More good news for those worried about global warming


9:05 am - March 3rd 2011

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Climate Sock

It’s not so long since I argued that the economy was bringing down concern about the environment. The data indicated that, across a range of countries, people were becoming less worried about climate change (and other environmental issues) at around the same time that national GDPs were falling.

This suggested an explanation for the recent fall in concern about climate change, since it didn’t assume that people spend much time pontificating about climate change, as the other explanations do. But the last two climate polls I’ve seen suggest that maybe things have started to change.

We’ve already seen that the Guardian’s recent ICM poll found that 83% think that climate change is a threat now or will be in the future – crucially, that’s the same as they found in August ’09.

This marked a change from other recent polls, which all seemed to point to some fall in concern about climate change that occurred after August ’09.

Perhaps opinion had indeed started to shift. Or alternatively that poll could have been an outlier. Without another poll to back it up, it was hard to tell (this is of course the problem for media outlets when they’re reporting their own expensively bought poll: any single poll can be an outlier, and indeed the more exciting and headline-friendly a poll is, the more likely it is to be an outlier.

My hesitancy about the poll still stands, but another one lends a little straw in the wind. A new Economist/YouGov poll in the US has found a fairly similar result – that over the last year, agreement that global warming is happening has remained consistent:

I haven’t been able to find the data from the original poll to check that the question orders are comparable – and in fact in the latest poll there’s a preceding question about the recent cold winter, which could be slightly distorting – but at least the question wordings themselves appear to be the same.

Now, even two swallows do not a spring make. And note that the polls are looking at changes over different time periods. The US poll is comparing now with a poll taken after concern about climate change fell in most places, while the UK poll compares with a poll taken before that point.

But the two polls both suggest that the falls in concern about climate change and in agreement with climate science have at least bottomed out.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Environment

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Meaningless poll results though. The question needs to read:

‘Do you believe that Global Warming, due to human activity’.

Deniers tend to pretend that if it is happening, then it is completely natural.

Thoughts of a former believer:

After the last polar bear, being fed up to be misused as an evidence for ‘man-made climate-change’, has commited suicide and passed away with a warm ‘F… you!’, we might begin to realize who benefits from ‘climate-change’!

And, from the destruction of our planet, of animals and people by flattening the rainforests, Jewels of the Earth, for ‘bio’ = killer fuel!

Amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 0,04 % = relation: a bee-fart in a huuuge sky scraper!

Greetz and … have a nice and sunny ( vital vitamin D ) day!

Gerry S.

Gedanken eines ehemals Gläubigen:

Nachdem der letzte Eisbär mit einem herzhaften ‘Leckt mich doch!’ Selbstmord begangen hat, weil er es leid war, als Indiz für den ‘menschengemachten Klimawandel’ zu dienen, werden wir vielleicht beginnen zu begreifen, wer von selbigem profitiert!

Und, von der Zerstörung unseres Planeten, von Tieren und Menschen durch das Plattmachen der Regenwälder, Juwelen unserer Erde, wg ‘Bio’ = Killersprit!

CO2-Gehalt der Atmosphäre: ca 0,04 % = Relation: ein Bienen-Furz in einem MEGA-Wolkenkratzer!

Grüsse und … sonnigen ( lebenswichtiges Vitamin D ) Tag noch!

Gerry S.

And here’s some more good news from a new German research paper suggesting that the climate is far less sensitive to a doubling in CO2 than previously estimated.

“The climate sensitivity CS as a measure for the temperature increase found, when
the actual CO2-concentration is doubled, assumesCS = 0.41°C for the tropical zone, CS = 0.40°C for the moderatezones and CS = 0.92°C for the polar zones. The weighted average over all regions as the global climate sensitivity is found to be CS = 0.45°C with an estimated uncertainty of 30%, which mostly results from the lack of more
precise data for the convection between the ground and atmosphere as well as the atmospheric backscattering.
The values for the global climate sensitivity published by the IPCC [3] cover a range from 2.1°C – 4.4°C with an average value of 3.2°C, which is seven times larger than that predicted here.”

http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-4505-1.pdf

I *assume* you would welcome this as good news, wouldn’t you??

4. Robin Levett

@cjcjc #3:

“I *assume* you would welcome this as good news, wouldn’t you??”

I would do if it checked out. Does it? I can’t see any checking of the result against the known warming effect of GHGs (ie the fact that without GHGs the global average temperature would be around 33K colder). I do know that the general claim that there is a saturation effect for GHGs at current levels doesn’t stand up; see:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

and

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/

In addition, the measured value is the no-feedback value; which, according to the IPCC, is around 1.2K/doubling of CO2.

I *assume* you would welcome this as good news, wouldn’t you??

If it wasn’t blatantly obvious nonsense, yes. But it is blatantly obvious nonsense, based as it is on an absurdly simplified 2-layer model, with the surface as one layer and the atmosphere as the other, and it’s completely ignoring feedback effects. Guess what – if you model the entire atmosphere as a single layer and ignore feedbacks, of course you get a lower value for CS. Anybody with the merest glimmerings of an understanding of the actual science would spot that a mile off, which is my I’m not surprised in the least to discover that the author has no previous climate-related publications at all, it’s “published” as a conference abstract only, in a “journal” with no peer-review, and the only place where anybody’s taking this ridiculous piece of rubbish seriously is Anthony Watts’ home for the terminally bewildered.

