BBC : Male Climate Change Deniers Are Like Terrorists, Paedophiles, And Slave Owners

Because we live in a broadly patriarchal society, we should not be surprised that the culture which brought about the worldwide financial meltdown was overwhelmingly masculine. But consider also that the people who are most vocal in denying human responsibility for the disastrous effects of climate change are mostly male.

The people who control factories of wage slaves in the developing world are almost exclusively men, as are the commanders of terrorist regimes. Leaders who threaten or declare war are mostly men as are those involved in paedophile gangs.

While there are women who have been found guilty of this activity, to the best of my knowledge there have been no prosecutions of gangs of women. But there are untold networks of men who organise systematically the abuse of children.

BBC – BBC Radio 4 Programmes – Today, 11/05/2012, Thought for the Day – John Bell

h/t to Marc Morano

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to BBC : Male Climate Change Deniers Are Like Terrorists, Paedophiles, And Slave Owners

  1. Kaboom says:

    I wasn’t aware I was the one who planned on replacing democratically elected governments with unaccountable bureaucracies to limit people’s energy use, all their consumption habits and their ability to have offspring.

    • climate hawk says:

      Yeah your “energy use” effects me and my children directly. The delusion you have is that what you can be isolated from its effect on the people around you. If that were true, then no one would care about your energy use.

      Since it’s not true, since what you do can harm the rest of us, we need a way to stop you if our actions begin to harm other people. Too bad, suck it up, punk. It’s called living with other people and it’s what adults learn how to do. Conservatives act like the world is their spooch rag for them to act out whatever impulse it is they have when they have it. Someone wants to limit what it is I can do!! Boohoohoo… my fweedoms and wiberty are under assault by the hated government!!! Yo’re all a bunch of narcissistic, arrested development, temporal-lobe-rage cases. That’s right. We’re going to tell you you can’t shit on everyone else on the planet. Get as red in the face as you want. The adults around you don’t give a shit.

      Government bureaucracies exist in democracies because the duly elected government of for and by the people has to do things and not just exist in theory. So we have the IRS and the EPA and a lot of other bureaucracies to deal in an impartial manner with all citizens. It’s amusing to hear right wingers get their panties in a bunch of the the workings of government and clearly not even understand the basic inevitable facts of how one has to be run.

      • I’m guessing that your energy use is a lot higher than mine. I ride my bicycle everywhere and almost never use AC or heat in my home. Perhaps you should start paying compensation to me and my children?

        I think $100 per month would be fair.

        BTW – all of the personality disorders you are attributing to other people, seem to be actually coming from your own personality. A little self-introspection might be in order.

      • LLAP says:

        @Climate hawk: “Yo’re all a bunch of narcissistic, arrested development, temporal-lobe-rage cases.”

        Sounds more like you are describing yourself and what I typically experience from those on the left. Why are you left-wingers such an angry, hate-filled lot?

      • Yes, our energy use “effects” you.

      • climate hawk says:

        Yeah your energy use has follow on consequences for people who are not you. This is just a fact. So the original argument , if you can all it that, that the government has an interest in regulating energy use is void.

        It’s nice to ride bikes and recycle and if that were all it’s going to take to reverse climate change then no one could indict you. Unfortunately, the necessary forestall climate change are systemic and require policy-based initiatives implemented on a world wide basis. They also require the force of law. No one wants this to be the case, but it is.

        The fact that conservatives have elected of their own free will and volition to align themselves against science on this topic and to work to prevent needed changes effectively means they’re functioning against the national security of the United States of America.

        The fact is, it may right now be too late to stop civilization deconstructing climate change. Another way to say this is the resistance which conservatives have mounted through their think tanks and media personalities.has brought us to the point where the continuance of civilization is effectively left to chance. This is a different situation than if we had done something when the science first indicated that climate change was certain.

        It’s worth reflecting on what this means. We may make it, but only if we take very strong remedial action starting immediately. It’s also true that if we take such action, we may still not make it. There are numerous possible mechanisms through which a GHG feedback loop may be invoked or the oceans may become s carbon source rather than a sink, or the bottom of the food chain in the ocean could begin to die out. Any of those events, as soon as their confirmed, will have the immediate effect of destabilizing civilization because what they mean is we’re doomed. As soon as that is recognized as inevitable by the population, the full psychological and societal effect will begin to play out.

        That means outright civil war in the U.S. , uncontrolled vengeance seeking against that segment of society seen to have acted to prevent change in time, economic chaos, mass food and water shortages etc. etc.

        All this MAY already be inevitable, we actually can’t be sure because while our models are very clear about the overall trend and its causes, and we know where that trend will take us if the underlying forces remain unaddressed, we don’t know what all the possible catastrophic chain of events on the way might be or what might trigger them off.

        So this is where we are right now because of conservatives. This is a fact- conservatives have brought us to a point where it’s basically up to chance if we survive as a species or not. That is the inevitable conservative legacy which is now written into the history books.

        Movement conservatism is a walking dead man for just this reason. Scientific reality plays out one way, not many ways, not as many ways as their are scientifically worthless opinions being spouted by FoxNews and the WSJ and Rush Limbaugh and Shaun Hannity and Forbes Magazine et. al. Reality is not a post modern construct where you have YOUR reality and I have MY reality, so we’re somehow even.

        There is just one objective verifiable reality and that reality is known through process we call science. If you want to have the private belief that the earth is 5000 years old or that smoking doesn’t cause cancer or that evolution is just a theory and not a fact, then it’s a free society and you can exercise your right to those misguided opinions. You can smoke because it doesn’t hurt me. You can write treatises against Darwin because no one in the medical community gives a flying fuck what you think and progress in molecular biology and immunology and germ theory goes on unabated by your actions.

        But when it comes to refusing to avert climate change, actually, you cease to have the right to implement your opinion because doing so endangers other people. Your right to swing your fist stops at other people’s faces. No one cares what scientific illiterates think about climate change and in fact, no one cares what scientists who are not duly qualified in the relevant science thinks either.

        People who are active researchers and who are published in the relevant peer reviewed journals are speaking with shocking unanimity on the reality of climate change and the few duly qualified scientists who are still dissenters in any way at all- and virtually one of them argue that AGW is not both real and potentially devastating- are now a paltry minority and unable to defend their positions to their peers.

        Like a belligerent drunk who continually shoots his mouth off in a bar, conservatism’s well documented antagonism towards science has finally picked a fight in which its argument with reality is going to prove fatal to it.

        I hope we make it. I know conservatives will never change their minds and I’ve given up trying to convince them , so here’s how this is going to play out. The weather will keep getting hotter and more extreme. One or another weather related event will be catastrophic to some part of the nation. The government will then try to act. By this time, it’s likely too late to preserve life on earth as we know it and the day late dollar short half measures that conservatives agree to will be ineffective. At that point, the President will have a choice to make. One option will be to ram remedial action down the nation’s throat, suspending the Constitution if necessary and taking all measures in his or her capacity as Commander in Chief to protect the nation against all enemies foreign and domestic.

