He already stated his position on this sort of thing:
So you fancy yourself a pitiful?
You need to scrub your eyeglasses or your brain, moron.
Whoa, this still going on?
@Kim:
There is a good reason why TM doesn't bother with the tinyurl. Besides you being way to credelous and accepting something like that PDF as gospel. I'm not going to mention the reason though seems that TM is having to much fun with you.
And now for your url. See post #754 and reactions to it.
First problem you have with E&E is that it is not a peer review journal.
Second it is classed as social science journal not a climate related journal.
Third any peer review journal would have turned the article down since it is based on circular reasoning.
Fourth it would be rejected in any peer reviewed journal since it misses the most important thing in an article. Data instead it replaces that with `I think´ and `I feel´ which are big warning signs that an article is anything but scientific. Simply put if the hockeystick were wrong it should be easy to find counter evidence. Unfortunately for you and the other dittoheads that have invaded, almost 10 years of data gathering after it was published have shown it to be correct (as has been posted to this thread numerous times).
Sixth E&E accepts and keeps papers that other journals have retracted due to bad science (see for example the paper Climate Research by Soon and Ballunias).
I can go on with reasons why E&E has little credibility and anything published in it should be taken with a grain of salt.
You're the one who directed us to post #695 as some kind of badge of honor.
BTW, Bull Terrier ranks #66 on the intelligence list, coming in right above Chihuahua at #67.
...from 953...not to mention the #1 pet choice of thugs and criminals.
You're the one who directed us to post #695 as some kind of badge of honor.
Thomas Huxley was referred to as Darwin's pitbull -- it was indeed a badge of honor.
BTW, Bull Terrier ranks #66 on the intelligence list, coming in right above Chihuahua at #67.
And at #999 are folks like you who can't comprehend a metaphor.
Wow, wasn't #762 cogent refutation of all the points in Tinyurl. Can you do any better? Can anyone here?
Tinyurl.com/2szwh8
===========================
not to mention the #1 pet choice of thugs and criminals.
This is one of the better examples I've seen of what I once heard someone refer to as The Fat Cow Fallacy: He who tends fat cows must be fat.
Wow, wasn't #762 cogent refutation of all the points in Tinyurl.
#950 is the refutation.
@Kim:
I would as soon as you can provide me the data on which the article is based.
Do you note, Who Cares, that your entire post #952 is ad hominous? Care to address any scientific points within that tinyurl link?
Perhaps we can get PZ to actually read it.
===================================
#950 is barely coherent let alone a competent refutation. I know he was cranky, but the objective scientist did not show through.
==============================
Perhaps we can get PZ to actually read it.
You are fucking thick.
#950 is barely coherent let alone a competent refutation.
You've repeatedly proved that you're a cretin, so your inability to comprehend something is irrelevant.
I know he was cranky, but the objective scientist did not show through.
So it may seem to someone who knows nothing of science.
You seem to willing to go to any lengths to avoid commenting on that article. Have you read it?
=================================
You seem to willing to go to any lengths to avoid commenting on that article. Have you read it?
Have you read the entirety of the science supporting AGW? You seem willing to go to any length to avoid commenting on it.
Holland's article isn't science, it's politics. Someone should write "Bias and Concealment by David Holland and Energy & Environment".
@Kim:
You need to learn your debating fallacies better. There is one thing that might be classified as an ad hominem, that is my use of the word dittoheads. And even only then if you do not consider that (as read in the urban dictonary) it does cover my opinion of you and your ilk.
As for your request for scientific points. No since there is no science in the article. It is based on circular, I think and I feel reasoning. There is no data to work with. Like I said earlier the article is deficient. The journal it is posted in a joke.
Pitiful. You cannot even address his points?
===========================
@kim:
What point? The I set out to prove that the IPCC is flawed and whoa it turned out to be so. Or the I feel that the IPCC is flawed points?
The first is refuted by seeing that that is circular reasoning. The second that it is mere opinion. Neither has a place in a science article.
Where is the data? Where is the (re)source list? If you have them I'm happy to deconstruct the article. It will take a while though due to source and fact checking.
Pitiful. You cannot even address his points?
It's pitiful that you cannot even address the points of climate scientists. Mr. Holland, OTOH, refers at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/…
to his "now somewhat distant scientific education".
This is the strategy of you rats that PZ refers to, as we well know from the evolution denialists; rather than deal with the science, they trot out this or that unrefereed paper by this or that engineer or lawyer, and demand that we respond to its "points", which often turn out to be a series of half-truths or outright lies. What is clear from this paper is that it is a highly biased political polemic aimed at processes and organizations; it has nothing to do with science. Holland says "It is concluded that the IPCC has neither the
structure nor the necessary independence and supervision of its processes to be acceptable as the monopoly authority on climate science", but that's bullpucky; there is no "monopoly authority on climate science", and the IPCC doesn't have any sort of authority at all, as is clear from how their findings are ignored by executive powers.