It’s amazing how people who will complain endlessly about how the very best high-resolution GCMs can’t be relied on because “modelling isn’t science” will turn around and endorse the output of a fucking tinker toy if it says what they want it to, despite the fact that it is completely at odds with all the actual physical evidence.

Is there any load of baloney too obvious for you to fall for?

6. Chaise Guevara

Gerry makes a good point.

Dealing with climate change makes polar bears shoot themselves. FACTZ

I see tinfoil hats are coming back. In German too!

8. Mr S. Pill

@6

Wouldn’t that be bi-polar bears?

*gets coat*

Errrm, I am quite worried that anyone thinks it has not got warmer over the last 100 years. Or indeed over the last 200 odd, since the end of the Little Ice Age period (to be fair, no-one has temperature records for almost the entire southern hempisphere in this period so this is still a supposition globally – and proxies do not work as accurate guides to temperature, just proxies before it (plus most of the southern hemisphere is water, rather difficult to find a proxy in)).

So, as said above, the key question (and one that has consistently produced falling numbers in agreement) is whether mankind cause global warming (again the answer is actually almost inevitably yes, but the exact scale is the question…).

Mind you, the headline is very odd – “good news for those worried about global warming” would surely be that it was not as bad as thought or that the effects were actually not likely to be that bad. Perhaps it should be “More good news for those who believe global warming is happening and want to be proven right.” After all, worry about global warming does not require that you are happy about what is essentially an opinion poll – it requires you to be concerned that global warming may be or is happening and that it may be or will cause problems.

cjcjc you’re embarrassing.

@9 Watchman

The only cause for optimism would be that public opinion has not been won over by the denialists and therefore governments might actually do something.

2. Gerry S.

> Thoughts of a former believer:

Ah, the old “claim to have seen the light to establish credibility” trick!

> After the last polar bear, being fed up to be misused as an evidence for ‘man-made climate-change’

Who has ever offered up the very real threat to polar bear populations as evidence of climate change? It’s an *impact*.

Stare hard at these graphs to see if you can work out why the bears are threatened: http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

> …we might begin to realize who benefits from ‘climate-change’!

We already know for certain who benefits from doing nothing and we also know those corporations and billionaires have paid hundreds of millions of $$$ to pay for a campaign of lies over the last two decades. Those lies have fooled the gullible, the scientifically illiterate and the terminally stupid. Take your pick.

~~~

3. cjcjc:

> And here’s some more good news from a new German research paper suggesting that the climate is far less sensitive to a doubling in CO2 than previously estimated.

Another old denier trick: find ‘paper’ published a few days ago that makes amazing claim that appears to overturn all previous science. Claim it shows that global warming is solved before any climate scientist has chance to respond! Success!

~~~

5. Dunc:

> …turn around and endorse the output of a fucking tinker toy if it says what they want it to…

lol. So true. Nice one.

