Climate Genius Of The Day

You really can’t make this stuff up.

ScreenHunter_4921 Dec. 05 02.06

https://twitter.com/cstone7200/status/540763246966603776

About stevengoddard

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

170 Responses to Climate Genius Of The Day

  1. Baa Humbug says:

    I can see Chris Stones point of view. Any person with a smidgen of intelligence above that of a red house brick knows that raspberries mature in relation to climate, roses mature in relation to weather. (Caveat: It is also a well known fact that down under, these things happen in reverse)

  2. mjc says:

    Remember…if it supports the warming meme, it’s climate; everything else is weather.

    Or at least that’s what the Church of Gore believes.

    • Phil Jones says:

      Exactly… in New York my Raspberry Plants were withered in September…

      This fool probably has an indoor garden…

    • Tel says:

      Should get some T-shirts printed:

      Cold snap => just everyday weather.
      Heat wave => scary global warming.

      It isn’t this particular “climate genius” seems they all do it, whenever it suits. We are into 100% propaganda, without even attempting self consistency anymore.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    Cognitive dissonance in warmists is a wonder to behold. Too bad they have their hands in my wallet. The Inmates are Running the Asylum!

  4. Scarface says:

    Start tweeting your newspaper links! These people really think history started after kindergarten.

  5. Phil Jones says:

    Ha ha… he’s probably got indoor plants… too stupid to know the difference
    ..

  6. rah says:

    Phil the thing is there are some pretty smart people that buy into this scam. I expect the press to be stupid. I expect politicians and their functionaries to lie to me. But I know smart accomplished individuals that buy into the stuff whole hog. And every damned one of them is the type that “trusts the government”. Trying to argue with most of them seems fruitless. But I’ve lost relationships with a couple of people who’s opinions on certain things I valued pretty highly. One of them a retired CIA field agent and then trainer. Man who would not expect such a person to be a skeptic? Perhaps it’s just a form of common sense? I’m not a scientist but I know that science is never “settled” and free inquiry and discussion are absolutely essential for the advancement of knowledge and am suspicious of anyone that attempts to shut down the discussion and exits stage left using a pejorative and the example Steve gives is a prime one of exactly that!

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey rah! You say: “I’m not a scientist but I know that science is never “settled” and free inquiry and discussion are absolutely essential for the advancement of knowledge”.

      I disagree. You ARE a scientist. You look at the evidence, at the data, and check whether it supports or refutes what you think. That really is what science is, regardless of whether you have paper credentials or not. On the other hand, consider your CAGW supporting friends (and I have them too.) No matter what their degrees say, no matter what their work history is, even if their business cards says “yes, I am a scientist!”, no matter whether they are charming people who can pull up an endless stream of facts and figures — unless they really do base their beliefs on what the actual facts and figures say, they are NOT scientists. In fact, they are not even logical. So why is it that such people can be well liked, and competent in their work and lives if they are so illogical? How is it that someone who bases their beliefs on authority and opinion, instead of facts can get by so well in life? Well, MOST of the time the authorities are right. And even when the authorities are wrong, MOST of the time it will be about something that is only trivially important. This is especially true when someone works in a field that is structured strongly around authority and pecking order — fields like politics and academia. Or maybe even a field like CIA training. There is a reason why we see the stereotype of the scientist with poor social skills. It is not that science demands lack of respect for social conventions, but science demands that the truth, the facts, the data, are all more important than authority, than social convention, than who-says-this-is-how-it-must-be. You really are a scientist.

      (You too, Tony!)

  7. Stephen Richards says:

    Stupid is as stupid does. This twat probably doesn’t even realise how stupid is what he said.

  8. Stephen Richards says:

    rah

    Einstien once said “science is not about common sense. So no surprise that your friends found it so difficult.

    • rah says:

      Would you have trusted Einstein to work on the brakes of your vehicle? The point being that Steve has provided ample examples of a lack of common sense in posts on science subjects. Lets take the example of Polar bear population dynamics in the southern Beaufort Sea during a period of sea ice decline. Would it not have been common sense for the “researchers” to have included more recent data on Polar bear populations and not ended their study and analysis at a low point in the population? Would not have common sense demanded that those that broadcasted and published that study in inquire about the reason for the limited period covered and to inquire if there was more recent data?
      Common sense may actually be a hindrance in the world of high level physics and cosmology and such other abstract fields. But for winnowing out the wheat from the chaff of scientific hypothesis and papers and interpreting the import of pirated emails between some scientists it sure helps one hell of a lot.