        In response conservatives will secede and at that time we’ll enter into a conflict which will end with the most one-sided and ruthless campaign against any group of humans ever. Conservatives will flee to the South and Southwest because they’re openly being murdered by their neighbors, by roving gangs of enraged and hungry citizens, with no reprisal mounted against the murderers by the authorities who are already overburdened securing the most basic functioning of the government. They will declare some Hannity / Limbaugh inspired shit about The Real America and reenact the Confederacy, fueled by End Times Christians who see in the criminally negligent and catastrophic result of their own denialism the events of book of Revelation and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

        But just as the Americans Indians believed with their whole heart and soul that if they did the Ghost Dance and gave themselves over to the Great Spirit , the White Man’s bullets could not hurt them, so too will Christians see that their’ pre-scientific superstitions are actually worthless fantasies left over from the Bronze Age without the power to save them in the end.

        The response from civilized, rational society will be total, systematic and completely devastating. The built up public rage towards them and the apocalyptic nature of the crime they’ve committed against the rest of humanity will release the government’s actions, with full approval of all the world’s citizens, from the boundaries civilized society’s normally constrains by.

        Whether civilization survives or perishes, , one thing is certain if we continue to do nothing;. conservatives aren’t going to have to wait to die to know what hell is.

        The sad thing is, it might now be too late and what’s more, there are fully implementable and effective plans now available to us which minimize the felt impact on ordinary life, the Princeton Wedges programme being but the most well known.

        http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/

        We can’t rely on some breakthrough technology to surface in time. Once the effects are begin to be felt, it’s already too late because the effects lag in time behind the the establishment of structural devastation causing them. Once we feel its effects and and this causes enough people agree on taking action, the amount of devastation coming at us that is inevitable , that’s baked into the cake no matter what we do, is catastrophic.

        People are known to be bad at processing this kind of cause and effect. They have to feel the effect before they are motivated to act against the cause. Unfortunately, in the case of climate change it’s then far too late to stop what’s coming.

        That’s why we leave science to scientists and not to the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world. It’s complicated and literally takes a lifetime of dedication to understand the underlying realities, many of which are counter-intuitive in the extreme . That’s why being a scientist is a tough and mostly unglamorous profession and anyway one that excludes by its very nature the least intelligent, unlike, say, broadcasting.

        What conservatives have done is a Crime Against Humanity. To bring us to the brink, to put us in a position where mere chance now decides our fate even though we knew what we needed to do, is in and of itself a crime against civilization and all peoples everywhere.

        The people who populate deniers blogs spouting what they think is a valid argument on a domain of science they have no training in are text book narcissists. Perhaps its worthwhile to post that definition here so people unfamiliar with what that word means can understand who and what deniers are:

        from Wikipedia:

        1) Has a grandiose sense of self-importance … expects to be recognized as knowledgeable or superior without commensurate achievements

        Deniers think they can carry on a scientific debate with scientists without ever having undertaken the years of study necessary for such

        2) Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

        No one is going to tell them they need to use less energy or that something or someone is going to set limits on what they can do.

        3) Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

        The 1% ers , the fundamentalist and Dominionists Christians to a tee.

        4) Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

        Conservatives think they own the world and all its natural resources, water, and are free to wreck the environment and pollute everyone else’s air and water in any way they see fit and anyone who tells them otherwise or points out other people’s equally legitimate claims to above are “socialists ”

        5) Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

        As this blog and others have pointed out, 100% of the exploitation in third world countries is done by a small group of white males and further,. any attempt to instantiate egalitarian social policies in even this nation are met with rage, hatred and expressions of “moral” outrage .

        6) Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

        From their opposition to universal health care to their opposition to environmental standards to their resistance to civil rights to their willingness to deny equal rights to women and of course now to gays to their support of the 1% , conservatives have displayed a persistent and pathological indifference to the welfare of others. They view other people’s material disadvantage as an expression of those individuals inferiority of industriousness and or intelligence and aren’t shy about saying so.

        7) Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her

        This is exactly the attitude of deniers towards people who have spent their lives studying the subject of climate change and have EARNED their authority on this subject. Conservatives are envious of the legitimate authority scientists have earned and seek to discredit them through baseless and base accusations of grant money seeking (???!!!) , money of course being something conservatives, Ayn Rand freaks, “prosperity gospel” Christians (God wants you to be rich and if you’re rich, it was God’s will!!) and the 1%ers with their relentless, corrosive and completely pathological pursuit of “tax breaks” are themselves of course completely obsessed with .

        8) Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
        1%ers . Enough said.

      • The 1% ers , the fundamentalist and Dominionists Christians to a tee.

        You left out the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Knights Templar, the Ku Klux Klan, the Bilderberg Hotel, Freemasons, the Skull & Bones, & the Apple Dumplin’ Gang. Get with it here!

      • Also:

        Hi, Gene Ray! I love your site!

      • I’m curious how you would stopped the heat and drought of the 1930s? Hansen wrote this about the 1930s

        “Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.”

        http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

      • Me says:

        Stark, you missed Bohemian Grove!

      • LLAP says:

        @Climate Hawk: “So this is where we are right now because of conservatives. This is a fact- conservatives have brought us to a point where it’s basically up to chance if we survive as a species or not.”

        So, at what point do you think conservatives should be tattooed? Or put in prison, or even concentration camps? 1930’s Germans were absolutely certain that it was Jews who were the cause of all their problems. Get a clue.

        • climate hawk says:

          Look, I am trying to draw for you the very likely consequences of doing nothing. What do I want ? I want to see us face reality, bite whatever bullet needs to be bitten and act like men who care about their families and their children. Non-action has consequences, just like actions do and you’re responsible for what results from your non-action.

          No one is talking about tatooing anyone. What I AM doing it painting a possible scenario – not that far fetched- that is intended to flesh out for you a dystopian future. and the sad and unnecessary but realistic path that was followed to arrive at that future.

          The rejection of science by conservatives is what drove me out of conservatism.. that and the ridiculous piousness and superstition of present day conservatives. There was a time when conservatives were strong on national defense strong on the environment and conservation and strong on science. I liked being one of those guys. Now it’s a breeding ground for ignorance of the lowest order. The present day talking heads are foul and disgusting examples of “the worst filled with passionate intensity” . Basically, conservatives have succeeded in driving out everyone whose not batshit crazy from the cause; we’ve replaced the Huntsmans of the world with Gingriches and Bachmans. What a joke.

      • jimash1 says:

        I really like this part,
        “The response from civilized, rational society will be total, systematic and completely devastating. The built up public rage towards them and the apocalyptic nature of the crime they’ve committed against the rest of humanity will release the government’s actions, with full approval of all the world’s citizens, from the boundaries civilized society’s normally constrains by.

        Whether civilization survives or perishes, , one thing is certain if we continue to do nothing;. conservatives aren’t going to have to wait to die to know what hell is.”