I can only marvel at the depth of idiocy needed to fall for Professor Watts’ brand of bullshit. It’s amazing they have the mental horsepower to turn on a computer and find their way on to the internets.

~~~

6. Chaise Guevara:

> Gerry makes a good point.

Given the ‘quality’ of your output elsewhere, difficult to know if you really mean that. ;)

Sunny – re: our bet, the recent global temp anomalies have taken a happy turn down, will email latest chart shortly.

I have no idea whether that paper is correct or not, obviously(!), but I linked to it hoping to get exactly the reactions above.

There are a hell of a lot of people who would be *gutted* if it turned out that the current “consensus” was wrong.

Sunny – re: our bet, the recent global temp anomalies have taken a happy turn down, will email latest chart shortly.

Oh god, that’ll be Roy Spencer’s latest moronic trumpeting of a single outlying monthly datapoint as if it proves anything. “Ignore the obvious long-term trend, look at this single outlier completely in isolation!”

I’m curious – do you realise how pathetic you are and merely lack any sense of shame, or are you really too stupid to notice that every single claim you make on this topic is arrant nonsense? Will you ever learn?

You make my point perfectly.

CJ @ 13

There are a hell of a lot of people who would be *gutted* if it turned out that the current “consensus” was wrong.

How likely do you think that is, though? On a scale from 0 to 10,

10 Being ‘of course it is not flat, where would all the water go’
0 Being ‘So all the gas chambers then? Thay were all just faked after the war.

Where would you put ‘Global Warming’ turning out to be a hoax?

Do you even understand the scientific implications of it all turning out to be wrong? You do realise the extent to which this theory is underpinned by the laws physics? For this to be false, you are going to have to come up with an entirely new theory for practically everything?

Anyway, this sums up the Tory view of science. None of it really matters, millions of people may die through our inaction, but at least we get to wind up a few science minded people on the way.

You make my point perfectly.

Which one? That you “have no idea whether that paper is correct or not”? Hint: not.

If you’re claiming that I’m one of your imaginary people ‘who would be *gutted* if it turned out that the current “consensus” was wrong’, then you couldn’t be further from the truth. However, I try to base my assessment of the matter on a reasoned appraisal of all the evidence, rather than grasping at whatever transparently pathetic straws look like they might briefly support my preferred result, if I were to completely abandon all standards of evidence and reasoning, and forget everything I ever learned about both physics and statistics. Unfortunately, a reasoned appraisal of all the evidence indicates very strongly indeed that, however much I may personally dislike it, the current consensus is right.

That’s the inconvenient thing about reality – it doesn’t give a fuck whether you like it or not.

18. Robin Levett

@cjcjc #13:

“I have no idea whether that paper is correct or not, obviously(!), but I linked to it hoping to get exactly the reactions above.”

Those reactions being? That if it checked out, great, but that it has barely a snowballl’s of checking out? What does that prove?

Bluerock,

I can only marvel at the depth of idiocy needed to fall for Professor Watts’ brand of bullshit.

You’d think someone who claims to be well-informed on the issues might be aware that Anthony Watts has neither tenure at an American univeristy nor a chair in a European-type university, so is not a Professor. Indeed, I don’t think he even has a PhD. This is after all one of the (most stupid – qualifications do not make you right or wrong) accusations most frequently thrown at him by those who don’t feel debating ideas is within their mental capacity.

That said, I can only marvel at the depth of idiocy needed to fall for Dr Romm’s brand of hyperbole…

(There, that should wind him up nicely. I’m off to the bar…).

Never mind a PhD, he’s been extremely cagey as to whether he ever graduated from college, and so far as I know has never claimed to posses a degree.

Of course you’re right that qualifications (or the lack thereof) do not make you right or wrong. It’s the fact that he manages to be woefully, obviously and consistently wrong that clinches it. If he was merelyclueless I’d expect him to get something right occasionally, just by pure luck.

When you said good news I thought you meant global warming was decreasing, but I suppose this will play second fiddle to being able to say “I was right”

19. Watchman:

> You’d think someone who claims to be well-informed on the issues might be aware that Anthony Watts has neither tenure at an American univeristy nor a chair in a European-type university, so is not a Professor.

lol. At least part of the affliction you deniers suffer from is the inability to detect sarcasm and mockery.

Watts isn’t even a qualified meteorologist. He just reads the weather on some hick radio station. For all anyone knows he might have been home-schooled – and that hypothesis would certainly go a long way to explaining why he is such a clueless cretin! Not sure how to explain his weasely dishonesty….

> …I can only marvel at the depth of idiocy needed to fall for Dr Romm’s brand of hyperbole…

Where is he wrong? Where has his reporting of the science deviated from the science? Be the first denier to offer something other than empty rhetoric.

20. Dunc:

> If he was merely clueless I’d expect him to get something right occasionally, just by pure luck.

A monkey in a turquoise nylon leisure suit would be a more reliable source for climate science….

“When you said good news I thought you meant global warming was decreasing, but I suppose this will play second fiddle to being able to say “I was right””

Absolutely.

How will they pursue their crusade against human progress without it?
Were the “consensus” to change they will not be delighted, but horrified.

21, 24 -

While I’ve little doubt some people on the AGW-iz-like-so-real side care more about the winning the argument that global warming’s consequences it’s an undeniably good thing, from their perspective, if more people become aware of climate change’s threats. They’d be more likely to check their carbon use; support environmental measures and so on.

I wish BlueRock would quit assailing “denier tricks”, by the way. I’m sure that these debates have thrown up the odd astroturfer but I don’t think there are hordes just waiting to conquer each thread.

How will they pursue their crusade against human progress without it?
Were the “consensus” to change they will not be delighted, but horrified.

I’m afraid you’ll need to provide more evidence for this proposition than “our” unwillingness to swallow obvious bullshit. I mean, I’d fucking love to be able to fly like Superman, but you don’t see me claiming that gravity is a socialist plot to make people miserable. It’s simply a fact. An unfortunate and unwelcome one, but a fact nonetheless. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that you can make reality conform to your desires simply by closing your eyes and wishing really hard.