      • Gail Combs says:

        SCIENTISTS:

        When cartoons of this nature start showing up, perhaps Academia had better check for cracks in their pedestals.

      • Michael 2 says:

        “Would you have trusted Einstein to work on the brakes of your vehicle?”

        Maybe. I’d ask for a spanner and depending on what he hands me I might say yes and I might say no.

  9. What with the oil price dropping and the oil companies no longer feeling pressured to dollop the greenblon with green paper, the Greenblobbiest just can’t get the same quality of staff these days.

    • rah says:

      You mean like the high quality of Professor Chris Turney and his crew?

    • _Jim says:

      What with the oil price dropping

      You know why this is happening right? You know what the Saudis did at this last OPEC meeting?

      • Jason Calley says:

        The more interesting question is “why?”

        Maybe to cut back on US investment in higher production? To freeze out developments in alternative energy sources? To starve the Russians of income? To help pacify an increasingly broke American populace? To pay back other OPEC members who have been cheating in their production figures? To weaken Iraq in case they become a threat? To help Europe stave off dependency on Russian gas?

        Maybe all of the above. Interesting question.

        • rah says:

          Ya know, one of the things I have learned one can count on is that you can never count on the projections of what the oil market will do. Too many variables. Too many changes in the technology coming too fast. And so much driving by the changing winds of both domestic and international politics. The Saudis can pump their wells cheaper than anyone can frack oil from shales anywhere. But they know their wells capacity over time is finite and so their objective is to get the maximum return out of the limited resource they have. Thus we have OPEC.
          Could the Arabs get together and push the oil price so low that fracking is unprofitable? Sure they could for a time but at the same time their return on a barrel will not grow back to what they once had because if they raised prices too high the fracking will begin again.

  10. ralphcramdo says:

    So climate isn’t weather, except when climate is connected to extreme weather, then it’s weather?

  11. D. Self says:

    The alarmists are hypocrites. A hot summer is climate but a cold winter is weather. Same BS over and over again. The sad part is many believe these pond scum.

  12. bleakhouses says:

    Another useful idiot.
    It would make me sad if they weren’t so dangerous.

  13. bleakhouses says:

    And here in New York I am enjoying just ripening tomatoes I picked from my garden. Of course I picked them at the beginning of November when they were still very green because they hadn’t ripened on the vine because of the cool summer. But that’s weather for you.

    • rah says:

      You know despite the cool summer Red Gold one of the largest tomato product producers in the country based here in Indiana has a record year. Plenty of tomatoes were left in the fields after the farmers made their tonnage quotas. But the big slicer tomatoes like we gardeners grow were a different matter. Only about half or mine ripened.

  14. Justa Joe says:

    warmist – FAIL
    I haven’t seen someone undo themselves that bad concerning some berries since Captain Queeg.

  15. _Jim says:

    I suppose the fact I’m picking raspberries in December in UK is irrelevant too

    That may be ‘code’ for something, and it shudders the mind to think what that may be …

    • Frank K. says:

      You would think the guy would be happy that raspberries were ripe for picking. Climate alarmists are the most unhappy people I know.

  16. Chris Barron says:

    I think he’s growing raspberries in his greenhouse, so it’s filled with greenhouse gasses, and proves that greenouse gasses cause plants to bear fruit later in the year.

    You cannot fault that logic

  17. roger says:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html
    CET to 4th December is -0.4C.
    Mr. Stone obviously has a penchant for frozen raspberries having postponed harvest until now.
    Equally the MET office premature announcement of ‘hottest year evaah’ falls into perspective as the UK enters a prolonged period of severe frosts.
    It’s almost as if they knew the cold was coming, and made the claim before the year end and the expected frosts made a record unlikely.

    • Billy Liar says:

      No, the CET anomaly is -0.4C. He’d better protect his raspberries soon because snow is on the way for some parts of the UK over the weekend.

  18. roger says:

    correction CET anomaly

  19. Chris Barron says:

    One of the most important things about growing raspberries successfully is that the climate is cold enough. (Hence probably why they’re popular here in Scotland !)

    There’s nothing unusual about late season raspberries, they’re a godsend in fact !

    Taken from a farming forum..