        Ehere you explain how your religion is different, and then threaten to condemn people to hell and damnation.
        That is entertainment.
        That you think it affects anything for me to use some power is absurd.
        Its like saying “you should eat all your peas because people are starving in Africa”
        Are you packing up boxes of electricity and sending it to Africa ?

      • LLAP says:

        @Climate Hawk: “Look, I am trying to draw for you the very likely consequences of doing nothing.”

        So far, doing nothing has resulted in global surface temperature cooling for the past 11 years:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2012/trend

        The Sun started to go quiet around 2003 and the PDO switched into its negative phase in 2008. Did you ever consider that maybe natural forces dominate and that man’s effect on climate is small, if not insignificant?

      • JMitch says:

        If humans are the cause of global warming, how do you explain the historical record that shows we’ve had both a warm period followed by an ice age 450 million years ago when CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today? Without CO2 there would be no life, yet the way the alarmists talk, you would think it is a pollutant that’s dominating the atmosphere. The truth is CO2 from all sources (natural and man-made), makes up only 400 parts per million. Nitrogen and oxygen are the dominant gases accounting for 99% of the atmosphere while CO2’s contribution is a mere 1/25th of 1%!
        Human activity creates 30 gigatons of CO2 (a gigaton = one billion metric tons), but when compared to the 775 gigatons produced by the earth’s microbes and vegetation on land and in the ocean, it’s minimal; about 4%. Obviously, there are other factors involved.
        The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continually, but even without the human factor, nature’s balance over time is not constant as ice core samples reveal. Long before human activity, CO2 levels have varied as we’ve had both tropical periods and ice ages when emissions were much higher than today.
        Also, don’t you find it strange that if carbon emissions were so dangerous, why do our political leaders continue to fly around in huge jets; why aren’t they driving around in smart cars instead of the large luxury cars?
        The climate change issue is not about climate. After a carbon tax is passed and our electric rates increase, more U.S. manufacturing will move to China and the climate issue will fade from the news. Government’s attention will move on to the next “crisis”; real or imagined. We will continue to have severe storms along with hot and cold periods just like we’ve always had!
        The reason for the Climate “crisis” is simply:
        1. To continue the attack on fossil fuels; coal, oil and natural gas.
        2. To allow the federal government to gain more control over our personal and business activities.
        3. To provide the government with another income source.

  2. Me says:

    Uni bomber, Charles Manson, Osama Bin dumbshit, James Lee. I’m sure there are more out there people can name.

  3. papiertigre says:

    Jen Marohasy, Sallie Baliunas, Joanne Nova, Judith Curry, Donna Laframboise. I’m sure there are more out there people can name.

  4. BBC is dead.Years ago they were a news group that one could be proud of, these days they have become a government mouth piece, lack luster reporting and an agenda has seen them (many times) in recent years pulled up on their lack of research, misreporting and out and out lies.

  5. Marian says:

    So does that mean the BBC approves of individuals who commit terrorist acts and believe in AGW/CC. Like Osama Bin Laden.?

    I find it interesting how many crackpots, despots and terrorists actually support AGW/CC. They also often support Global Governance.aswell. The two concepts appear to go hand in hand..

  6. Brian says:

    Geez. This is….

    But hey, atleast the dude isn’t threatening to burn my house down…..

    YET.

  7. The “if we had a women prime minister there would be no more wars” line didn’t really work out either.

  8. Old Goat says:

    “…they have become a government mouth piece…”

    A LABOUR mouthpiece, please – they still think Labour are in power…

  9. Anthony Overton says:

    The worst part of all of this is that the British people are forced to pay for this through the ‘licence fee’ a tax levied on everyone who owns a mobile phone, computer, radio or television. This money is stolen and then ‘writers’ like the one who scripted this vile gibberish is paid out of this stolen money.

    The British need to wake up and simply refuse to pay this immoral and antiquated tax. Not only is it completely unethical, but its effect is entirely corrosive on their society. No one today in the UK would agree that a window tax was reasonable, yet few of them would say that the TV license was absurd, arbitrary and evil.

    There is no market entertainment or news channel that would churn out this sort of anti-male anti-science. If they did, they would soon find themselves bereft of subscribers and advertisers. The BBC, since it is artificially insulated from commercial pressures, can lie to whatever extent it likes without any repercussions. This is unacceptable, and no free country would tolerate a disease like the BBC.

    The BBC must encrypt its signals and go subscription. This is the only way it can be allowed to continue into the future. Every license fee payer that can prove they have paid their licence fee over the last five years should be issued with a share certificate in the corporation, and then the BBC should be left to its own devices to live and die on its strengths and merits.

    I guarantee you that scabrous, disgusting and worthless pieces like this would disappear from their schedules as the BBC is forced to respond to the market and the needs of its owners, the shareholders, rather than the dictates of some nearly criminal executives with their anti-human agenda.

  10. DirkH says:

    BBC turns full blown raving lunatic now?

  11. Edward. says:

    Anthony Overton, a man of sound and reasoned opinion.

    For me, well, I think the beeb is a propaganda outlet for the EU and cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School in the UK but the beeb also acts as a mouthpiece for misanthropic international socialists all over the world particularly in Africa and the sub-continent and in the UN.

    Their remit has been compromised, there is no saving grace, there is nothing to salvage – shut it down now.

  12. Could even an intellect such as Tennyson poetically decribe a slave mongering,Paedophile with a Penchant toward terrorism?

    perhaps a poem entitled The Denier of Shallott should spring forth to encompass the temperament of such a vile rogue

  13. Justa Joe says:

    The guys that run the climate scam are all male too… so what?

    Mo Strong, Stevie Schneider, AlGore, Mickey Mann, Jimmie Hansen, Timmie Wirth, Bennie Santor, Phil Jones, David Blood, Van Jones, Johnnie Holdren, Davey Suzuki, R. Pachuari, etc, etc, etc…

  14. Frank White says:

    Vicious crap.

  15. John Greenfraud says:

    Mr. Bell, it ‘s one thing to be a useful idiot, but quite another to be a threatening useful idiot with the intent to defraud. Your participation will be remembered as the perpetrates of this fraud are rounded up. Listen, can you hear it……it’s the political winds changing directions, blowing ever so gently across the iron bars of a jail cell. Have a nice day Reverend.

  16. Laurence Crossen says:

    Those who accept guilt and fear mongering are servile and stupid.

  17. Marian says:

    “DirkH says:
    May 12, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    BBC turns full blown raving lunatic now?”

    You could say that.

    BBC= Brainless Broadcasting Corp. 🙂

  18. spinifers says:

    Ah yes, good ol’ BBC, reporting news before it happens.

  19. Philip says:

    Is the BBC seriously this stupid.

  20. JohnnyD says:

    What mindless drivel. Talk about guilt by association. This takes it to another level. Now it’s guilt by gender.

  21. Nigel says:

    He doesn’t mention that the main perpetrators of the Worldwide Climategate Fraud were male too.