Can you explain divergence? How about the Barton subcommittee? What about Hansen's code errors? Didn't that make you wonder about the steady upward curve of temperature?
==============================
Oh, TM, the IPCC is without authority? I don't think you know what you have said.
The IPCC has a monopoly on policy papers. And the writers of the policy papers find it convenient to ignore science that doesn't fit the narrative.
At least you've tried to refute a point or two in the article. For that I must give you credit. Tired of insults? I'm not. I'm used to them.
======================
On the authority of IPCC we have Kyoto, and all the tragedies and betrayals that entails.
========================================
Oh boy, TM, can you answer the scientific question Mr. Holland asked in your link?
===========================
@Kim:
No, as someone working daily with mathematics I am not surprised that an extrapolation that passed beyond 1/2 the average distance of datapoints used in this extrapolation behaves like that. I've seen it happen fairly often. However the trend indicated is (usually) useful on it's own.
So how does the trend look now, with new data points? Surely for something this important there is now new data. We're not just trusting extrapolations here, are we? There are big stakes, no?
========================================
I don't think you know what you have said.
You told me that about insults and arguments, and you were as wrong then as now.
At least you've tried to refute a point or two in the article.
You remain as thick as shit.
24 to go.
I'm running a book. We're sitting here in Australia, post dinner party with a few fine glasses of port and reading the thread.
Odds are on Truth Machine for making post # 1000
Don't disappoint me lad!!!
You still insist the IPCC has no authority and is not a monopoly on climate policy?
======================================
So what do you think of Bob Carter, BoS?
==========================
BTW, according to http://www.ipcc.ch/about/princ.pdf, "IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy".
Still going up. see post #904
I've got $20 on you....and my (admittedly in tatters after too many chardonnays) reputation as a microclimatologist. Go get them boyo.
Yessir. They should be neutral on policy. Are they?
=============================
So what do you think of Bob Carter, BoS?
Why do you think that "Bride of Shrek", running a book in Australia and commenting in a troll-bait thread at a biology/atheism/cephalopod blog knows of or care about Bob Carter?
#904 is unsourced, but his contention is controversial. I don't think you know what I mean by divergence. I'm talking about the habit of tree ring proxies diverging from the temperature record, quite recently.
===================================
Yessir. They should be neutral on policy. Are they?
You claimed that they have a monopoly on policy papers. It's a pretty stupid claim, unless you can provide extraordinary evidence, when their governing principles direct their reports to be policy neutral.
Couldn't give a crap about Bob Carter. Dont' care. Not interested at this point. Just want Truth Machine to be the #1000 dude.
You presume the Bride is unacquainted with Bob Carter. It's a small world down under.
And you should acquaint yourself with Bob Carter's lecture. Somewhere way up above JePe linked it. I'm sure you can google and find it.
===================================================
#904 is unsourced, but his contention is controversial.
No, the contention is not controversial. But since you insist that the temperature has leveled, feel free to provide data that demonstrates that and that indicates the change in average global temperature over the last two decades.
Are their reports policy neutral? You've gotten a little absurd lately. Been up all night?
Oh, Bride, ask around. Surely someone in that party cares.
======================
It's a small world down under.
Fuck but you're stupid.
And you should acquaint yourself with Bob Carter's lecture.
You should acquaint yourself with the science supporting AGW.
Go Truth Machine. Might not always agree with him but the chap speaks his mind, is honest, truthful and doesn't play crappy mind games. THAT is a scientist!!!!
Are their reports policy neutral?
Look, you fucking asshole, you claimed that they have a monopoly on policy papers; provide some sort of support for your moronic claim.
Yes, temperature is controversial. How do you measure it?
====================================
Surely someone in that party cares.
No, fuckhead, no one but denialist rats cares who Bob Carter or David Holland (the engineer, not the oceanographer) is.
Kim
Fuck off. we're not as stupid in Australia as you seem to presume.
No one here gives a rats arse about Bob Carter's theories.
@kim:
Thanks for clearing up what kind of diverence you meant (there is also several to be found in math).
Since I indeed don't know about that one I spend some time looking it up. Seems that it only happens with density rings and at higher altitudes and it doesn't hamper the multi-proxy approaches. Note that this comes from an article co-auhored by Mann.
Yes, temperature is controversial. How do you measure it?
Hey, you fucking asshole, if you don't know how to measure it, then HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S LEVELED OFF?
Who else puts out influential policy papers? Nobody. Hence, they have a monopoly. Any moron can see that.
The science supporting AGW is an unphysical model of the greenhouse gas effect, the Piltdown Mann's Crook'd Hockey Stick, and inadequate computers modeling a chaotic system. It tells you nothing of the truth.
===============================
lalalalalala
1000 and I'm out of here.
Good bye, asshole trolls.
There are lots of ways to measure it. I wanted to know how you do it. The varying ways of measuring and calculating a mean global temperature is what leads to the controversies.
MORON
=====