    Climate Characteristics
    Red raspberries are best grown in regions with cold winters and cool summers. The winters must be amply cold to ensure the biological process of vernalization occurs, which is the requirement for exposure to enough chill for flowers to form in spring. Ideally, the transition from winter to summer is a slow, gradual warm-up so the raspberry plants experience a cool but comfortable temperature regimen. Not enough winter cold occurs in tropical regions for red raspberry plants to survive for long, and certainly not to cause flowering. Even in the milder winter areas of the temperate Southern United States, raspberries are not a reliable crop.

    Vernalization
    Only in the highest elevations in the tropics, where winters are adequately chilly, might red raspberries grow well. For raspberry plants to be vernalized over the winter dormancy, enough exposure to temperatures between 32 and 45 degrees Fahrenheit must occur. This exposure is measured in chilling hours. Between 800 and 1,600 chilling hours are needed for raspberries to vernalize and subsequently bloom and fruit the following spring. Through extensive breeding efforts, some cultivars of raspberries may need only 250 chilling hours, such as with cultivar Heritage.

    • mjc says:

      Autumn harvest raspberry varieties in mild winter regions can and often do continue to bear into December…so without knowing the variety and location the fact he is picking them is pretty much meaningless.

    • Donald Freeman says:

      I find this bit of raspberry trivia pretty fascinating. Its funny when somebody throws “evidence” at you that strengthens your case.

    • Billy Liar says:

      Wild raspberries and strawberries grow all over the European Alps up to about 2,000 metres.

  20. nickreality65 says:

    IPCC AR5 defines climate as weather averaged over thirty years.
    Probably should be more like 30,000.

    • mjc says:

      35 yrs was picked at the beginning of climate science, because that is what they had in the way of good, reliable record keeping. The intentions of the founders of the science were to expand the length of time as the records grew, not shrink it to some arbitrary number.

    • TSK says:

      Dunno why you’d think you need 30,000 years. The last Ice Age ended 12kya, so there was dramatic climate change that facilitated the birth of agriculture. The point of the averaging of weather is to get to the predisposition in a given area (or globally) without the wild differences between acyclical weather phenomena.

      • philjourdan says:

        The “last ice age” has not ended. We are in an interglacial within the last ice age.

        Hence Steve’s alert for you. You may remove your foot from your mouth now.

        • TSK says:

          Missed your self-righteous pedantry, philjourdan. It moves the conversation along amicably. Why not deal with the content of the post you have sidestepped rather than blathering about the difference between glacials and ice ages. The object is clear: there has been notable climate change, entering this interglacial period 12kya, so the indicator of climate needs to have a more realistic rule of thumb.

          You’ll never get out of the forest when you impale yourself on the tree in front of you.

        • philjourdan says:

          Sorry tsk, I see no reason in “piling on” so others have taken care of your mindless rantings (it requires no intelligence to bleat ad hominems). But the point I made is not minor but major. You have no clue what you are talking about, and your ignorance of ice ages and interglacials prove it.

          So keep your talking points to yourself. The only possible explanation that does not border on stupidity you can make is “OOps, sorry, my mistake”. Instead you doubled down on the stupid part.

          Guess your shepherds did not prepare you to think on your own.

  21. TSK says:

    Presumably none of you knows what you are talking about when it come to the climate issue, so let me ask you all: what are your criteria for rejecting the opinions of those who should know—ie the vast body of the world’s climate scientists—and touting views that seem to be straight out of the fossil fuel producers’ playbook? I can understand their desire to attack anthropogenic global warming because it is catastrophic for their business, but why you people (who should trust the world’s scientists)? The notion of a giant conspiracy of scientists to hoodwink the world is ridiculous—given the diverse contexts in which those scientists work throughout the world—and the theory that they are all consistently wrongheaded is statistically absurd (if you knew how cut-throat the sciences can be), especially considering you all feel you somehow know better that the people with PhDs in the subject! Imagine if you thought you knew better than the doctors and surgeons who look after your bodily well-being.

    “Climate is weather whenever the liberals say it is so.”

    Does it all come down for you to political views as this comment suggests? Is this liberals are warmists and conservatives are realists? Do politics dictate the conclusions of science? When Ilopango erupted in the year 536—sending sunblocking millions of tons of particles into the atmosphere—did the world’s politicians decide that the world should be cold or was the volcano responsible for the year without summer? Or more recently in 1815 when Mt Tambora erupted? Hopefully you can agree that big disturbances of the earth’s biosphere can have widespread effects, temporarily altering the earth’s temperature balance and thus the affecting weather. Your political views won’t change that.

    Just saying… Ya need some good reasons to reject the views of 99.9% climatologists. What are those reasons?

