I guess that the only response to those of us who doubt the efficacy of climate targets and carbobn taxes to do anything other than cost large amounts of money for no discernable gain is ad hominem ridicule.

I guess that saves you from dealing with the subject matter then doesn’t it.

Gawain,

There is a difference between the position you state, which concerns politics, and “global warming denial,” which concerns science. There is definitely room for debate on the best way to deal with climate change. But this article isn’t dealing with that – it’s dealing with people who refuse to accept that global warming is even happening. For anyone who has even a cursory grasp of the relevant science, that position is indeed so ludicrous as to be worthy of ridicule.

So this is what ‘shutting down debate’ actually looks like.

Andy @ 2

..this article isn’t dealing with that – it’s dealing with people who refuse to accept that global warming is even happening.

Actually, many – perhaps most – people who are dismissed as deniers do not do deny warming is happening at all. They either deny that the earth is warming quite as much as others claim, or they deny it matters much.

Brownshirts don’t do facts.

> The only response to global warming deniers is ridicule.

Well said, Sunny. You cannot reason with people who reached their belief without reason. You cannot persuade them with science when they are in denial of it.

ACC deniers are no different to cranks throughout history who have resisted progress and change. But unlike, say, those who refused to believe the Earth orbited the Sun – and not the other way around – the ACC deniers are harming other people and will cause great harm to all of us if they continue stalling the action that is urgently needed.

Mock them, ridicule them, expose their ignorance and dishonesty. They are the modern day flat-earthers.

~~~

1. Gawain Towler

> …carbobn taxes to do anything other than cost large amounts of money for no discernable gain…

I’d be interested to hear your explanation how a ratchet carbon tax could do anything other than reduce carbon emissions.

Instead of expending a effort letting us know how indignant you are, offer something substantive on the subject.

~~~

3. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells

> So this is what ‘shutting down debate’ actually looks like.

You can ‘debate’ the reality of climate change until you turn blue, it won’t alter the science in the least. Global warming is as good as fact. The outcomes of unmitigated global warming range from *really* bad to apocalyptic.

The cost of avoiding those outcomes is a paltry ~2% GDP. And it’s something that needs doing anyway because fossil fuels are running out. Only the terminally selfish and stupid could not recognise the benefits.

But unlike, say, those who refused to believe the Earth orbited the Sun – and not the other way around – the ACC deniers are harming other people

The ghost of Galileo would like a word about that, something about bloody well being hurt by those who denied that the Earth orbited the Sun.

4.Flowerpower

Actually, many – perhaps most – people who are dismissed as deniers do not do deny warming is happening at all. They either deny that the earth is warming quite as much as others claim, or they deny it matters much.

This is still denial of the science.

The science says the Earth is warming rapidly, that this is caused by a sharp spike in CO2 in the atmosphere, and that we, man, is responsible for that spike in CO2.

Weasel words like: “oo, we think the Earth is warming too” are just that.

BenM

so where’s the warming?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html

“Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.”

“The only response to global warming deniers is ridicule.”

Just think about the ridiculous statement you have come out with above, Sunny and then read the extract below from one of the world#’s leadiong Climate Scientists.Do you have the self awareness to realise what a monument to ignorance you are?

http://mrsrigbysays.blogspot.com/2010/01/dr-richard-lindzen-interview.html

“Friday, 1 January 2010

Dr. Richard Lindzen interview

Professor Lindzen, you are called a “climate denier”. Does that make you feel like an outcast?

I am no outcast. If you want to soak up propaganda, that’s your problem. I work at the world-famous Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I have the respect of my colleagues. Think for a moment about what you have just said. I am a survivor of the Holocaust. My parents fled Germany in 1938. Anyone who calls me a “climate denier” not only insults me – he also insults his own intelligence.”

9. Diogenes

All over the planet.

Tim Ball is an ex-geography professor who now works for fossil fuel and wingnut think tanks. He’s also an habitual liar. http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball

Richard Lindzen also takes money from fossil fuel interests and is one of only a literal handful of climate scientists that quibbles over some details of the science. He’s also perpetually wrong with most of his claims.

* http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

BlueRock

How many climate scientists does it take to be right ?

1

With over 200 peer reviewed papers to his name, Lindzen is THE Climate Scientist.

Calling a Jewish Scientist, whose family survived the Holocaust, a “denier” takes a pretty sick and hysterical mind!!

With over 200 peer reviewed papers to his name, Lindzen is THE Climate Scientist.

No, he’s A climate scientist, one who has done some good stuff in the past but whose most recent work has been somewhat less impressive.

Calling a Jewish Scientist, whose family survived the Holocaust, a “denier” takes a pretty sick and hysterical mind!!

Spare us the faux outrage. Calling someone a denier in the context of arguments about climate change has a specific meaning, it is not associating them with Holocaust denial. The UK government calls me a “deficit denier” – it’s stupid and inaccurate but I don’t go around bleating that David Cameron compared me to David Irving.

lol. One scientist – who is on the take from vested interests and has been proven wrong again and again – against thousands. I’ll take the opinion of the thousands, thanks – along with the overwhelming mountain of science.

Stop squeaking about the Holocaust, idiot. Denier -> denial, Sigmund Freud

Calling a Jewish Scientist, whose family survived the Holocaust, a “denier” takes a pretty sick and hysterical mind!!

pathetic attempt to play the race card. Go back to your cave troll.

BlueRock @6

The cost of avoiding those outcomes is a paltry ~2% GDP. And it’s something that needs doing anyway because fossil fuels are running out. Only the terminally selfish and stupid could not recognise the benefits.

But this needs to be done right across the globe, not just in one small country.
So how’s that going to work when half the globe is industrialising as fast as they can?

18. damon

> But this needs to be done right across the globe…

2% of *global* GDP. Google Stern Review and invest some time reading.

P.S. Just because the poorest few billion don’t want to live a subsistence existence does not mean they have to consume and pollute like gluttonous Americans and Brits.

8. BenM – “The science says the Earth is warming rapidly, that this is caused by a sharp spike in CO2 in the atmosphere, and that we, man, is responsible for that spike in CO2.”

No it does not. Even if we agree not to argue about the warming (which needless to say is largely not happening and if it is it is certainly not doing so rapidly), there is no scientific evidence at all it is caused by CO2. Even the IPCC, cobbled together from press releases and PhD students’ work, says it is likely that it is caused by man-made CO2. There is a spike in CO2. We are the probable cause. There has been some warming from the mid-1970s to the early 2000s. These may be linked. But we can’t be sure.

which needless to say is largely not happening and if it is it is certainly not doing so rapidly

Oh dear. Go from here SMFS
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

21. Sunny Hundal – “Oh dear. Go from here SMFS”

Go where? Once you have gone to a paid-for-propaganda site, where’s left?

Coal money is less credibility-destroying than that site. Take their claim the world is warming – they don’t even try to defend the fact that people have to switch from measuring the atmosphere to measuring the atmosphere *and* the oceans. The oceans are a lagging indicator. If they are warm now, it is because they were warm in the recent past. 1998 would not have been so hot if people *also* measured the oceans back then. Cherry picking is not science.