  22. climate hawk says:

    That you think it affects anything for me to use some power is absurd.

    Yeah,. You get your power from fossil fuels- coal oil or gas, unless you know otherwise. Those fossil fuels are releasing, ancient previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere, raising those levels far in excess of historical levels. It wouldn’t matter except for the fact that carbon dioxide is a potent green house gas- a fact established last century. That’s where your energy use effects me and my kids.

    As far as the Africa analogy goes, it’s not a shortage, it’s an excess and the US is the number one emitter both historically and presently of GHG . We didn’t know, and that’s OK. What’s morally reprehensible is now we do no, but we deny.

    • jimash1 says:

      We are emitting substantially less Co2 now than we were. Technology marches on.
      CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas.
      Its effect in the actual concentration that exists in the atmosphere is small, and the amount of supposed excess added by burning fuel is miniscule.
      The possible climatic effects of this miniscule change are theoretically so small as to be unmeasurable. That some claim to have quantified them is laughable.
      Your quaint belief in 19th century science is touching but misplaced.

  23. climate hawk says:

    jimash1

    Except it’s the diametric opposite of religion, isn’t it? Not every belief system is irrational . Not every belief is irrational. Not all belief systems are equally valid – some are right and others are just wrong. Science is not a form of religion. Believing in science is not an act of faith. The results of science do not constitute an irrational belief system.

    • jimash1 says:

      No it is exactly religion.
      You believe something that you cannot prove, told to you by people who also cannot prove it and have made up a fairy story with less fact in it than your average
      religious text, and you have digested this as dogma, declared that no new information
      is necessary , your mind cannot change, and if we do not follow the commands
      of your new faith we will suffer eternal damnation and possible lynching by the unhinged.
      We get it. You worship this paradigm of unprovable science, hate for your fellow man, and a need to punish someone for your own sins of excess.
      It is religion. And a very bad one at that.

  24. climate hawk says:

    I love it when deniers get concrete. When they repeat tropes they’ve picked up from over here over there, Anthony Watt’s page, wherever. Let’s go. Let’s do this up right.

    Let’s man up. Le’t take responsibility for our statements, deal? Never mind throwaway assertions you’re not even sure are right but you sort of kind of think are right, maybe. I’m not going to hold you to what you said in your last post because that’s just me being an asshole when you weren’t ready. So go ahead. Give me your reasons for thinking the scientists are wrong, in your own words- never mind cut and paste from Watts et al. Tell me what you yourself believe you know about this.

    • jimash1 says:

      What do I know?
      Well right off I am not writing a book here because its quitting time for ol’ Jimmy.

      But…
      I know that 50 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is not creating any weather extremes.
      I know that Co2 is a lesser greenhouse gas both in potency and amount than either Argon or Water vapor.
      I know that so-called extreme weather events haver happened in the past as bad or worse than today’s.
      And that contrary to the new normal history tells us that there have been warmer periods which used to be called “Climate Optimums”.
      I know that there is no reasonable verifiable experimental evidence that Co2 in concentrations found in the atmosphere has any effect close to catastrophic.
      I know that the record has been altered and tampered with.
      I know that between the current state of knowledge of climate factors and the current state of computing that Climate Models are insufficiently complete tools on which to plan a world wide industrial society.
      I know that even if I accepted all the dogma and third hand received wisdom,
      the helpful effects would be nil.
      I conserve reasonably, recycle extensively, and drive responsibly clean
      Honda cars that actually clean the air as I drive. ( Insight ) (Honda Civic Hybrid)
      because I don’t believe in AGW but I do believe in MPG.
      And I know it is time to stop typing now.
      See you tomorrow.
      Heartlly awaiting your evisceration.

  25. climate hawk says:

    You make these hugely broad assertions which are contrary to the assertions of the people who are experts in the field. Yet yo’re the same person who complains loudly when the government comes in and tries to run businesses they have no understanding of or real world experience. How do you square that inside yourself?

    By trashing scientists you’re effectively just ignoring their collective and hard won real world expertise in favor of your own folk theories of How Things Work. This is classic double think. It’s bad when government micromanages business but it’s OK when people who lack the requisite scientific experience and knowledge throw away the body of work of people who have paid their dues.

    • jimash1 says:

      Jus to stick this in.
      Steven here, has shown conclusively, that the record has been tampered with.
      History has been changed, unless you believe that there is some phenomenon of weather reconstruction that could cause the temperature in 1934 to suddenly change in 1999.
      We trash the scientists because they are frauds. They are not the first frauds, and won’t be the last but may be the loudest.

  26. climate hawk says:

    LLAP

    OK so this is a piece of evidence you find convincing. I respect that you find it convincing and it is one of the reasons you believe what you believe. But if we’re rational people, if we’re frankly going to act like real mem – and no, I’m not ashamed to use that phrase- then we change our minds when the underpinnings of our belief system are shown to be in error. Error is not a sin- everyone makes errors in things including important things.

    OK so given that, let’s see what’s up with temperature.

    To quickly grasp the essence of the rebuttal, look at this for four seconds

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

    In a little more detail, look at the end of this graphic, it shows the hemispheric temperature change in the northern and southern hemispheres along with the 5 year means: It’s from NASA’s own site and covers the years 1880 to 2009.

    You can see your years 200-2012 there at the end. It contextualizes things quite well.

    Additionally from NASA:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

    “January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade. Since 1880, the year that modern scientific instrumentation became available to monitor temperatures precisely, a clear warming trend is present, though there was a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s.”

    So that pretty much says what needs to be said regarding rising temperatures.

    Additionally there’s the same graphic as before, with commentary:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

    You can compare the accuracy of the models to actual temps here- the model is in red:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1446

  27. climate hawk says:

    jimash1 you posted a lot and it sounds like you’re retiring for the night.. is there one of these things you want to see me try to answer right now? I can address them all but it’s later there than it is here I imagine.

    • papiertigre says:

      I hear a clucking sound in here. Oh there he is. Climate hawk.

      … when challenge reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.
      Yes, brave Sir hawk turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out.
      Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat.
      A brave retreat by brave Sir Hawkman.

  28. climate hawk says:

    jimash1 said: I know that 50 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is not creating any weather extremes.

    THe problem with what you said is it’s a conclusion, not an argument. Simply stating a conclusion is called “begging the question” of “assuming the consequent”. You start by assuming the thing which is to be proven is true, and golly, if you’re allowed to do that, if that was logical,. you could and can prove pretty much anything.

    So this is not an argument and it’s not going to be addressed as one, except to say that the evidence, to be introduced in the next posts, shows it is wrong.

  29. climate hawk says:

    jimash1 said:
    “I know that Co2 is a lesser greenhouse gas both in potency and amount than either Argon or Water vapor”

    Your right that water vapor is a verypowerful greenhouse gas. Because of it’s ubiquity, it’s by far the most important GHG.

    If you go to the desert one of first things you find that’s weird is it gets so freaking hot during the day, then is totally frigid at night. That’s because in the desert there is no water in the atmosphere. That’s the power of water in the air to effect temperature.