      • TSK says:

        Jeez, thanks for that witty gem and self-irony at that! A heartening lack of substance! I gather from your repartee that you have no reasons.

        • rah says:

          The substance is in this blog and some others. All one has to do is read it over time. You wanna dispute specific claims made here then give it your best shot. But if you expect people to give a hoot about your claim because there is a supposed “scientific consensus” then your best to just go one down the road and read the propaganda you obviously have been versed in. Because there does seem to be a consensus that there is a small bit of anthropological effect on the climate but the majority of that “consensus” seem to believe it is very minimal. Go back and read the excellent analysis on the survey that the whole idea of the claim of the consensus is based on and you’ll find that you have been royally duped.

        • What substance have you provided in your contribution, TSK? And what is the source of your 99.9% number?

    • E.M.Smith says:

      Wow. what Trolling…. OK, I’ll feed the troll a bit. Why reject “ie the vast body of the world’s climate scientists”? Because the work is badly done, wrong, and they lied. Oh, and we have their email where they lay out some of that. Also, I’ve gone through (literally) years of working my way through their “work”, including down into the guts of GIStemp ( https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/ ) and GHCN to a lesser degree ( https://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/ncdc-ghcn-issues/ ) and generally found a steaming pile of poo. (Details in the links). All the “warming” is in the (artificial) adjustments of the temperature data, not in the data itself.

      Furthermore, we’ve now reached an interesting point. The perfectly natural 60ish year climate cycle has turned, as it does. We are back to the 30 year cooling side. (Yes, it is still ‘warm’. It takes 30 years to get to the bottom. Just as it took 30 years to get FROM the bottom about 1975 or so took a while to finish warming). So you now have a lot of population dynamics to deal with. Not only are their “old folks” like me to report “This isn’t anything strange, it’s just like it was in about 1954”, but you also have a load of youngsters who have seen exactly zero warming in their 18 year lives. The demographics are now against you. So when asked who to believe about Climate Catastrophe 101, I choose my lifetime of experience and my memories of it being EXACTLY like this in the past. Warming? Pah.

      So from detailed technical work, to Climategate, to Agenda 21 docs FROM the UN, to the constant political bleat that “only $200 Billion a year given to use will save you”, to personal observation. It all points to one thing: That this is a political movement and not science.

      That’s why.

  22. Gail Combs says:

    TSK says:

    Presumably none of you knows what you are talking about when it come to the climate issue, so let me ask you all: what are your criteria for rejecting the opinions of those who should know…

    1. Most of us are scientists or engineers and I for one have worked in Research and engineering and ran four labs and a pilot plant. Having worked with scientists many of whom have PhD you learn they can be as wrong as the next guy only they won’t listen. In other words we do not worship scientists.

    2. We have read vast quantities of the literature and looked at the data. Looked at the Adjustments….

    3. We have read the climategate e-mails and we have seen the scientists who have been fired who would not go a long with the agenda.

    I recently had the honor of siting in on a graduate level physics lecture by this man:

    …Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained in 1993. [Note the firing was NOT about science but about politics}

    “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” Happer said this week. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past,” he added.

    “Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average. Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he explained. “Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,” Happer added….

    The fact that Climastrology is about politics and not about Climate Research is backed up what the UN Framework on Climate Change and the IPCC say their mandate is.

    The official definition of ‘Climate Change’

    “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

    That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php). The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.

    The IPCC mandate is similar:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

    So it never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ and this is the change wanted by the Globalists like the OWNERS of SHELL OIL**, the UN, the World Bank, and the WTO.

    The IPCC’s ROLE

    The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

    Click to access ipcc-principles.pdf

    So there it is again. ONLY “human-induced climate change” is of interest and that is why you see very little work done on natural climate change.

    Worse it is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with the political summaries. The facts are as follows.

    The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

    We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

    This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then. (Dr. Richard Tol had hissy fits over the last IPCC report because of this practice.)

    ** Royal Dutch Shell is owned by the Royal Dutch family, The royal British family, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers. You can go dig that out as I did.

    • TSK says:

      Gail Combs,

      1. In other words we do not worship scientists.

      That is beside the point. If you were aware of the cutthroat nature of scientific publication, you’d know that scientists love to shoot down bad science. It is the nature of the job. (And please save me the pal review nonsense.)

      2. We have read vast quantities of the literature and looked at the data.

      Anyone can say that.

      3. We have read the climategate e-mails

      Red herring. Much of the bleating about the emails regards people who don’t understand the jargon.