And the oceans are cooling.

16. BlueRock – “One scientist – who is on the take from vested interests and has been proven wrong again and again – against thousands. I’ll take the opinion of the thousands, thanks – along with the overwhelming mountain of science.”

What science? What thousands?

“Stop squeaking about the Holocaust, idiot. Denier -> denial, Sigmund Freud”

Come on. This is childish. The Warmists are clear about their desire to de-legitimise the Skeptics. We all know why they use that term. Two minutes googling will find Warmists pointing out precisely why they use that term. It is foolishness to deny it.

17. Sunny Hundal – “pathetic attempt to play the race card.”

Sorry, I guess he did not know one side of politics resents it when their monopoly on doing that is challenged.

19. BlueRock – “2% of *global* GDP. Google Stern Review and invest some time reading.”

The demands for CO2 reduction are not 2% of global GDP. They vary from group to group but essentially they are a demand for a Third World subsistence agriculture lifestyle. I believe the demand is that we reduce our economy to Haiti’s level.

“P.S. Just because the poorest few billion don’t want to live a subsistence existence does not mean they have to consume and pollute like gluttonous Americans and Brits.”

Yes it does actually. There is essentially no other way to do it. Nuclear perhaps.

Good grief, they really do live on the internet.

If it wasn’t for the global warming I’d be happy I lived in the real world.

BlueRock

Just because the poorest few billion don’t want to live a subsistence existence does not mean they have to consume and pollute like gluttonous Americans and Brits.

So Asia and Africa must not develop highways in the way that North America and Europe have, and have everyone owning a car and commuting to work from suburbs?
But that is precisely the way that the Asian Tiger economies have developed. Like Bangkok. In Vietnam people love the petrol engine. Mostly small motorbikes right now, but when they have the money they will want cars. How are you going to stop that?
How are you going to stop people in India and China wanting the same?
I can only see more demand for consumption, not less.

SMFS

What science? What thousands?

The vast body of published scientific literature. The thousands of scientists who study climate and related fields and have concluded that AGW is a real threat.

Come on. This is childish. The Warmists are clear about their desire to de-legitimise the Skeptics. We all know why they use that term. Two minutes googling will find Warmists pointing out precisely why they use that term. It is foolishness to deny it.

Well it’s certainly not used as a compliment, that doesn’t mean it has the implications that you claim.

I believe the demand is that we reduce our economy to Haiti’s level.

Who is demanding this exactly?

26. andrew adams – “The vast body of published scientific literature. The thousands of scientists who study climate and related fields and have concluded that AGW is a real threat.”

I have yet to see any piece of scientific literature that shows that MMGW is a definite fact. The most I have seen is similar to the Global Cooling of the 1970s – they have some evidence that is consistent with MMGW.

“Well it’s certainly not used as a compliment, that doesn’t mean it has the implications that you claim.”

What implications do you think it has? Read the original article here – with its bile and its demand that Skeptics be silenced. Tell me that the hate that is apparent in that is suddenly all harmless and gooey when it comes to “deniers”. Why has there been no agreement to cease using the term? If Skeptics see it as that offensive, and they do, why have Warmists not agreed to use some other less offensive term? At least the Left showed some belated decency with Tea Baggers. Not much but some.

@CO2 etc #14:

“With over 200 peer reviewed papers to his name, Lindzen is THE Climate Scientist.”

OK. Cite one of those papers in a major journal that actually demonstrates that AGW is not a fact.

Again – if CO2 doesn’t drive temperature, please explain by what magic the average global temperature is not some 30K below its actual value.

@SMFS:

Back again so soon, and peddling the same as before? Any response to the comments on this thread:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/03/17/ids-extra-cash-can-hurt-the-poor/

“What science? What thousands?”

Open the pages of a scientific journal, say Nature or Science, and read. Oreskes’s study showed clearly that there is a very clear consensus of evidence that AGW is happening.

SMFS

Even if we agree not to argue about the warming (which needless to say is largely not happening and if it is it is certainly not doing so rapidly

Oh dear. Massive, characteristically embarrassing AGW denier fail.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

SMFS,

I’m guessing you must have a *very* empty life in the real world, which is why you need to seek attention by vomiting shite on to forums across the internet to gain attention.

Deniers like you are actually quite useful. You make the denial movement look so unhinged that you erode what little credibility it might have. Well played!

25. damon

> So Asia and Africa must not develop highways in the way that North America and Europe have…

When you need to construct strawmen, you’ve already lost.

Also, have you heard of ‘trains’? You should look it to it – fascinating inventions. China, for instance, have gone from nowhere to having the most high-speed rail on the planet in a few short years. They continue to expand their network.

And instead of worrying about what other people are doing – as though you’re desperate to find a scapegoat – look at what *you* can do to help mitigate climate change.

China produces much less CO2 per capita than Europe and massively less than America – and a lot of China’s CO2 is from manufacturing the products that we outsourced to them.

*You* are the problem, not Chinese peasants and the poor of Africa.

BlueRock, I know little and care less about the whole global warming issue.
And it’s because of arguments like yours that I feel that way.
Nothing personal, but I’m actually quite contemptuous of that liberal wishy-washy western argument about personal responsibility for one’s ”carbon footprint”.
It’s like the youtube of the UKuncut protesters in Top Shop chanting ”pay your tax” inside the shop, and ”shame on you” at the staff who try to remove them. It’s such middle class studenty piffle that it’s embarrassing to watch, and I think that your argument saying I should just worry about what I do as far GW goes, is of that kind.

When Karachi eventually becomes a modern successful city like Tokyo, what difference will it’s people’s CO2 footprint be then compared to now?
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/episode-guide/series-2011/episode-4

32. damon

> …I know little and care less about the whole global warming issue.

An honest denier. That’s unusual.

But now that you’ve admitted that you are wilfully ignorant and scientifically illiterate, why would you think your opinion is of any interest to anyone?

> …I’m actually quite contemptuous of that liberal wishy-washy western argument about personal responsibility for one’s ”carbon footprint”.

And many people are contemptuous of sociopathically entitled scumbags like you.

SMFS: And the oceans are cooling.

Bloody hell, you really know fuck all about the subject. Is there any wonder I said earlier that global warming deniers should be treated with ridicule?

the oceans are NOT cooling
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm

don’t embarrass yourself further by posting on the topic.

Erm Sunny.

The latest results from the survey of ocean tempratures do show it to be cooler than this time last year. So in the short term they are cooling.

Longer term the trend is still upwards, but by definition long-term trends change more slowly.

And your wonderful reliance on so-called sceptical science is interesting. Especially because its author doesn’t actually deny the oceans are cooling, merely says that there are a variety of measures and uncertainity, and that the recent cessation in warming (my view) or fall in ocean tempratures is not proof of long-term trends. Which by definition, it cannot yet be, although clearly the long-term trend is not as steep now as it was in 2003.