    Scientists express this idea by measuring something called radiative flux. THe radiative flux for water is 75 W/m2. By comaprison the raidiate flus for Co2 is much less, 32 W/m2. So you’re right about water vapor.

    So why does C02 matter so much? Because it is locked in a positive feedback loop with water vapor.

    Water vapor increases with little increases in surface temperature. c02 increases surface temperature. The hotter it gets n the surface, the more it water evaporates into the atmosphere, and because water is a GHG, it gets still hotter.

    In fact anything that makes the earth’s surface temp hotter, like other GHG, trigger off an increase in water in the atmosphere.

    When the presence of more of something is the direct cause of yet more of that same thing to accumlate, that’s called a positive feedback loop. C02 triggers off a positive feedback with water vapor,as do all GHG.

    • The average dew point in Phoenix last July was 53F. The average dew point in Chicago this June has been identical at 53F. The amount of water vapor is identical.

      Now explain why the average temperature in Phoenix last July was 95 degrees, 22 degrees warmer than average temperature in Chicago this June.

      Hawk, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are a classic witch burner. Had you lived 400 years ago you would be blaming your neuroses on women with warts.

  30. climate hawk says:

    Nope papiertigre, I just wanted to catch jimash1 before he retired. I’m not going anywhere.

    Oh and, if you’re going to make fun of my name and call me a chicken, you may want to change your own name to something other than paper tiger

  31. climate hawk says:

    Jimash1 said: I know that so-called extreme weather events haver happened in the past as bad or worse than today’s.

    Extreme weather events is actually a large categorization which encompasses basically “anything weather event that effects people strongly”. So that includes things as diverse as tornadoes and hurricanes and temperature and floods and snowfall and drought etc etc.

    If you section off temperature extremes from the rest then there is no doubt that this aspect of the weather is getting and will continue to get more extreme. That is, after all, what global warming is.

    Given the relationship between water levels in the atmosphere and surface temperature, you can imagine that any weather event which is facilitated by high humidity could become more extreme- torrential downfalls for instance. Further, the rising sea levels, an obvious effect f glacier melt, have to be counted as an extreme weather event that effects humans. Deaths from extreme heat waves are absolutely predicted and in fact happening.

    But to completely accurate, while fiercer weather and more energetic storm surges are predicted in the long term by many models, no one can say with absolute certainty what weather event is caused by global warming, although this may change in the near future and may be changing even now:

    From
    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/11/02/1889203/weather-is-getting-more-extreme.html

    WASHINGTON – For a world already weary of weather catastrophes, the latest warning from top climate scientists paints a grim future: More floods, more heat waves, more droughts and greater costs to deal with them.

    A draft summary of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press says the extremes caused by global warming could eventually grow so severe that some locations become “increasingly marginal as places to live.”


    “The extremes are a really noticeable aspect of climate change,” said Jerry Meehl, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. …

    The final version of the report from a panel of leading climate scientists will be issued in a few weeks, after a meeting in Uganda. The draft says there is at least a 2-in-3 probability that climate extremes have already worsened because of man-made greenhouse gases.


    Experts on extreme storms have focused more closely on the increasing number of super-heavy rainstorms, not snow, NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt said.

    By the end of the century, the intense, single-day rainstorms that typically happen once every 20 years will probably happen about twice a decade, the report said.

    The opposite type of disaster – a drought such as the stubbornly long dry spell gripping Texas and parts of the Southwest – also could happen more often as the world warms, said Schmidt and Meehl, who reviewed part of the climate panel report.

    Studies have not yet specifically tied global warming to the continuing drought, but it is consistent with computer models that indicate current climate trends will worsen existing droughts, Meehl said. Scientifically connecting a weather disaster with global warming is a complicated and time-consuming task that can take more than a year and involve lots of computer calculations.

    Researchers also have predicted more intense monsoons with climate change. Warmer air can hold more water and impart more energy to weather systems, changing the dynamics of storms and where and how they hit.

    Thailand is now coping with massive flooding from monsoonal rains – an event that illustrates how climate is also connected with other man-made issues such as population growth, urban development and river management, Schmidt said.

  32. climate hawk says:

    stevengoddard said:

    “The average dew point in Phoenix last July was 53F. The average dew point in Chicago this June has been identical at 53F. The amount of water vapor is identical.

    Now explain why the average temperature in Phoenix last July was 95 degrees, 22 degrees warmer than average temperature in Chicago this June.”

    OK first off you can’t possibly be disputing the relationship between temp and water vapor; it’s well establish science as explained here:

    http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00016.htm

    Just because water vapor is the strongest GHG there is doesn’t mean it controls temperature exclusively. Dew point is just the temperature at which the air is saturated with water and any temp below this point will (may or is likely to, actually) cause precipitation. AZ is hot because it gets more of the Suns energy directly because it’s closer to the equator and temperature is shorthand for the amount of energy in the air molecules.. Chicago is of course further away.

    AZ is dry because the mountains lift the clouds coming in from the west, causing their dewpoint to decrease and rain to precipitate out of the clouds before they get to AZ.

    • Let me try again. The dew point in Phoenix last July was identical to the dew point in Chicago so far this June. That means that the amount of water vapor in the air was identical in both places. You love to talk, but you don’t listen or think. Your claim that deserts have less water vapor is largely incorrect. The greenhouse effect in Phoenix last July was essentially identical to the greenhouse effect in Chicago this June.

      Now put some thought into that before you respond. Don’t try to make idiotic assumptions about things I didn’t say.

      • Me says:

        Me guesses he she or it doesn’t know how to keep their comments brief and to the point!

      • climate hawk says:

        stevengoddard said:

        Your claim that deserts have less water vapor is largely incorrect.

        It depends on how technical we want to get. A desert is just a place where more water is lost through evaporation than is gained through precipitation, that’s all. You asked about the temp in AZ and why its hotter than Chicago despite comparable dew points, and I answered your question correctly.

        I didn’t say greenhouse gases, H2O specifically, was always the chief determinant of temperature everywhere. I said H2O is the main GHG whose behavior is effected by another GHG CO2 , which is the correct answer to the OP and the proximal mechanism through which global warming is realized.

        AZ does in fact have dry air and less water vapor.

        from
        Montana State University Billings test Spring 2008:

        Click to access Multiple%20Choice%20Exam%20Questions%20I.pdf

        62. An important reason for the large daily temperature range over deserts is:
        a. there is little water vapor in the air to absorb and re-radiate infrared radiation
        b. the light-colored sand radiates heat very rapidly at night
        c. dry air is a very poor heat conductor
        d. free convection cells are unable to form above the hot desert ground
        e. the ozone content of desert air is very low
        ANSWER: a

        From:
        http://www.weatherquestions.com/Why_are_deserts_so_hot.htm

        Interesting facts:

        DESERTS ARE COLD AT NIGHT:Because of the lack of water in the ground, and little water vapor in the air, most deserts can get quite cool at night. This is because (1) dry ground does not retain as much heat as moist ground, and (2) water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, so dry air allows the surface to cool rapidly at night through loss of infrared radiation to outer space.

        and I could go on and on in a like manner.