And the OP is not actually about being able to say “I was right”, as it doesn’t actually address the facts at all – rather, it is about people’s acceptance of those facts, and thus our collective ability to deal with them, hopefully in some fashion which will actually preserve “human progress”. You do realise that, if you’re wrong but we continue to ignore the problem, then things are liable to get very unpleasant indeed? I want to preserve and extend “human progress” as much as possible, and that requires that we actually deal with reality.

25. BenSix:

> While I’ve little doubt some people on the AGW-iz-like-so-real side…

Climate scientists and the scientifically literate, you mean? You clearly exclude yourself from that group. I love the way you deniers take pride in your scientific illiteracy.

> …care more about the winning the argument that global warming’s consequences…

Is that right? Evidence? No, of course not. You just like the way it sounds.

> I wish BlueRock would quit assailing “denier tricks”, by the way.

What are you referring to? Specifically. Quote. Or this just more piss-weak rhetoric in place of coherent, evidence-based argument?

> I’m sure that these debates have thrown up the odd astroturfer but I don’t think there are hordes just waiting to conquer each thread.

Give that strawman a good beating!

Oh I do love winding Bluerock up. Even when I tell him I’m doing it, he still bites…

Ben,

Bluerock is basically projecting onto others his own behaviour – immediately jumping in to assert his prefered position is right and assuming that the other side have no points to support them at all (he might call this astroturfing, but it would require big numbers to do that and neither side of the debate have those on this thread). Kind of irritating really, but fun to wind up and watch him spin.

More generally, I doubt that many ‘supporters’ (one of the weirdest terms applicable) of global warming (or more accurately of the man-made global warming hypothesis) actually want things to get warmer, but they do sometimes feel the need to crow about being proven right, just like some of those who are sceptical (or just plain resistant) crow about things being proven wrong.

Personally I’ll start crowing when the science stops relying on appeals to authority and instead sets out all the evidence for each and every assumption and assertion used to support or reject the theory. A null hypothesis might also be good (I know they aren’t fashionable, but its difficult to prove something without one I always find). But since much of this is political not scientific nowadays, not sure that’ll happen, so I’ll content myself with poking fun at the fanatics.

Climate scientists and the scientifically literate, you mean? You clearly exclude yourself from that group.

If you stopped thinking in binaries, BlueRock, it might help you to realise that not everyone’s engaged in a war of rhetorical attrition.

…Is that right?…

Yes. Every debate holds people who care more about the argument that consequences of its subject. That’s psychology for you.

What are you referring to? Specifically. Quote.

Your wish, beloved BlueRock, is my command…

Ah, the old “claim to have seen the light to establish credibility” trick!…Another old denier trick…

Bluerock,

Clearly Bensix fails to worship at the idol of man-made global warming enough and must be denouced as a nay-sayer, a heretic and a fool.

Have you actually checked whether he believes in man-made global warming before launching into your automatic spambot routine? You do know you are kind of making his point for him there – attacking him vicously for things you think he is saying. You’re like the Christian who will not accept that others do not believe his book is the source of all truth.

Bluntly, not all scientists agree with you. Therefore there is no consensus (easy case for me to prove – all I need to do is indicate a couple of scientists who do not agree and there cannot be a consensus…). So there is a debate. Join in or shut up – stop trying to shut it down with you quasi-religious screaming.

31. Chaise Guevara

@ 12 Bluerock

“Given the ‘quality’ of your output elsewhere, difficult to know if you really mean that. ”

Should I try to match the quality of your output, then? *Ahem*: “Everyone who disagrees with me is an ignorant, hysterical moron!”

There! That really improved the quality of the conversation, didn’t it?

…chaired by Andrew Neil…

I’d rather cut off my — finger.

Oh come on – only he, Paxo and Humphrys can do a good forensic interview.

£30 does seem a bit steep – not even a drink included…

Personally I’ll start crowing when the science stops relying on appeals to authority and instead sets out all the evidence for each and every assumption and assertion used to support or reject the theory. A null hypothesis might also be good

All the evidence for each and every assumption and assertion”? No problem. Start with 4 years undergraduate study in climatology, then a couple of years on a Masters degree, then a few more years on your PhD, and then you’ll be in a position to really assess all the evidence. (Actually, you probably won’t, because climateology, like every other significant field of science, is too big for one person to fully comprehend in all the gnarly details.) If you’re not prepared to do all that, then you’re going to have to rely on the people who have, just like every other field of science.

As for the null hypothesis, that has been thoroughly tested and rejected. There are no known non-anthropogenic forcings which can explain the post-industrial warming, and no evidence for any unknown forcings of sufficient magnitude in the paleoclimate record. Furthermore, we know, absolutely and incontrovertibly, from basic physics, that CO2 must have an effect on the climate and roughly what the magnitude of the effect should be.

When you’re basically reduced to arguing that there might be some magical unknown factor out there, which behaves exactly like we think CO2 should and has in the past, and that CO2 has somehow magically stopped acting in exactly the way basic physics says it must and all the evidence indicates it always has, and that both of these things just happen to have occurred at exactly the same time, which also just happened to be the precise moment in history at which we started producing significant quantities of CO2, and that whatever-it-is has perfectly tracked the expected impact of our CO2 emissions (after correcting for other factors such as stratospheric sulphate aerosols) purely by chance … Well, that’s certainly not anything like a null hypothesis in my understanding of the term.

So, in summary, on the one hand we have a robust, internally consistent body of theory which ties in perfectly with numerous other (uncontroversial) scientific fields, and we have an extensive body of actual physical evidence, all of which doves-tails together perfectly and enables us to explain, to a very high degree of accuracy, everything from the precise timings of ice-ages and interglacials to the average surface temperature of the Earth (which, lets not forget, should be about 30 degrees below freezing if CO2 doesn’t behave as we think it should, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law). And on the other hand, we have… What, exactly? A bunch of incoherent ramblings from a former TV weatherman, a selection of obviously and trivially flawed “papers” from people working way outside of their fields of expertise, and load of bluster in blog comments?

28. Watchman:

“When I said something stupid earlier, I was joking! All the stupid things I say are jokes!”

;)