I’d suggest reading the links you use to support your arguments carefully – they do not say that the oceans are not cooling, merely that they are possibly not cooling. Of course, if we are not sure if they are actually cooling, we are also not sure if they are actually warming…

35. Watchman

> The latest results from the survey of ocean tempratures do show it to be cooler than this time last year. So in the short term they are cooling.

Pick a peak. Compare to following trough. Ignore long-term trend. Claim cooling.

Different day. Same stupidity.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Bluerock,

That’s the bloody air temperature record – it has nothing much to do with oceans (indeed, one of its biggest admitted flaws is that it has to extrapolate tempratures over oceans). NASA unsurprisingly do not deal with sea temperature (the clue is in the name).

If you notice, I distinguish between trends in my comment – I am fully aware the long-term trend is still upwards, but the trend of the long term trend is actually falling (that is the steepness of a 20 or 30 year trend calculated this year is less steep than last year) as the actual temprature of the world’s oceans has stayed constant for a few years. This could just be natural variance in a picture of steadily increasing temperatures, but equally it could be the peaking of a natural cycle of variance in ocean temperatures (remember that proper ocean temperature measurements do not cover a full cycle of the various climatic systems so we do not know if there is a cyclical pattern). There is no need to get defensive over your beloved warming – all I am pointing out is that Sunny did not really show what he thought he did, and perhaps failed to read his source.

BlueRock – given the title of this thread it’s funny that it’s you that jumps to ill tempered ad-hom so quickly.

I’ve made two points, and don’t really see what’s wrong with them.

The first was, that as the worlds population increases towards nine billion or whatever, and the ever increasing of consumption, I couldn’t see where any decrease might come from.
One only has to spend some time in cities like Bangkok (or watch a film about the place) to see how the use of energy in the way of traffic, scyscrapers, neon lights, air conditioning and 7-Eleven stores on every other corner, showed societies in love with energy consumption.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgYgz1H2W_U

Most big cities in the developing world seemed to have copied this form of growth.

That’s point one. Point two was two make all this personal, in the face of the the whole world developing like this, was stupid and short sighted at best.
It’s got nothing to do with ”you or me” particularly – and to insist that it does, and even get shi**y over it, shows the ”eco-planet activists” at their worst.

Just in my opinion of course.

@Watchman #35:

“I’d suggest reading the links you use to support your arguments carefully – they do not say that the oceans are not cooling, merely that they are possibly not cooling. Of course, if we are not sure if they are actually cooling, we are also not sure if they are actually warming…”

Did you read the conclusion of the sceptical science response? It follows:

“In climate discussions, the most common error is focusing on a single piece of the puzzle while ignoring the big picture. The ocean cooling meme commits this error twofold. Firstly, it scrutinises 6 years worth of data while ignoring the last 40 years of ocean warming. Secondly, it hangs its hat on one particular reconstruction that shows cooling, while other results and independent analyses indicate slight warming.

The bottom line is there is still uncertainty over the reconstruction of ocean heat. Generally, the various reconstructions show the same long term trends but don’t always agree over short periods. The uncertainty means one cannot conclude with confidence that the ocean is cooling. Independent analysis seem to indicate that over last half dozen years, the ocean has shown less warming than the long term trend but nevertheless, a statistically significant warming trend.”

Hmm; the claim of ocean cooling hangs its hat on a single reconstruction which (the rest of the discussion makes clear) is based on the less rigorously tested data; and the rest of the studies show “a statistically significant warming trend”.

One nice thing about Sceptical Science; it cites its sources, so if you don;t agree with their interpretation, you can go to the primary science and see where they have gone wrong – if they have.

#37:

“If you notice, I distinguish between trends in my comment – I am fully aware the long-term trend is still upwards, but the trend of the long term trend is actually falling (that is the steepness of a 20 or 30 year trend calculated this year is less steep than last year) as the actual temprature of the world’s oceans has stayed constant for a few years.”

Is that true? Your argument as stated is either incomplete or wrong.

37. Watchman

> That’s the bloody air temperature record…

There’s none as dumb or as blind as a denier. “Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index”