        From WIsconsin edu:

        Click to access airgas.pdf

        The amount of water in the air varies tremendously with
        location, temperature, and time. In deserts and at low temperatures,
        the content of water vapor can be less than 0.1% by volume

        If you’re interested in the role of water vapor to climate change, this might be a good intro for you, he goes even further than I did and not without facts to back him up either. My comments on this would be reckoned as judicious and conservative.

        http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/watervapor01.htm

        “Don’t try to make idiotic assumptions about things I didn’t say.”

        I am not making any assumptions at all. I am answering the questions you actually asked.

        I also have to note that I’ve said about 50 specific things in answer to questions asked and which are directly relevant to the issue at hand and provided appropriate links to serious scientific sources to back up my points, each one of which you can’t have liked very much given the nature of this website , but correct me if I’m wrong here. If there was a problem with what I have been saying, I think you’d be the first to take note. Correct me also if I’m wrong in that assumption.

        HTH

        • I gave you actual statistics. The average dew point in Phoenix last July was 53F
          http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KPHX/2011/7/23/MonthlyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA&MR=1

          The average dew point in Chicago this June has been 53F
          http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KMDW/2012/6/23/MonthlyHistory.html?MR=1

          Now try again. The amount of water vapor in Phoenix last July was identical to the amount in Chicago this June. Do you have a difficult time focusing on data?

        • climate hawk says:

          You’re getting confused . Sorry to be the one to tell you that.

          Your contrasting the temperature in Chicago to the temp in AZ and pointing out that both have the same dew point for one month in one year.

          Here is exactly what you said:

          The average dew point in Phoenix last July was 53F. The average dew point in Chicago this June has been identical at 53F. The amount of water vapor is identical.

          Now explain why the average temperature in Phoenix last July was 95 degrees, 22 degrees warmer than average temperature in Chicago this June.

          Hawk, you have no idea what you are talking about.

          I did explain that in the next post- water vapor is not the sole determinant of temperature. We’re done. Your question is answered.

          Beyond that you’re confused on a number of issues.

          One is, you seem to be trying to deny that water vapor in the air has an effect on temperature. You’re doing this when you point out that dew point in two cities with different temps is nevertheless the same, as though that constituted some sort of rebuttal.

          This is a silly assertion and contrary to long known and very basic facts about how water vapor and temperature interact. So you can go on asserting it but anyone interested to know if y’re right only has to read the posts in this thread to establish that your belief is a personal one and not a scientific one. So you’re just confused.

          Secondly you’re clearly mixing up two phenomena – weather and climate. The weather in AZ includes the hourly daily and monthly temp, dew point rel. hum. and other data points. That’s WEATHER. The effect of a dew point in a small slice of location and time is weather.

          CLIMATE refers to the long term underlying forces that create weather in a particular location, say over thirty years. One of these is water vapor.

          Here is the difference , again from NASA
          http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

          You can’t point to any particular day or months weather in one place as either supporting or disconfirmatory evidence for a particular model of climate change. No one does this.

          Finally, you are conveniently disregarding the mountain of evidence presented here which directly opposes your denialist assertions . That’s called “cherry picking” .

  33. climate hawk says:

    jimash1 said:
    “Its effect in the actual concentration that exists in the atmosphere is small, and the amount of supposed excess added by burning fuel is miniscule.”

    OK this is just inaccurate.

    First off, a graphic . Here is a view of earth from space at night. We’re anything but a tiny speck on the face of the planet incapable of effecting it with our activity:

    http://www.space.com/13380-photos-earth-cities-night-space.html

    Just because something is small doesn’t mean it’s causally inert.

    0.08% is the legal limit for bloodstream alcohol
    and things measured in parts per MILLION include (ppm)
    – nutrients needed for you to sustain your life Mg (magnesium) and Fe (iron)
    – arsenic (over 0.01 ppm is unsafe)
    – in the atmosphere, 0.1ppm is the concentration of ozone, without which, we all die.

    more simply we all know that just a few droplets of India ink can turn a bucket black as night.

    So the small-means-inert theory is not always very viable.

    ————————————————————————————–

    jimash1 said:

    “The possible climatic effects of this miniscule change are theoretically so small as to be unmeasurable. That some claim to have quantified them is laughable.”

    Well we have in the past measured it and as it happens this May we successfully launched the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2:

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/main/index.html

    But we can do it without satellites and have:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=101

    The actual amount of C02 we release in the atmosphere each year is 25 gigatonnes.

    Giga means “billion” as in gigabyte and tonnes means 1000 kg or over 2000lbs. (1 kg = 2.2 lbs)

    So twenty five billion tons
    or

    25 x 1,000,000,000 tons
    or

    25 x 1,000,000,000 x 2,000 lbs
    or

    25,000,000,000,000 lbs
    or

    25 TRILLION pounds of something which is so light to begin with, it floats into the air…..

    What could possibly go wrong?

    —————————————————————————————————–

    Here are the most recent measurements from NASA for a place in HI which has it’s CO2 measured regularly:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    You don’t even have to read the page , just scan down to the graph showing CO2 against years

    —————————————————————————————————

    Here’s some basic facts in the form of a very simple quiz about C02 courtesy of NASA. This is actually informative.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/quiz/index.cfm

  34. climate hawk says:

    stevegodard said:
    Read this. You are about three years behind in the conversation:

    “Why Adding More CO2 Makes Very Little Difference.

    Most of the greenhouse effect of CO2 occurs from the first 30 ppm. The RRTM data above shows that going from 393 ppm to 560 ppm will increase the greenhouse effect by less than 0.25% in the tropics.”

    climate hawk replies:

    Sure. This is just a form of “CO2 saturation argument”. For the sake of the genral reader, in this argument adding more CO2 is analogous to adding more insulation to your attic the After you put some amount in, addign more does little to change your heat loss / gain curve.

    THe CO2 effect is saturated after a certain amount fo CO2.

    We knew this was probably wrong as early as 1970, when we first started to infer CO2 forcing (that is, climate change due to exccess CO2) from analyzing the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of earth from space. In 1970, a NASA satellite was launched for the purpose of neasuring infrared spectra. The Japanese Space Agency did somethign similar in 1996. You can read about it here:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

    From the paper:

    “Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”

    So you’re about 45 years behind the times.

    In the theory that you linked me to, CO2 effect was saturated, then adding more CO2 shouldn’t contribute to the greenhouse effect. But satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy. That means the CO2 effect is not saturated.

    Arguably you’re even further behind the times than 45 years:

    Gilbert Plass in 1956 :

    “One further objection has been raised to the carbon dioxide theory: the atmosphere is completely opaque at the center of the carbon dioxide band and therefore there is no change in the absorption as the carbon dioxide amount varies.