~~~

29. BenSix:

> If you stopped thinking in binaries

I note that you don’t deny the charge.

> Yes. Every debate holds people who care more about the argument that consequences of its subject.

Thanks for your vague, evidence-free assertion. I’ll add it to the others.

> Your wish, beloved BlueRock, is my command…

And where is that observation wrong? That seems to be (at least part of) your problem – you write lots of words but say nothing of substance. That’s a common affliction amongst you deniers. In place of science, you produce noise.

~~~

30. Watchman:

> Bluntly, not all scientists agree with you.

Bluntly:

* Every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet confirms recent climate change is due to human activity as per the IPCC. No scientific body of national or international standing offers a dissenting opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

* Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract + http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-many-climate-scientists-are-climate-skeptics.html

* 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php

But you knew that already and it’s a mark of the type of person you are that you keep repeating your bullshit.

~~~

31. Chaise Guevara:

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I note that you don’t deny the charge.

Fair enough: I deny the charge of denial.

Thanks for your vague, evidence-free assertion. I’ll add it to the others.

To be clear, you’re denying that there are loads of people for whom arguments are more important than their subjects? I’m tempted to suggest, for evidence, that you go out and talk to people but since you’ve asked I’ll cite Raymond Nickerson’s Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.

And where is that observation wrong?

In that you assumed that someone’s claim was dishonest without any substance whatsoever. That’s a bare assertion laced with ad hominem.

38. Robin Levett

@Watchman #30:

“Bluntly, not all scientists agree with you. Therefore there is no consensus (easy case for me to prove – all I need to do is indicate a couple of scientists who do not agree and there cannot be a consensus…).”

“Scientific consenus” is not an argument ad populum; the point is that the scientific literature all votes one way, not that the scientists do. There is no respectable argument against the position that (i) the average global temperature is rising (ii) as a result of fossil CO2 (iii) injected into the atmosphere by human activity. The scientific arguments to be had are about precisely how much warming there is in the system, and how much will arise as a result of increasing CO2 levels; and as to policy to avoid or mitigate the effects.

If anybody’s arguing about the veracity of “Gerry S.”‘s comment @2, you might want to Google a selection from it first. It’s copypasta and it’s all over the internet, which always leads me to be suspicious… (Although the translation into German does seem to be novel.)

37. BenSix:

> Fair enough: I deny the charge of denial.

No, the charge is that you’re scientifically illiterate. Or are you denying that you’re an ACC denier? If so, curious that you use idiotic rhetoric of a denier. Maybe try stating your position clearly? Maybe say something substantive instead of all this pointless noise?

> To be clear, you’re denying that…

I denied nothing. I said “Thanks for your vague, evidence-free assertion. I’ll add it to the others.”

See? Two can play at that game. ;)

> In that you assumed that someone’s claim was dishonest …

Not really. It was to make note that it is a commonly-employed tactic by deniers – claim that they once “believed” but now see the light. It’s statement of fact.

41. Richard W

It simply astonishes me the way this subject motivates in people who have no training in science an obsessive desire to prove the scientist wrong. Why do people take for granted the findings of science in multiple other fields and have this mental block when it comes to what they are saying about the climate? Science has been wrong before so it is not infallible. I don’t understand the science so could not argue one way or another. However, one would have to be completely dense to believe all the science academies are making it up. Are we really going to gamble our future on the scientists being wrong and a couple of fuckwits looking to attract a herd of fuckwit followers at the Telegraph being right?

42. Chaise Guevara

@ 36 BlueRock

“Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

That’s what I’m trying to tell you, yes.

42. Chaise Guevara:

For some reason your inability to think of an original response in preference for “Nuh uh! YOU!” is not a surprise.

My comments are littered with links to credible sources, science and expert opinion. All I’ve ever seen from you is impotent abuse and whining. Why not try offering more? It’s worth the effort. Give it a go. :)

Anyone going to this debate?

Yeah I probably will. It’s interesting how the “sceptics” haven’t been able to find anyone with relevant scientific credentials to make their argument.

45. Chaise Guevara

@ 43

“For some reason your inability to think of an original response in preference for “Nuh uh! YOU!” is not a surprise.”

I see you feel more comfortable with the parlance of the playground, but it doesn’t get you very far. And the fact that you can respond to an accusation of hypocrisy by accusing the other person of going “nu uh! you!” doesn’t stop you being a hyprocrite. Nice try though.

“My comments are littered with links to credible sources, science and expert opinion. All I’ve ever seen from you is impotent abuse and whining”

Y’see, it’s kinda hard to avoid accusing you of hypocrisy when you accuse others of “impotent abuse”. You think childish insults are the best way to communicate with others – why not check the last thread we were chatting in for examples?

“Why not try offering more? It’s worth the effort. Give it a go.”

Well, what would you like me to offer? I believe we got into this conversation when I took the piss out of someone for suggesting that polar bears are going to commit suicide because they’re so bored with environmentalists. So what facts or figures would you like from me to support my theory? I’m all ears.

Richard W @ 41

One of the biggest problems with the ‘Left’ is that they tend to look for the best in everyone. It is often said that the left are all too willing to give too many people ‘second, third or more chances’ than they can reasonably expect; then they give people the benefit of the doubt, when the doubt has long gone. The Global Warming deniers are a case in point. They keep thinking that the Tories will come round if we spend more time showing them the evidence more clearly.

The real scientific debate to the cause and existence of Global Warming is way past over. There are no real credible debates about the subject. The real debate is over the prognosis and the rate of change. I know that, you know that and I even suspect that many of the deniers know that. Sure, there will be the simply fuckwitted among us that actually believe the whole thing is made up, yes and we can do nothing for them.

However, there is a bunch of people for whom this is just another political football to be kicked about. These people are not ‘decent, but misguided’, ‘not sure’ or ‘naturally sceptics’, they are simply Tory vermin. They are quite happy to destroy the lives of millions of people in order to protect the lining in their own pockets.

They come to a science debate in the same fashion they come to every debate; with a solid set of prejudices that they want to justify. This is exactly why they get this subject wrong it is simply because they cannot conceive of a subject that is so important that you would actually measure your findings and report them in a dispassionate fashion. Whenever a Tory wants something to be true, they pay a tame economist or whatever to spin the figures up.