I take it you still don’t understand why cherry picking two data points on a noisy data set and drawing a conclusion is dumb? Different day, same stupidity.

~~~

38. damon

> …ill tempered ad-hom…

My temper is quite even, thanks. You deniers stopped getting under my skin a long time ago. I view you much as I do racists… which many of you are – people below contempt.

Note carefully: the fact that I think you’re an entitled, self-important, empathy-deficient piece of shit is not ‘ad hominem’. You need to educate yourself on *lots* of things, eh?

Is anyone going to slap down the ridiculous BlueRock and say he doesn’t speak for anyone but himself? If this was the view of the wider Eco-activist movement that Sunny gives a lot of space to on this site, then it would show them up as being very pretentious and narcissistic.

I’m sure that they aren’t all as bad as that, though looking at them doing protests at airports and climbing on to the roof of the House of Commons, I see that there certainly is that tendency within the movement.
And that’s the reason why – the only reason why – I have some time for the people at Spiked-online who give those people the two fingered salute.

This is regardless of the science of climate change, which I’ve said I don’t really understand, but just because I can’t stand preachy ‘Holier than thou’ fad-cultists.

And those ”Plane Stupid” people really have become somewhat cultist, even if everything they say about global warming is true.

So far I have just pointed out that I can’t see where these savings on CO2 are going to come from. Mega-cities like Buenos Aires will always be big carbon producers.
Until we find a new source of energy anyway.

One odd thing. Sunny has written in the Guardian in praise of of the city of Dubai.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/28/spreadingprosperity

And yet the UAE has one of the largest carbon footprints on the planet and can not be seen as a model for development by eco standards.

BlueRock, this must be everything you hate about the modern world.
A westen backpacker ghetto in south east Asia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuLIdWz1jDo&feature=related

All those gap year students and those feckless priviliaged westerners who who have been inspired by their saturday travel pages in the Guardian, to fly half way around the world to experience something new. Just because they want to and they can.

41. damon

You’ve admitted that you don’t understand the science and are not interested in learning about it. So why are you still flapping your gums?

You’re a wilfully ignorant cretin. Your opinion is worthless.

@ 41 Damon

I agree that I don’t like the way BlueRock approaches this particular debate. But I’m not sure what your problem is with people protesting at airports. Dimissing people campaigning for their beliefs as “narcissistic” is frankly a bit odd, and people have a noticeable tendency to only say this sort of thing about groups they dislike.

As for “those gap year students and those feckless priviliaged westerners who who have been inspired by their saturday travel pages in the Guardian”: again, it seems odd that you’d automatically heap the blame on students and people who read left-wing papers. I guess middle-aged, Telegraph-reading captains of industry never go on holiday and travel anywhere by push-bike?

Come on. You’re accusing BlueRock of being unreasonable, and you’re right to do so, but it would sort of help if you weren’t being unreasonable as well.

43. Chaise Guevara

One of the emptiest vessels on this blog….

I wasn’t mocking anyone for being a gap year student or reading the Guardian Chaise Guevara, just BlueRock for being a pillock.

I am all for people travelling as much as they can. It broadens the mind and brings people together. That there is a problem with global warming is something for the scientists and politicians to sort out.

I do have a problem with grandstanding ”look at me” attention seekers though.
And it looks to me that some of the eco-warriors have definitely taken up that way of operating. If Blue Rock was anyway typical, I’d be able to just point to him and say ”there you go” as an example.

Whether he’s typical or not I’m not quite sure. But having been to Climate Camp at both Blackheath and the one the year before next to Heathrow airport, it does seem the way they teach their politics and direct actions.
It’s so middle class and smacks of privilege that I was quite turned off the whole thing, but that is probably just some prejudices on my part. I do have a bit of an aversion to that eco-radical thing in the same way that I do to the Socialist Workers Party.

But that’s really beside the point. I had asked how world consumption was going to be curtailed when all indicators are for billions of more people desiring to live the consumerist lifestyle.
Even visiting Cambodia a few years ago, it was clear that large 4×4 vehicles were very popular, and lots of gated new mansions for the newly rich corrupt elite too.

With the world more and more interconnected and the populations mixed up, how are you going to stop the desire to travel home to distant countries, or go out and visit departed family and friends? This was a question I asked, and just got told ”read a book” in reply. Of course I’m going to be scathing of such people who are so partisan and prickly.

The full list of scientists not supporting the so called “consensus” can be found here :

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
“Global warming” is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend –

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.

@CO2 etc #46:

Oh. Dear.

Just a couple of points:

First, science does not operate by consensus of individuals, but by consensus of evidence.

Secondly, this was the Heartland Institute conference at which Pat Michaels stood up, said that the globe was warming and that humans were causing it, but denied that anything needed to be done about it.

Thirdly, even if you are going to accept an argument from authority, would you really accept the argument from this list, headed:

“The following individuals, all well-trained in science and technology or climate change-related economics and policy, have allowed their names to be listed as endorsing the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change”

when the list includes (admittedly only 3) dentists, vets, petroleum geologists, medical doctors etc etc.

There’s a sub-list of 206 who “are climate science specialists or scientists in closely related fields (this is a subset extracted from the other lists)”. It includes, for example, a botanist – our very own David Bellamy – chemists, biologists, even a specialist in plate tectonics…

Please provide a list of cites to all the papers published in peer-reviewed journals by the 206 “climate science specialists” casting doubt on the reality of AGW; indeed cite even one such paper.

@ 45 Damon

“I wasn’t mocking anyone for being a gap year student or reading the Guardian Chaise Guevara, just BlueRock for being a pillock.”

Understandable!

“I do have a problem with grandstanding ”look at me” attention seekers though.
And it looks to me that some of the eco-warriors have definitely taken up that way of operating.”

The thing is that “grandstanding “look at me” attention seekers” is synonymous with “protesters” when you happen to dislike said protesters. Some protesters ARE just in it for the attention, but I doubt that’s especially true of climate change activists – if you’ve gotten that impression, it’s because Plane Stupid get on the news and Fred Smith who politely and humbly hands out leaflets in Stockport doesn’t.

“It’s so middle class and smacks of privilege that I was quite turned off the whole thing, but that is probably just some prejudices on my part. I do have a bit of an aversion to that eco-radical thing in the same way that I do to the Socialist Workers Party.”

It sounds like prejudice, tbh: saying “oh, it’s so middle class” kinda suggests that any protest by a middle class person (i.e. most of the people in Britain) is somehow invalid, or at least not worth taking seriously. This is an obvious point, but I hope you’d react negatively to someone dismissing a protest by saying “oh, it’s just the working classes. Pay them no attention”.

In reality, I suspect you’re reacting more out of aesthetic dislike than class prejudice, but it does come off as snobby when you make class-based attacks on people you dislike.

“But that’s really beside the point. I had asked how world consumption was going to be curtailed when all indicators are for billions of more people desiring to live the consumerist lifestyle.
Even visiting Cambodia a few years ago, it was clear that large 4×4 vehicles were very popular, and lots of gated new mansions for the newly rich corrupt elite too.”

No way to prevent this without making the cure worse than the disease. And we’ve got no right to turn to people in developing countries and say: “Sorry, we’ve choked the planet too much already! No powerful cars or big TVs for YOU.”

So I guess the solution, such as it is, is to work on sustainable tech and renewable power sources and to share any progress we make with the world. And if, say, we take a stake in power infrastructure development in an emerging economy, perhaps we (as a country) could volunteer extra funds to make it renewable, assuming that this will still provide the power needed by the nation’s citizens.

I just saw this web page posted up on this site’s ”Across the blogs” section” – which means that it’s being endorsed by the mods on LC.

From Climate Shock titled ”This time it’s personal”
http://www.climatesock.com/2011/04/this-time-its-personal/

To me, this shows everything I dislike about climate campaigning …. and am pretty annoyed that it seems impossible to discuss why with these campaigners, as they are likely to get abusive like that person above, or start talking about ”deniers” and trolls.
To me, that Climate Shock argument is middle class poppycock – as the idea of being an activist out to persuade people – one at a time – to do something about their personal CO2 output is just activism for activism’s sake.
It’s – to me just a group thing that makes the activist group feel good about themselves more than it is to make any real difference to the actual climate.

So all this talk becomes little more than hot air. Lots of talk, for next to no gain in the physical world of climate.
It’s like believing that theory of the Butterfly Effect, where ”the presence or absence of a butterfly flapping its wings could lead to creation or absence of a hurricane”.

48. Chaise Guevara

> “I do have a problem with grandstanding ”look at me” attention seekers though.”

A mirror would be a good starting place. You write much, say little.

~~~

49. damon

> Lots of talk, for next to no gain in the physical world of climate.

Your determined ignorance extends beyond the science to, seemingly, everything about the subject. Germany is going 100% renewable. Spain the same. Denmark same. Scotland same. Australia has just announced a carbon tax. California has just raised its renewable energy standard to 33% by 2020. I could go on.

All of that is at least partially driven by activism and wide-ranging support of the public. That activism and support exists because the *majority* of people understand the need for urgent climate change mitigation.

* UK: 83% view climate change as a current or imminent threat. Deniers represent fringe position and mainly comprised of old, male conservatives. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/31/public-belief-climate-change

Do you recognise yourself in the demographic that denies reality?

It’s amusing watching people like you broadcast your proud ignorance of the science, along with your bitter dislike of people who selflessly want to make the world a little better. I guess they make you uncomfortable because their behaviour makes you appear more of a selfish, entitled idiot than you already do.

P.S. I wonder why you’re on this blog? Did you get banned from the Daily Mail?

Bluerock,

There’s none as dumb or as blind as a denier. “Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index”

Yes. Please note the ‘land’ element there – which is not measured by sticking sensors in the soil is it. And the ocean element also contains the air measurements, when this thread was about the top layers of the ocean. So the land in there should be a bit of a clue this is not the right dataset for this discussion?