    This is entirely true for a spectral interval about one micron wide on either side of the center of the carbon dioxide band. However, the argument neglects the hundreds of spectral lines from carbon dioxide that are outside this interval of complete absorption.

    The change in absorption for a given variation in carbon dioxide amount is greatest for a spectral interval that is only partially opaque; the temperature variation at the surface of the Earth is determined by the change in absorption of such intervals.”

    Since you’ve expressed an interest in the chronological sequence of our knowleddge about climate change and CO2’s and how we know what we know, let me recommend this page:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

    He goes into the whole discovery of AGW in chronoloical order and it’s especially gripping reading if you want to confirm how scinetists know what they know.

    Recommended.

    • The data I presented was generated from the radiative transfer model used by NCAR. It shows that any time you have a significant amount of humidity (like in Phoenix) increasing CO2 has minimal effect.

      • climate hawk says:

        Well without a link to the paper behind the graph it’s hard to talk about it at all, isn’t it?

        I have no idea how that graph as produced what data set was input, how that data set was acquired and if that graph appears in any legit peer reviewed journal at all. No information in, no information out

        Regarding Kevin Trenberth, here’s some interesting quotes:

        ——————————————————————————————
        Kevin Trenberth: “The global warming influence provides a new background level that increases the risk of future enhancements in hurricane activity.”
        ———————————————————————————————

        The underlying hypothesis is that El Niño exists and plays a role in the Pacific Ocean as a means of removing heat from the equatorial regions of the ocean, where it would otherwise build up. An implication of this, if correct, is that further heat buildup from increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would lead to increased magnitudes and/or frequency of El Niño events. Nevertheless, we do not expect this to be simple, and nature always seems to be able to come up with surprises as to just what the future holds.
        ————————————————————————————————

        You need to link me to the paper you retrieved this graph from or it just doesn’t count for anything. Sorry.

        • There is no paper behind the graph. I downloaded the model and ran it myself. It comes with a tropics reference config file. If you want to verify it, the code is open source and available from aer research.

        • climate hawk says:

          stevegoddard said:
          There is no paper behind the graph. I downloaded the model and ran it myself. It comes with a tropics reference config file. If you want to verify it, the code is open source and available from aer research.

          Do I have to tell you that you’re not doing science? Write it up, submit it to a qualified peer review journal referred by duly qualified experts in the relevant field and see what the peer community says about it and finally answer their criticisms. There is no other way to do science. There is no shortcut way to be a scientists. Remember, in another post you’ve been caught disputing well-established facts regarding water vapor and temperature that everyone in the field knows all about. What you’re doing is diddling yourself and pretending that you can play scientist without having done any of the actual work real scientists have done .

          You seem to have a problem with the concept of “earned authority” , or the authority that comes from the individual effort of having put in the requisite years of work to necessary to earn knowledge and be admitted as an expert.

          What you’re attempting to confer on yourself is “unearned authority”. You wish to be taken seriously as a peer amongst scientists without being required to do the work.

          You may want to review my post on “narcissism” because this is a textbook symptom of a condition known as “narcissistic personality disorder.”

          Your readers- assuming they are not just you yourself hiding under various guises, may be interested in know something of your “background”.

          You have no scientific credentials that anyone can verify. You are not any one of a number fo legitimate scintists with the same name, in fact, what your real name is appears to be a mystery.

          Here you are:

          from:

          http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/14/new-lows-sea-ice-and-steven-goddard-credibility/

          “Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by an anonymous climate denialist crank, so incredibly sloppy that he even embarrassed arch climate denier Anthony Watts, as shown in this link, and as I showed in one of last year’s “sea ice wrap-up” videos.

          One thread on one stie for one day, produces the following on you:

          from:
          http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up-With-That-ignorance-regarding-Antarctic-sea-ice.html

          ProfMandia at 01:53 AM on 10 March, 2010
          Goddard has been wrong several times on WUWT. Before this, he misrepresented increased snowfall as an indicator that climate may be cooling:

          4 billion at 02:09 AM on 10 March, 2010
          Goddard also states Shakhova gets current Global Methane levels wrong by quoting inaccurate NYT article. lol

          dhogaza at 02:14 AM on 10 March, 2010
          Well, don’t forget it’s Goddard who insisted that there’s dry ice in the Antarctic …

          CBDunkerson at 04:09 AM on 10 March, 2010
          Steve Goddard, I’m sorry but you either KNOW that you are playing fast and loose with the facts or SHOULD.

          The NSIDC source you cite does NOT say that Antarctica is cooling. It says, in passing, that another source entirely (Turner 2009) suggests that the ozone hole might be causing circulation changes which in turn might cause cooling. That statement about a potential cooling influence is VERY different from a statement that the continent as a whole HAS cooled.

          Next you cite UAH satellite records as proof that oceans around Antarctica are cooling… unfortunately those readings are taken of conditions about 4.5 KILOMETERS (i.e. higher than the Rocky Mountains) above the ocean and thus tell us precisely nothing about ocean temperatures.

          Albatross at 04:11 AM on 10 March, 2010
          This is simply more distortion and obfuscation from WUWT. Steve Goddard has also chosen to ignore this image:

          http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239

          As for this claim by Goddard, “BTW – UAH data shows South Pole oceans cooling, not warming.”

          Actually, the UAH data estimate tropospheric air temperatures, not ocean temperatures. Anyhow, Goddrad should be looking at the more reliable TLT data (lower troposphere) from RSS:

          http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt

          PS: A caution to readers. Goddard has a history when it comes to being selective with his data:

          http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/snow/
          http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/cherry-snow/

          Apparently defeated in trying to distort/misrepresent the N. Hemisphere cryosphere data he has now set his target on the southern cryosphere.

          CBDunkerson at 05:00 AM on 10 March, 2010

          Steve Goddard, first it doesn’t matter how many times you quote that passage… the Turner paper which the NSIDC is there referring to DOES NOT include data showing that Antarctica is cooling. It doesn’t exist. Because that isn’t what the NSIDC web page was saying. You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting them, but in any case… there is no data whatsoever supporting what you are claiming.

          Assertion is not argument, Steven. I’m left to conclude you have no useful response to Tamino’s disintegration and disposal of your hypothesis w/regard to snow cover and model predictions. How you care for your credibility is of course a personal choice for you to make.

          As to Watts’ site, if you prefer a location that is more tolerant of misunderstanding that too is your choice, but I’m won’t be joining you there. I’ve really come to appreciate the scrupulous moderation here as well as the site’s firm attachment to science.

          Rob Honeycutt at 07:58 AM on 10 March, 2010
          To Steven Goddard…

          What gets me about your articles, such as the one regarding sea ice extent, is the fact that you are purposefully selecting out small aspects of weather and climate (which I’m sure we both would agree are highly complex systems) that potentially show cooling and hold them up as examples to prove a point you want to make. But all the while you IGNORE the preponderance of evidence that show exactly the opposite!