They want (for example) increases in VAT to be progressive? Sure thing, pay an economist to provide the necessary statistics.
‘Prison ‘works’? Easy, pay a think tank to ‘prove it’ it!
Idealistically opposed to the minimum wage? Find someone to provide the ‘truth’ behind that as well.
Their entire ideology is based on little more than people paid to say and they simply cannot comprehend that ‘science’ doesn’t work like that.

Look at Watchman’s offering a bit further up. Out comes the entirely predictable cliché, Global Warming is a religion. To people of normal morality, this seems rather strange, ‘science’ and ‘religion’ are diametrical opposites. The first being based entirely on evidence, meticulous research and the relentless integration of theories, the latter being based on blind faith and a complete lack of any supporting evidence (further reading, The hitch hikers guide to the galaxy). To be fair to him and his ilk, that is understandable because among his culture, anyone who simply cannot be bought off with a few fucking quid, must be a religious nut. He can simply cannot get his mind round the concept that the reason that science stubbornly refuses to budge an inch on this is not because they are ‘invested’ (the clear subtext of CJ’s witterings) to the point that giving up would make them look stupid, but rather annoyingly the evidence keeps saying the same thing. You may as well try and explain that the Sun is only one of billions in the Galaxy and our Galaxy is only one of Billions in the Universe and that it all just exploded into being several billions of years ago without any help from god to more primitive tribes in the middle of nowhere.

These people are simply not equipped for this subject.

Use the AGW ‘debate’ as a bell weather. If you are unable to be on the correct side of this debate and are willing to be seen making the most idiotic claims in the process, is it likely that you have looked at any subject with real controversy in a disciplined manner? If you start of with the premise that the laws of physics are a Left Wing conspiracy are you likely to be able to determine the ‘facts v myths’ concerning pensions, immigration, Europe or any other subject you care to mention?

Show me a an AGW denier and I will show the type of people who cannot be trusted to wipe their own fucking arses.

45. Chaise Guevara:

> Well, what would you like me to offer?

You want me to tell you how to make a useful contribution? That’s not how it works. You need to think for yourself. Calm down, lose your obsession with me, stop the hysterical ranting and think for yourself. Give it a go – it’s worth the effort!

@ BlueRock

And a rock feels no pain © Simon and Garfunkel

So sorry, my trusted alien friend, may I humbly apologize, that I did provoke you to sacrify your precious time by reacting on my dumb statement!

Would you please do me a last favour? No, no, don’t worry, not because I’ll be going to commit suicide like a polar bear, but I’m short in time cause I have a job to do, spreding around that, although Che Guevara is my idol, I’ll be going to vote for new heroes alike Lord Monkton, Nigel Farage, Ron Paul, or any other candidate who appears to be no greeny or lefty, next time! In the past I always did ignore voices shouting against ‘leftist climate-change fascists’ but, after watching all those clips on YouTube, pretending to know the truth about ‘man-made climate-change’, I’m completely brainwashed!

Back to the favour, I asked you for:

Could you, obviously blessed with scientific knowledge, please explain an average person as I am, how it does come, that

1. most of the climate-change, formerly global warming, formerly greenhouse gases or whatsoever, conscious people I know, riding their prestige cars about 15 K miles per year, without having to commute, fly to Greece, the US or Thailand for holidays, and in between, to the Baleares, Canaries, Mallorca with their bowling clubs, whereas my wife, who has to commute about 20 miles per day and I, do about 8 K miles per year, in a small car, we share and we avoid to make the way to England, Wales or Scotland, as we did aaages ago, for holidays (OK, I confess, we’re penny-pinchers and, when it comes to your gorgeous Island it’s the fact that, sorry again, we dislike being pictured too often and the case that the Cornish coast has been taken over by banksters, maybe certificate dealers, and in the beautilful towns and villages there, you hardly find real people)

and

2. Big Al does travel the world in a private jet

3. he owns a couple of estates, that produce electricity-bills which would make an idiot like me, to work 48 hour-shifts per day, to pay for

4. the boss of the ICCP does own a couple of institutions that are generously supplied with taxpayers money

5. the climate-conscious ‘celebs’ prefer meetings in popular places, many of them flying in on private jets, instead of meeting per video-conferences, folks can follow?

Many years ago I saw a graphito at an university building that read: Science moves mountains – of people beneath topsoil! Meanwhile I’m under the impression, the author might have been an insinder!

How’s that?

I blame it on the ‘thruthers’ as a couple of them did help me to cure massive cardiac probs, without consulting a doc or pharmacist or using any miracle supplements or herbs, or whatsoever! Absolutely free of charge and many of them, only driven by their desire to help others by spreading their knowledge. Bet you, those guys neither own private jets nor are funded by taxpayers! Instead of that, they are attacked by science! If I’d followed the instructions science offers in cases like mine, I’d be under drugs now and on my way to lingering illness like my neighbour who, after ten years in the very expensive (when it comes to health he, as pennypinching as me, only the ‘best’ is good enough – rofl) became knighted to ‘risk-patient’, some month ago!