I take it you still don’t understand why cherry picking two data points on a noisy data set and drawing a conclusion is dumb? Different day, same stupidity.

I hadn’t noticed me cherry picking – unless noting a trend over seven years is in fact cherry picking. Indeed, I’d been careful to reference the long-term trend in both my posts, because I am aware that is important. The long-term trend has fallen, but this is an obvious observation and I consider at least two basic reasons for this, either of which would still fit with your agenda (the second one of natural cycles will possibly be very useful for you if temperatures start to fall consistently). But then again, if you can’t read plain English I can see why you resort to screaming and shouting insults so quickly.

Robin Levett,

Nice to get a courteous and reasoned reply on this subject – the dismissiveness or insulting nature of a lot of commentators sometimes makes me wonder about the mindset of believing in climate change.

Hmm; the claim of ocean cooling hangs its hat on a single reconstruction which (the rest of the discussion makes clear) is based on the less rigorously tested data; and the rest of the studies show “a statistically significant warming trend”.

I tend to find ‘Sceptical’ Science to eager to accept scientists as correct, but I do agree with you that is good at showing sources. And if Professor Pielke had said what Sceptical Science claims (which he did not – although others have used him to say this) he would have been disproven by this. But Sunny did not set out to prove this particular contention wrong – he just claimed the oceans are not cooling, which goes beyond the boundaries of uncertainty that Sceptical Science allows (and with which I agree).

“If you notice, I distinguish between trends in my comment – I am fully aware the long-term trend is still upwards, but the trend of the long term trend is actually falling (that is the steepness of a 20 or 30 year trend calculated this year is less steep than last year) as the actual temprature of the world’s oceans has stayed constant for a few years.”

Is that true? Your argument as stated is either incomplete or wrong.

I can see one error in it – it depends on the slope at the start of the trend as to what is happening to the trend if the end is stable (fundamental error with trend lines – they have two ends). A trend from the beginning of the record would be a better example – the longer temperatures stay stable, the lower that trend becomes, because the start point is fixed.

Otherwise, I am going on the data presented for the recent stability in ocean temperature. Not sure where else the problem might be?

51. Watchman

Not really much to respond to. Just further demonstration of ignorance and Dunning Kruger.

If you find any credible source to support your denial, let us know. You need to realise no one is interested in or persuaded by your clueless opinion.

“discussing the issue calmly when its dominated by the likes of James Delingpole is impossible. The only response to global warming deniers is ridicule.”

You should be ashamed of that remark, Sunny. We can and should debate everything as calmly as possible. It is perfectly possible to ignore James Delingpole.

BlueRock, if the aim of you eco-fundies is to persuade, then your approach leaves a lot to be desired. Am I supposed to feel ashamed that I live in a western country; do things like shop in supermarkets and own a TV and a lap top? I don’t own much else by the way, as I don’t earn much money – not a car or even a motorbike. But still, because I don’t buy your ”guilt package” that makes me selfish or whatever. ?

The most telling word in that last post was you using the word ‘selfless’ about yourself and your earnest colleagues who go getting themselves arrested, just so to teach us plebs all a lesson. About the wickedness of going over to Prague on Easy Jet for a weekend break and such things.

And I don’t know why you’re so quick to want to call me a ”denier”. I don’t deny anything. I’m quite pro science, and hope we can do something to sort out this world wide carbon problem. But I’m not going to get all sanctimonious about it and pretend that my tiny little life means much in the scheme of things.
For example, I’m having a coffee in a Starbucks right now. It’s across the road from where I live and they have free wi-fi. Now maybe Starbucks is on your list of dreadful planet busting companies, and maybe it is – but I don’t care. I’m just having a coffee.

There’s nothing to turn people off a political course more than moralising do-gooders (think Bono).

Just btw, they are going to be talking about this at 8pm on radio 4′s Moral Maze programme. The question is, do celebs and such giving a political message, give it more weight? Eddie Izzard comes to mind in the Yes campaign for AV.

55. damon

You’ve already admitted you don’t understand the science and have no interest in learning. Your pompous, rambling waffle is not interesting.

You’re one of the ignorant, arrogant, entitled minority. You deserve only contempt.

I’m not talking about science though. I have said about three times that the measures needed to combat problems need to be carried out. It’s not that I have a problem with, so my understanding of the science or not is neither here nor there.

The problem I have is with sanctimonious moralisers. That’s all.
Telling people they are ”right wingers” akin to racists just because they won’t defer to the ideology of those who know better.
I’ve seen a documentary about the scientologist cult who also use bullying tactics to get their way.

bluerock

Granted that the scientific consensus is that the earth is warming and CO2 levels are rising, what exactly is your solution?

Certainly, there is little, if any, genuinely scientific evidence that the ‘deep green’ solution is either necessary or desirable. After all, warming will have benefits as well as costs. And there is evidence to suggest that we can manage the costs with Pigouvian taxation –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigouvian_tax
- as Stern and more recently Tim Worstall have suggested.

57. damon

> I’m not talking about science though.

As you understand nothing about the science and are uninterested in educating yourself, everything else that you write is ignorant drivel.

If you had any intellectual honesty, you’d educate yourself instead of prattling on about drinking coffee and droning on about how much you dislike some social demographic that you’ve turned in to a caricature of your own making.