          Literally, what you do is tantamount to trying to convince an expedition of climbers to Everest that it’s “down hill all the way” by pointing out only the times when they’re going downhill while ignoring all the climbing!

        • Bottom line – you don’t have the skills to run RRTM yourself, so you rely on the word of people who are funded to prove global warming.

          Science was around for thousands of years before peer review existed. You are just upset that alarmists have lost control of the message.

        • climate hawk says:

          I’m content to let this back and forth stand as it is as a record of rationalization and deception in the mind of a denier.

          As to running the numbers, in fact, you’re wrong, I both produce and consume simulations in the normal course of my profession as a computer scientist with a formal education in natural science.

          But that’s not the point,. I have no place in running any kind of home grown simulation and considering either the results or my interpretation of them as anything but worthless.

          You don’t understand science, you don’t understand the process of science and quite predictably, given you have no degree in any relevant science, have an full blown ignorance of facts so basic to the science you hold yourself out as an expert on, they appear as questions on college freshman quizzes.

          You’ve been ripped and shredded by people more qualified than myself and yet you persist, still anonymously launching highly personal attacks against scientists who have actually earned their reputations and passing on your home-brewed theories and conclusions into the denier echo chamber concerning concepts you demonstrably don’t grasp even the basics of.

          What’s to say about such a person? You’re not even brave in a foolhardy way, the way we think of say, a Don Quixote-type since you refuse to permit your climate change “convictions” and “conclusions” to be associated with your actual person.

          You’re ashamed of yourself, as well you should be. You know you’re wrong and this obsession with smearing decent, hardworking sober people in society isn’t about science or the truth or speaking truth to power or any other such thing. It’s about a guy with narcissistic personality disorder who wants to lead the band without ever having learned to play an instrument and who possesses an infantile, explosive rage over the perceived grievances and insults he encounters from others who, correctly, evaluate him as not competent to the position of authority he would have conferred to himself .

          Get the help you need. That’s my best advice to you. As for the rest of the posts, I hope they gave some readers a reason to reconsider their positions and beliefs in light of new information and provided them with sources of . information they were previously unaware of.

        • Blah blah blah, if you want to talk specific details let’s do that.

          Your appeals to authority are monotonous, and it has become abundantly clear that you are incapable of compiling and running RRTM.

          “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman

          BTW – In the 1960s, my father found a major error in a published Feynman calculation – and I am just carrying on the tradition.

  35. Me says:

    climate budgie says:

    June 24, 2012 at 6:21 am

    BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BAL Climate something BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………—————————————————————————-………………………..—————–……………——————………………………………………. And some other crap!

  36. climate hawk says:

    And that contrary to the new normal history tells us that there have been warmer periods which used to be called “Climate Optimums”.

    And you can rad about the latest one 6000 years ago, what its cause was and how that fact relates to global warming right here:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

    Excerpt:

    In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.
    For larger viewing version of the graph, please click here or on graph. Graph courtesy of Kerwin et al., 1999, complete scientific reference located here.

    I know that there is no reasonable verifiable experimental evidence that Co2 in concentrations found in the atmosphere has any effect close to catastrophic.

    ————————————————————————————
    “I know that the record has been altered and tampered with.”….

    Oh the “climategate” scandal? Seriously? Not only were they cleared of all accusations repeatedly but the entire thing was completely retarded. The accusation centered around out fo context phrases like “hiding the decline” and references to “Mike’s trick”. This played well to people who have no acquaintance to what a “trick” is in mathematics- just a clever way to achieve some mathematical ends. No deviousness was involved unless of course it’s the deviousness that smart people are always up to in the eyes of the Shaun Hannitys of the world.

    “Hiding the decline ” – which has exactly nothing to do with “Mike’s trick” discussed above, was talking openly and publicly I may add, about a decline in the size of tree rings, not temperature. THe quotes that read something to the effect of “I’m using Mike’s trick to hide the decline” are wrong. What it said was:

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

    The issue involving the decline had to do with thedecline in tree ring growth after 1960 due to AAGW and other factors. This anomaly – the decline in tree ring size- causes the tree ring data to be a bad proxy for temperature after 1960. The whole thing was openly discussed in the literature without a second thought being given to it prior to “cimategate”.

    The individuals who told you it meant something else were likely knowing liars. Getting lied to is, essentially, what you and other readers of this blog have been victims of. It’s disgusting and worse, it’s leading you on a journey into the darkest possible places.

    ————————————————————————————
    “I know that between the current state of knowledge of climate factors and the current state of computing that Climate Models are insufficiently complete tools on which to plan a world wide industrial society.”

    No one is planning a worldwide anything. If you like the world as it is, then work to keep it as it is. It’s a fundamentally conservative idea. Conservatives today are not true conservatives. They’re reactionary lunatics who aren’t FOR anything, but merely react against whatever Koch and Heritage and CATO and Limbaugh and Fox et al tells them is evil. How climate change got n the evil list- basic fundamental objective Western science, the stuff that conservatives loved in the 50as and 60s – is a sorry story of manipulation by the most extreme insane personalities including Fred Singer and of course Charles and David Koch whose empire is directly threatened by change. It’s pathetic.

    Oh and a hat tip has to go to the fundie freaks with their evolution denialism which trained up an entire generation to reject science and regard scientific consensus as suspicious and scientists as eh agents of the devil. This was easily parlayed into climate change denialism.

    ————————————————————————————————
    “I know that even if I accepted all the dogma and third hand received wisdom,
    the helpful effects would be nil.”

    So very wrong.

    ———————————————————————————————-
    I conserve reasonably, recycle extensively, and drive responsibly clean
    Honda cars that actually clean the air as I drive. ( Insight ) (Honda Civic Hybrid)
    because I don’t believe in AGW but I do believe in MPG.

    I don’t care what anyone’s motivations are for doing what needs to be done. You can say it’s all for the love of freaking Tammy Fae Baker, that’s your business and none of mine. I care what you DO and what your politicians DO or don’t do because of what you tell them. You control your politicians whether you want to believe that or not. This democracy works- it’s doing what the people want, the question going forward is- are we going to be wise and thus keep our democracy or are we going to be heads in the sand denialists and necessarily bring on ourselves some sort of authoritarian regime ? That’s entirely up to us and what we do or don’t do.

    Democracy and freedom aren’t the fundamental organizing principles of human society- survival is. If survival is threatened or even LOOKS like it’s going to be credibly threatened you can kiss your democracy and everything you thought was inviolable goodbye. God Mom and apple pie will give way to mere eating drinking and living another day in a heartbeat.

    I’m a REAL conservative and I’m doing everything I can to make sure I conserve my future so that it looks just like my present.

  37. climate hawk says:

    Sometimes, when you think some devil is just tearing you apart, it’s really your angel trying to show you where you need to go next

  38. Details of the St John ambulance paedophiles and their paedophile protection network which stretches all the way to St John International head office in London, are here:
    http://www.stjohnnz.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s