If you did follow me till here, I’d say that you’re a brave one and I would like to throw in the next pint or whatsoever, should you leave for the bar, or reward you with some links

http://www.watercure.com
http://www.naturalsaltinfo.com
http://www.strophantus.de partly in English

…………………………………………………………………….

OK, having had dindin I’m as fresh as a daisy!

There’s no need to sacrify your precious time again, answering my sermon as I will switch off the follow up cause I’m not used to handle the amount of mails I receive from that source and on top, I have to prepare myself for my social assignment, starting on Monday!

I will act as a male nanny, visiting kindergardens and primary schools to re-educate the kiddies on ‘man-made climate-change’! In contrast to others I will not doing that, by frightening them but by giving away sweeties and plushy little polar bears!

I’m very proud to have been chosen for that unpaid job, and I expect that it will contribute to my fulfilment, very much!

You might know, to work with kids can help to let old chatterboxes grow younger by 20 years, or so! If in my case as well, I will have about 40 years left, to help guiding our much valued kids into a future, unspoilt by nightmares and threatening clouds above!

So I do wish myself all the best and, that my unscientifically regained health will last, and last, and last! Hmmm, somehow that does remind me of something!

For sure, the nice person in me does X fingers for you and that your future will be as bright as the one, awaiting our kids!

Bye for now and never forget: There’s only one … sky above!

Best regards!

Gerry S.

Me and BlueRock have our differences, clearly, but I can’t wait to see how he replies to Gerry. There’s more waffle than one of Homer Simpson’s wet dreams.

50. Robin Levett

@Gerry S #48:

You forgot to mention that “Algore is fat”.

51. Chaise Guevara

@ 47

“You want me to tell you how to make a useful contribution? That’s not how it works.”

I know how to make a useful contribution, friend. And I strongly suspect that “useful contribution” and “what BlueRock wants” are very different things anyway.

What I was interested in was what specifically you wanted from me when you were making your playground noises at 43. You were wittering about credible sources – normally a good thing, sure, but again: how exactly would they be relevant to this conversation? It’s important that you tell me, because otherwise it might look like you were talking out of your arse, and we wouldn’t want that.

“You need to think for yourself. Calm down, lose your obsession with me, stop the hysterical ranting and think for yourself. Give it a go – it’s worth the effort!”

Look, patronising people only works if you don’t act like an idiot the rest of the time. When you do, it just looks silly. As for me being “obsessed” with you – bless. And I believe you started this conversation, didn’t you? I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that you think responding when people talk to you is obsessive behaviour. It fits with your general grip on reality.

@ 46 Jim

Her, hear!

@46, 52

I second that! Brilliantly written!

@ 51 Chaise Guevara

As we can all see from the exchange of posts on this (and indeed earlier threads) Blue Rock is exactly the kind of person Jim warns against @ 46 above, albeit he may be on the side of angels with respect to anthropomorphic global warming.

As his splatter gun approach to google trawling amply demonstrates, some people simply can’t distinguish between research and evidence based analysis, and use selective data mining to reinforce their own quasi-religious dogma. Thus, GM food and research in Blue Rock’s world are irredemably “bad”, as is nuclear power.

Of course, the unpalateable truth is that even if it were to be deomstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that (just as an example) recourse to nuclear power was the only way to avert climate disaster, crazed ultras like Blue Rock would never accept it. In that sense, he is just as much of a “know-nothing” as the climate change deniers, or in other spheres as creationists, or people of faith often are when confronted with rigorous, rational, scienetific method.

The danger of Blue Rock and his ilk, is that they cannot see that they (irrespective of their right-on credentials in some areas) are just as wrong headed as their a-scientific counterparts; in the pick and mix buffet of their belief system, they want to be able to claim the moral highground and accept scientic method where it suits their “faith”, but reject it where it does not, and demonise unbelievers not just as foolish dupes, but as malicious evil doers.

The problem for the Greens as a party is that people like Blue Rock will act as a disincentive for people to join them!

49. BenSix:

> …I can’t wait to see how he replies to Gerry.

Even I have a limit to the stupidity that is worth replying to. Gerry went sailing past that boundary. How could anyone make him look more ridiculous than he’s doing on his own?!

There are rational deniers (even though their arguments are obvious nonsense and lies) and there are the true cranks, people who have worked out that they can get lots of attention on the internet by hurling up the crazy that’s racing around their heads.

Talking of cranks…

~~~

51. Chaise Guevara:

No, I said “lose your obsession with me” – not continue ranting and whining about me. This thread is about global warming, not *BlueRock*. ;)