You’re a tedious prat as well as a denier.

~~~

58. paul ilc

> …what exactly is your solution?

It’s not my solution but it is very simple: stop burning fossil fuels.

> …Pigouvian taxation – as Stern and more recently Tim Worstall have suggested.

I’ve no idea what you’re talking about re. Stern (presumably Sir Nicholas). Anything Tim Worstall suggests is more than likely shit. He’s a pompous buffoon, in love with the sound his keyboard makes. The fact that you might be persuaded by anything he says reflects poorly on your judgement.

Damon @ 55

Whether you are denier or not is irrelevant, you are nothing more than a feckless scumbag. You want to do as much damage to everyone else’s environment and ‘someone else’ can clear up your mess behind you. No fucking different than your average Jeremy Kyle interviewee who leaves ‘the social’ (i.e us) to look after his offspring. The post referred to is full of your typical kidult whinny stuff like ‘I’m just having coffee’.

Well I have news for you, we are sick to death of ilde scum like you befouling our environment. If you want to wallow in your own filth, then go to your grotty little house and smear shit on the walls for all I care, however, our environment is different. That belongs to everybody, not just you.

I am sorry that you find that you are expected to take, what we adults call, ‘taking responsibility for our own actions’ as ‘sanctimonious’, your type always do. No doubt the men who father 6 kids think we are being sanctimonious when we expect them to get a job too.

Can you think of a reason why decent people should have to endure your filth, just because you are too stupid or too lazy to deal with the mess you are doing to our planet? I cannot five a fuck what you believe, I do give a fuck about your behaviour and I, for one, cannot think of a valid reason why the rest of us have to pay to clean your shit because you can’t be arsed to take some personal responsibility for once in your life.

60. Jim

Well said. Good to see someone else who gets it and isn’t afraid of speaking bluntly.

Damon and his ilk have confused ‘freedom’ with being selfish, anti-social cunts. David Mitchell wrote a great piece on this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/21/david-mitchell-waste-environment

They’ll continue consuming and polluting without a care for anyone or anything, convinced that they have “earned” it. And, like Dickhead Damon here, protect that belief with determined ignorance.

Sadly, the wankers in government right now are cut from the same cloth.

BlueRock @ 61

Sadly, the wankers in government right now are cut from the same cloth.

Yes, and the Tory half are just as bad.

Jim,

I’ve taken to just calling them the Blue and Yellow Tories. Hard to tell them apart. Sickeningly, I voted for the Yellow bunch. :/ Won’t make that mistake again in a hurry.

Cheers,

David.

Well at least these last posts by Blue Rock and Jim are kind of on topic.
Go against the politics of extreme eco-activists and it turns straight to insults and ad-hom.

Even saying that I live a modest existance without owning a motor vehicle, still has me accused of being selfish, feckless and anti-social.

And the thing is, we’re stuck with this sanctimonious preachy shite for the rest of our lives.
It’s a bit like this never ending squabble you have between Nationalists and Unionists here in Northern Ireland. It gets rather boring quite quickly.
http://www.politics.ie/northern-ireland/

Whatever the science – and I’m sure that some solution to GW needs to be found, we’re probably going to use up nearly all the oil and gas we have – as I can’t see the likes of Russia stopping its production for the good of the planet.
But that’s me just showing my ignorance I suppose.

Given Blue Rock’s and Jim’s childish sectarian interjections here, it does make me think that those Spiked people must have something right when they mock them … in the same manner as the French soldiers mocked King Arthur and his men when they came to the castle in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/issues/C32/

There should be a new rule of debate where linking to Spiked automatically disqualifies you from making any further arguments. er, just sayin’.

64. damon

You’re as clueless about the meaning of ‘ad hominem’ as… seemingly everything else.

P.S. Try to be consistent in your rambling – either you live a “modest existance [sic]” or you’re a ‘high roller’ who flies off on EasyJet every weekend. That lack of consistency makes you look like a bullshitter.

Mr S. Pill – you’re right, and one should do that only in moderation. I just thought doing a a link to all their environmental politics stories that really take the P out of some of the more silly ecoists, was worth showing.
And I thought the December 2010 interview with Bjorn Lomborg titled ”Climate change: a practical problem, not a moral one” was very interesting.

To me it’s about how you present your politics, not the science. And I think the way a large number of the GW activists have developed their politics and actions/stunts truely sucks.
Now you’d think that this might be open for open discussion. But apparently not.

And Blue Rock, I might not understand latin words that well, but if you bothered to actually read what I said @55, you’d see I said I didn’t even own a motor vehicle.
But I will admit to having flown on Easy Jet a few times.
That’s really terrible is it? Jesus.

@67

“To me it’s about how you present your politics, not the science. And I think the way a large number of the GW activists have developed their politics and actions/stunts truely sucks.”

You may think that, but it’s undeniable that it has forced climate change to the top of the political agenda. Rightly so, IMO, as it is the biggest problem that we are going to face over the next 50-odd years.

I don’t think it is credible to say just because other nations are industrialising and their populations are growing that means we should do nothing about pollution and our energy use. We know the global population will grow until around 2050 before plateauing and then decline. Short of euthanising hundreds of millions there is not a lot anyone can do about population growth. More children are surviving and people are living longer is the reason not a massive increase in fertility.

The world is going to run into energy problems even if climate change was not a factor. Moreover, access to fresh water is going to be growing problem. Even if we could engineer higher yielding crops to feed people the crops still need water to grow. Most of the GE stuff with crops has not produced higher yields and we appear be stagnating in terms of getting higher yields from conventional science. Fresh water resources are a real issue that could easily lead to conflicts. So much of the fresh water in the world is in a different place to populations. Water really is also an energy problem. We already have the technology for desalination. However, those plants require huge amounts of energy. I would like to believe the world could solve its energy needs through renewables. However, I have my doubts. In the long-term, I think the answer will be nuclear fusion. NF still has many technical barriers to overcome, but if they can be solved it would be a much better source of energy than nuclear fission and is effectively infinite. In the meantime we should reduce our use of fossil fuels no matter what the rest of the world do.

@Bluerock:

You. Aren’t. Helping.

67. damon

> …Bjorn Lomborg…

Little surprise that you would find the Danish Liar (only escaped censure from the Danish national science academy for dishonesty because they concluded he was incompetent!) interesting or persuasive. His song is just what the terminally greedy want to hear: keep on consuming, make yourself wealthier to prepare for the ‘trivial’ problems global warming will bring.

> …I might not understand latin words…

So don’t use words that you don’t understand.

~~~

69. Richard W

Dickhead Damon is simply using one of the most common excuses for doing nothing himself: pointing at someone – anyone! – who he thinks is not helping as excuse for him not doing anything. Just another facet of his contemptible

> Short of euthanising hundreds of millions there is not a lot anyone can do about population growth.

Good to see someone else gets it. ‘Overpopulation’ is another of the common scapegoats used by those who don’t want to take responsibility. It’s very convenient to blame a problem with no solution while ignoring the problem that does have a solution: overconsumption.

> Most of the GE stuff with crops has not produced higher yields …

Indeed. And glyphosphate (Monsanto’s Roundup) is becoming increasingly ineffective against weeds. As peak oil bites down, organic is the only sane option:

* Conversion to small organic farms therefore, would lead to sizeable increases of food production worldwide. Only organic methods can help small family farms survive, increase farm productivity, repair decades of environmental damage and knit communities into smaller, more sustainable distribution networks – all leading to improved food security around the world. http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html

> …nuclear fusion…

It’ll be here in 50 years. The same as last year. The same as it will be next year.

We have all the renewable energy we need to power the entire planet many times over. In fact, we have enough theoretical wind energy off the coast of the UK to power the entire planet:

* Two Terawatts average power output: the UK offshore wind resource. “The theoretical resource from offshore wind turbines in UK waters is approximately 2.2 TW of average (ie continuous output) of electricity.” http://www.claverton-energy.com/two-terawatts-average-power-output-the-uk-offshore-wind-resource.html

~~~

70. Robin Levett

Try not to be a pointless pissant. We’ve got enough of those already. Thanks.

Dickhead Damon is simply using one of the most common excuses for doing nothing himself: pointing at someone – anyone! – who he thinks is not helping as excuse for him not doing anything. Just another facet of his contemptible

My oinly problem is with the sanctimonious …. that’s all.
I’m not a ”denier” about anything in particular. If we have problems we have to fix them – as a world society.
Because I refuse to bow the knee to the ridiculious politics that tries to personalise it down to the individual, I’m a bad person apparently.
Blue Rock makes my point for me perfectly.

Mr S. Pill. OK, but we know about all this now. We don’t need any more ”flash mobs” at airports, and punch ups with the police outside climate conferences like the one in Copenghagen. And I do resent the ”you are with us or against us” ultimatum from some of the eco-activists. It’s like having your own mind on what is the right thing to do is not allowed. That you are obliged to go along with the thinking of the more radical greens or be told you’re a selfish person.

That point of view doesn’t cut much ice with most people though. Where are the manual workers and the working class inner city FE students on these ”Plane Stupid” type stunts? Or on the UKuncut protests in Top Shop for that matter.

This youtube shows everything that is wrong about this politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oabDeiG0CZ8

72. damon

> My oinly problem is with the sanctimonious …. that’s all.

No. We’ve already done this. Your problem is with a caricature of a social group that makes you feel uncomfortable about your refusal to take responsibility for your actions.

And you have the supplemental problem that you are scientifically illiterate and intend staying that way – while still thinking that your opinion is interesting or useful.

Your problem is with a caricature of a social group that makes you feel uncomfortable about your refusal to take responsibility for your actions.

I don’t need to caricature anything. It’s all there in your posts and their youtubes of their own stunts.

As for ”taking responsibility for my own actions” – I told you, I don’t even own a motorbike, so what am I meant to feel guilty about? I actually live quite a frugal existence – though not through choice particularly.
So at worst I’m only guilty of ‘thought crimes’.

If I had the money, I’d take off on some hedonistic round-the-world travel for a few years, using all forms of transport. Air, rail and road. How bad is that?

74. damon

Yeah, we’ve already done this.

Try to be consistent in your rambling – either you live a “modest existance [sic]” or you’re a ‘high roller’ who flies off on EasyJet every weekend. That lack of consistency makes you look like a bullshitter.

Blue Rock, this is boring and you’ve just made your self look stupid.
Where have I suggested that I’m a ”high roller”? What does that even mean?
In your book it might mean someone who’s taken a few cheap flights around Europe in the past.

Your statement @19 shows that there is a big gulf in our world views so we might as well stop this now.

Just because the poorest few billion don’t want to live a subsistence existence does not mean they have to consume and pollute like gluttonous Americans and Brits.

So we’re all gluttonous for just being regular people, working for wages and living ordinary lives. Is it ”gluttonous” to own a fridge? What about a washing machine?
Owning a computer must be OK though because you seem to have one. :rolleyes:

76. damon

> …you’ve just made your self look stupid.

A few hours earlier: “I know little and care less about the whole global warming issue.”

And in between you’ve been rambling on and producing piles of pointless shite. You’re a moron.

I mentioned in post 49 above, an article on another website, that has just been given a thread here on LC. The one titled: ”Why climate activists should focus on threats to people’s lives”. I won’t say anything about it on that thread, as that might be seen as trolling, and I’ve had posts deleted before for being too directly negative about an OP by a guest. But I’ll say here that I think it’s absolutely appalling. But that’s just my opinion.

I won’t bother getting into a slanging match over it. It’s just a difference of opinion with the way LC presents things.
That other one too about the thing with pouring oil over some naked bloke at the Tate Modern or somewhere. The BP one. If people think that’s worthwhile politics then fair enough. I hate it, but that’s just me. Blue Rock. You’re welcome to it.

Whatever floats one’s boat I guess.

78. damon

It’s becoming morbidly fascinating to see how much repetitious drivel you can write without saying anything useful or interesting.

Blue Rock, you’ve just become an irritant. This is a political forum. People are posting threads about political actions like the two I just mentioned. People are going out in public and doing things like pouring oil all over themselves as a way of protesting or raising awareness for something. People are then invited to give their opinions on what has been said and done.

You seem to be in some ‘Sally-like’ mindset, where no ”Brownshirts” (or whatever) will be tolerated. Pack it in would you? It’s pretty tedious. I just disagree with you that’s all.
You sound like the very worst of the kind of people I have no time for in the eco-protest movement.

No, you don’t just “disagree” with me. You’re a wilfully ignorant, tedious twat who has nothing interesting or useful to contribute – unless droning on about how much you dislike “eco-activists” is somehow useful.

I remain morbidly fascinated to see how many different ways you can say nothing useful or interesting.

@Bluerock:

Sorry for not replying before; other priorities.

You have failed to demonstrate that you have any more understanding of (as opposed to ability to regurgitate) the science than SMFS or even damon. You have chosen your side, which by pure chance happens to be the right one, and are determined to defend your side with all the tribalist abuse you can muster.

Your reasoning powers are demonstrated in this thread by your description of Lomborg as the “Danish liar” while at the same time citing some unidentified “Danish national science academy” as having cleared him of precisely that charge.

The DCSD – which was the body that said that he was incompetent but not dishonest (therefore not a liar) but that his book was dishonest – is an emanation not of the Danish national science academy but of the Danish Ministry of Research and Information Technology.

I’m not sure that damon is the only “wilfully ignorant, tedious twat who has nothing interesting or useful to contribute – unless droning on about how much you dislike “eco-[in]activists” is somehow useful” in this thread.

82. Robin Levett

You’re back with some more whining. At least this time there is something in it to respond to even if it is weak gruel.

Re. Lomborg, the Danish Liar: are you new to this subject? Can you not use Google? You really need to educate yourself on the basics before going off on a rant that exposes your ignorance. Here a starter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg#Accusations_of_scientific_dishonesty

You should then educate yourself on how egregiously wrong Lomborg is: http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/ – and then pay attention to the patterns of how he is always wrong. The only parsimonious explanation is that he is a congenital liar.

> …he was incompetent but not dishonest (therefore not a liar) but that his book was dishonest…

Are you Lomborg’s publicist? lmao. Who do you think wrote Lomborg’s dishonest book? Pathetic attempt at sophistry.

> The DCSD … is an emanation not of the Danish national science academy but of the Danish Ministry of Research and Information Technology.

“Fuck off. Judean People’s Front. We’re the People’s Front of Judea.”

Lomborg was charged with dishonesty by a national science body. As I said. Your desperate attempts at picking at minutiae does not alter that. It’s almost as though you are hysterically trying to prove me wrong at something – anything! As a result you’re making yourself look like a petty pedantic pissant.

> I’m not sure that damon is the only “wilfully ignorant, tedious twat…”

Nope. You’re keeping him in good company. Got any more for us?

@Watchman #52:

“And if Professor Pielke had said what Sceptical Science claims (which he did not – although others have used him to say this) he would have been disproven by this”

But he *did* say what Skeptical Science said he said; and he repeated it at:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/11/pielke-senior-misinformation-on-the-website-%E2%80%9Cskeptical-science-%E2%80%93-getting-skeptical-about-global-warming-skepticism%E2%80%9D/

But in fact it was DiPUccio’s article that they address in the “intermediate” tab from which I cited the conclusion.