~~~

54. Galen10:

Son, you’ve got it bad. You must be *so* threatened by me and my arguments! Sorry for spoiling your nuke and GMO dreams, but don’t blame the messenger.

~~~

@Sunny,

I think we might need a separate thread for Chaise and Galen10 to exercise their whining obsession with BlueRock!

@55 Blue Rock

Your self regard is as uncalled for as your google mining is unconvincing. You are merely the latest in a long line of mono-maniacal obsessives with nothing interesting to say, and no real desire to have a meaningful debate. Your sole interest is in one area, and the superficiality of your knowledge would shame a mediocre A level student.

Like all “true believers” you are ultimately boring.

56. Galen10

Do you have *anything* to offer other than whining and ranting about me?

Pro tip: the way to refute the evidence and arguments I have made about climate change, nukes and GMOs is to refute those arguments – not go on some hysterical crusade against the person making them. Give it a go – surprise yourself and everyone else. :)

@ BlueRock

No, I’ll have the last word.

58. Cherub

> No, I’ll have the last word.

Feel free. :)

P.S. You need to join Chaise and Galen10 in that separate ‘BlueRock’ thread – you can obsessively whine and rant about me to your heart’s content.

57 Blue Rock

I know you appear to have difficulties with comprehension, as is so often the case with wing-nuts, but I don’t need to refute the arguments about climate change, because I’m not a denier, and fully accept the case. If you had allowed the red mist to clear for a moment, you might have been able to see that.

As for your “arguments” about GM and nuclear power, they are just that; your faith based certainties based on selective google trawling (I’d hesitate to call them research, because it is quite obvious you lack the intellectual development to perform meaningful research).

It has been pointed out on previous threads in here, that however many sources you cut and paste from search engines, having skim read books and articles, it doesn’t make your standpoint “the truth”.

None of us are on a crusade against you, just against your obscurantist views. Whether you are a creationist, a climate change denier, or an animal rights extremist, or a green fundamentalist is in the end all one. A-scientific bigots need to be confronted.

Try dealing with the general issues now and then rather than vomitting up gobs of google cut and pasta eh? Opening such a closed mind might be fun.

61. Galen10:

Lots of empty ranting as usual, still no coherent arguments backed by credible cites. Have another go.

63. Chaise Guevara

@ 55 Bluerock

Ah, I see answering questions is beyond you. What a surprise. I love the way that you think people responding to you counts as “obsession”, btw. It must be a very gratifying way to think, if slightly surreal. In turn, why are you so obsessed with me? You keep responding to my posts, which by your logic is effectively stalking. If writing a couple of sentences of irrelevant drivel can be considered a response.

In theory, this thread SHOULD be about global warming. Sadly it’s been derailed because myself, Galen et al. have a bad habit of feeding trolls. If you want to talk about global warming, perhaps you should actually mention it instead of just slagging everyone off like a six-year-old? Or alternatively do us all a favour and get back under your bridge.

@62 Blue Rock

Credible cites about what? We’ve established that I’m not a global warming denier, so there would seem little point in engaging on that. I’m not convinced byt the arguments against GM or nuclear energy, as is the case with large numbers of others. Disagreements about either of these issues are not in the same category as disagreement about whether anthropomorphic climate change exists.

Your attitude on both these issues isn’t based on evidence, it’s a matter of faith. No matter how many “cites” were produced opposing your “revealed faith” you wouldn’t accept it, so it would be afutile exercise.

You areexposed, as has so often been the case, as a total humbug.

Girls, that’s just more empty ranting. What point are you trying to make? Do you know?

66. Robin Levett

@Bluerock #65:

Motes and beams, dear boy, motes and beams.

66. Robin Levett

When you have nothing useful to contribute, there’s always trite phrases.

68. Robin Levett

@Bluerock #67:

“When you have nothing useful to contribute, there’s always trite phrases.”

I’d comment, but I’d only repeat myself

68. Robin Levett

> I’d comment, but I’d only repeat myself

And you’d hate to continue offering nothing useful to the ‘debate’.

70. Chaise Guevara

Fun game guys: read BlueRock’s last few comments and try to fit them onto the idea of “offering something useful to the debate”.

71. Robin Levett

@BlueRock #69:

Just for kicks; tell me which side of the AGW debate you think Chaise, Galen and I are actually on?

Surely between all of you can muster up something substantive? Something to do with this thread? Or is trolling all you’ve got?

73. Robin Levett

@BlueRock #72:

How are you getting on with working out which side of the debate we’re all on? Here’s a free clue; look at my comment #4.

74. Chaise Guevara

@ 72 BlueRock

“Surely between all of you can muster up something substantive? Something to do with this thread? Or is trolling all you’ve got?”

Well, as I explained before, this thread has been derailed and has now turned into three or four people trying to reason with a troll. Waste of time, I know.

Of course, you’ve been offered multiple opportunities to move the conversation on (see Robin at 71, for example), but you’ve ignored them. You’ve demonstrated quite convincingly that you’re scared to answer questions or address what people say.

You attacked me, or at least made a weak attempt at doing so, all the way back at post 12 and have said not one “substantive” thing to me since – you’ve just chucked around insults, because you’re one of those people who appears to get a hard-on from anonymously insulting other human beings. And you’ve made it pretty clear that it doesn’t matter what people say to you – your reponse will be along the lines of “I’m so great, you’re a prick, say something substantive”. So now we’re just poking the troll with a stick, because we’re bored.

So trolling is all you’re here to do? Why?

Chaise why do you keep following me from thread to thread with the same, pathetic, hysterical trolling act?

76. Chaise Guevara

@ 75

I’ve answered that stupid question at both 51 and 63. Now answer mine: why do you keep following me around and replying to my comments?

(Oops, sorry, BlueRock doesn’t answer questions. They’re scary.)

77. Chaise Guevara

Oh, and look up “hysterical”. It does not mean what you seem to think it means.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    More good news for those worried about global warming http://bit.ly/eBup2z

  2. Wikio UK

    (Liberal Conspiracy) More good news for those worried about global warming : http://wik.io/yDMWM

  3. Political Dynamite

    More good news for those worried about global warming | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/I4VeT79 via @libcon





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.