“But Sunny did not set out to prove this particular contention wrong – he just claimed the oceans are not cooling, which goes beyond the boundaries of uncertainty that Sceptical Science allows (and with which I agree).”

Not quite true; SS says that the evidence shows statistically significant warming, not cooling. There is a study, but only one out of a number, that suggests cooling – but that was the least rigorous study that failed to control for various factors that lead to a cooling bias in the data. It might be true that one cannot exclude the the possibility of ocean cooling over the relevant period – but cooling is not what the data show. To illustrate; one cannot exclude the possibility that Tottenham Hotspur will win the Premiership this year; they are only 16 points behind with 6 games to play; but in the real world would you really say that you are justified in saying that Spurs *will* win the Premiership? Would you really argue that one is not justified in saying that they will not do so?

“I can see one error in it – it depends on the slope at the start of the trend as to what is happening to the trend if the end is stable (fundamental error with trend lines – they have two ends).”

That was my point. The other point is over what period you calculate the trend, as you subsequently accept.

This, however:

“Otherwise, I am going on the data presented for the recent stability in ocean temperature.”

is wrong – the data doesn’t show “stability”, but statistically significant warming.

The problem with your position as stated here (#37):

“This could just be natural variance in a picture of steadily increasing temperatures, but equally it could be the peaking of a natural cycle of variance in ocean temperatures (remember that proper ocean temperature measurements do not cover a full cycle of the various climatic systems so we do not know if there is a cyclical pattern).”

is that any cyclical explanation has to do double duty. It has to explain not only the warming that we see, but to explain the masking of the warming that we know from fairly well-established and basic atmospheric physics should be there as a result of CO2 increases. There is a pretty solid lower bound of 1.5K on climate sensitivity, representing CO2 forcing alone and neglecting any feedback effects. If the warming we have seen results from cyclical effects, what has happened to the CO2 forced effects; and what happens to global temperature when the cycle turns and stops masking those effects…

@Bluerock #82:

Just this once:

Calling someone a liar on the basis of a finding that that someone was not dishonest show a lack of attention to detail to say the least.

From your own cited source:

“The ruling was a mixed messages, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:”

From your own previous post:

“only escaped censure from the Danish national science academy for dishonesty because they concluded he was incompetent”

So was he dishonest (“a liar”) or wasn’t he?

Am I new to this subject? Use Google; but note that I do remember reading the Nature review of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” when I received my copy..

In the meantime, try to learn enough about the science to make yourself look slightly better-informed that SMFS or damon; and do try not to make schoolboy errors like confusing national science academies with science ministries.

85. Robin Levett

> Just this once:

Just this once what?

> Calling someone a liar on the basis of a finding that that someone was not dishonest show a lack of attention to detail to say the least.

Your reading comprehension needs work. It is the *pattern* of ‘mistakes’ that make a very strong case that Lomborg is a liar. You would need to educate yourself on his output to understand this. I’ve given you starters. Do you need more spoon feeding?

> So was he dishonest (“a liar”) or wasn’t he?

Are you asking for my opinion or the final, highly disputed verdict? Either way the answer to both is clear – so why are you asking?

> …note that I do remember reading the Nature review of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” when I received my copy..

Oooh! Impressive. You’ve read Nature. A pity that your name-dropping doesn’t translate in to an appearance of someone who has a clue.

And, the fact that you would buy something penned by Lomborg is testament to how clueless you are on this subject.

> In the meantime, try to learn enough about the science…

Shouldn’t you first demonstrate that I don’t know about the science? In a similar way that I have just exposed that you don’t have a clue about Lomborg, and by extension you are, at best, likely confused about the entire subject.

> …confusing national science academies with science ministries.

You’re really digging yourself in to that petty pedantic pissant’s hole, eh? I guess if you have nothing better to work with, sophistry is your only friend.

Any more whining today?

@Bluerock:

“And, the fact that you would buy something penned by Lomborg is testament to how clueless you are on this subject.”

Read for comprehension next time.

87. Robin Levett

> Read for comprehension next time.

Is that really the best you could do? Pathetic.

You carry on wasting your time reading the work of liars and idiots if you choose, I’ll stick with scientists and credible commentators. I know which of us has the better grasp of climate science as a result.

@Bluerock #88:

“You carry on wasting your time reading the work of liars and idiots if you choose, I’ll stick with scientists and credible commentators. I know which of us has the better grasp of climate science as a result.”

The astute reader masochistic enough to continue following this increasingly futile exchange (I appreciate that those two conditions are mutually exclusive) would have already realised what you still fail to realise. At no time have I claimed to have bought or read “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, and indeed I haven’t. I did read the review in Nature (in 2001) when I received my copy, and followed the subsequent exchanges both there and on the SA site and Lomborg’s own.

Having said that, does it not occur to you that in order to meet an opponent’s argument, it helps to have read and understood it first? I have to say that nothing you have said in this thread or elsewhere gives me any confidence that if I asked you about the significance of Svante’s work your response would be anything other than an intemperate dismissal of him as simply another of Lomborg’s compadres.

No comments on the ridiculous polar bear ad and the one with the animals all looking sad on that other thread Blue Rock? The one titled ”Why climate activists should focus on threats to people’s lives”.

And the equally stupid stunt of those attention seekers pouring oil on some naked person at the Tate gallery? You need to say something about them. Either approving or dissaproving. Or do you just like to be abusive to other people?

89. Robin Levett

So are you now saying you bought a copy, read Nature and then did not read your copy? You’re being very careful to not state clearly what you did.

This makes you appear sneaky and dishonest as well as a bit thick.

> …in order to meet an opponent’s argument, it helps to have read and understood it first?

lol. You pretentious twat. As though you are capable or responsible for debunking Lomborg’s bullshit.

Focus: you don’t need to buy every dishonest half-wit’s book to dismiss it.

@Bluerock #91:

“So are you now saying you bought a copy, read Nature and then did not read your copy?”

No. Read what I actually said.

“lol. You pretentious twat. As though you are capable or responsible for debunking Lomborg’s bullshit.”

Oddly enough, yes, I am; unlike others, I like to think things through, not unthinkingly take up tribal positions.

Any comment on Svante’s work?

92. Robin Levett

I’m supremely uninterested in whether you read it or not. You were dumb enough to give money to Lomborg. That speaks volumes.

> Oddly enough, yes, I am;

I didn’t need confirmation, thanks. It’s abundantly clear that you rate yourself far above your actual ability.

@Bluerock #93:

“You were dumb enough to give money to Lomborg.”

When? How many more posts before you actually read what I wrote, rather then knee-jerking to what you think you saw?

Still waiting for your opinion on Svante’s work.

94. Robin Levett

Don’t blame others for your inability to communicate clearly. And you don’t win anything by refusing to clarify. It’s a pathetic tactic from those who know they have little else to work with.

@Blouerock #95:

From my #89:

“At no time have I claimed to have bought or read “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, and indeed I haven’t.”

I make no apology for assuming average intelligence and adult reading age in anyone reading my posts.

96. Robin Levett

As you are a pretentious twat – by your own admission – you can hardly blame me for taking little interest in what you write.

Anything else?

can I make an appeal to mods to lock this thread. enough flame wars already – and there’s enough evidence about global warming in this thread if anyone passing through reads the comments as well. I see no reason why this discussion is continuing & in a very nasty way as well.

Jesus. The self-appointed internet police have arrived.