      The Happer story is another red herring. It in no way reflects on the validity of AGW. It just adds to the conspiracy theory level, a “serious” scientist fired for his unpolitical reality. The diatribe about “climatastrology” is more of the same.

      And my IPCC-AR5 glossary gives a rather different definition of climate change. You generally seem to be selling conspiracy and selective reading. Rather than pick odd people as a butterfly flits, you might try to provide an approach that gives substance to your convictions.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Heck why worry about PAL review? Go for the gold, why not review your own paper? Nature reports: “THE PEER-REVIEW SCAM”

        …Eventually, 60 articles were found to have evidence of peer-review tampering, involvement in the citation ring or both….

        Or better yet just fabricate the data.
        How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

        …In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices….

        Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

        I have a large file on scientific misconduct and US scientists are found to be the worst offenders. US scientists significantly more likely to publish fake research, study finds
        (wwwDOT)sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101115210944.htm

        Steven Goddard and several others have been showing how US and world temperature data is adjusted or just plain fabricated to make sure it shows ‘global warming.

        This is an example of how data is manipulated to give the ‘RIGHT’ answer.

        …After peaking in 1966 the total raw data station count then declines in a more or less linear fashion to about 3750 in 1989. Over the next couple of years there is a sudden ‘drop out’ of stations from the total station count to about 1900 in 1992. Figure 2 shows that this ‘drop out’ is for non-North American stations i..e Asian, European and South West Pacific (Australian) stations. Why the sudden preciptious drop in the station count post 1989/1990? Further fine details for this ‘drop out’ can be seen in the later charts for the individual WMO regions (see Figures 8,10 and 12). After 1992 there is a more or less linear decline in the raw data station count to about 1630 stations in 2005. There is then a further sudden inexplicale ‘drop out’ to about 960 stations in 2006 with in 2009 the total station count reduced to a mere 840 stations. What on earth is going on here? What caused the sudden increase in the number of reporting stations around 1950 and what caused the equally precipitous ‘drop out’ of many of these stations around 1989/1990?
        diggingintheclay(DOT)wordpress.com/2010/01/21/the-station-drop-out-problem/

        This illustrates the problem The original station count in Canada was near 600 and dropped like a rock to less than fifty causing a substantial temperature increase.

        This shows both the gradual increase in numbers of temperature stations included in the GHCN record and the change in the data over time. Note how, when the number of thermometers in the station record falls of a cliff in 1990, there is a massive increase in the rate of change dT. It just suddenly takes off… in 1990 Canada gets a ‘haircut’ – suddenly the temperature record has less variability.

        • TSK says:

          In this post you throw the whole industry of peer-reviewed scientific report writing under the bus, while none of your sources deals with climate topics. I hope that digression made you feel happy. It was ultimate conspiracy discourse. “They’re all liars and cheats!!”

        • TSK says:

          Oh, forgot the last reference to a non-peer-reviewed analysis of drop-offs in the numbers of stations. From an observation about station numbers an unclear conclusion is drawn that lacks any tangible connection with reality.

  23. Gail Combs says:

    TSK says:

    The notion of a giant conspiracy of scientists to hoodwink the world is ridiculous—given the diverse contexts in which those scientists work throughout the world

    It is not the scientists it is their pay masters and they have come out and point blank said so!

    Pascal Lamy is high up in the food change in the EU. He was being considered for the next leader. He was the two time Director-General of the WTO patteren after the EU.

    Pascal Lamy: Whither Globalization?
    …In the same way, climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared….

    Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life? ….

    The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.

    All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty….

    In other words just like the UK and other european countries are now vassal states of the EU, Lamy and his buddies want to set up a similar system. He even say so >a href=”http://www.theglobalist.com/global-governance-lessons-from-europe/”>Global Governance: Lessons from Europe

    …It was more than half a century ago that the Frenchman Jean Monet, one of the shapers of post-war Europe, said, “The sovereign nations of the past can no longer provide a framework for the resolution of our present problems….

    Growing interdependence requires that our laws, our social norms and values, our mechanisms for framing human behavior be examined, debated, understood and operated together as coherently as possible. This is what would provide the basis for effective sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental dimensions….

    In case you have wonder whether or not the countries in the EU have lost their national sovereignty. Lamy also makes that clear:

    … First, on the question of efficiency, Europe scores in my view rather highly. Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law. Thanks to the work of the European Court of Justice in ensuring enforcement and respect for the rule of law. And thanks to a clear articulation between the Commission, the Parliament, and the European Court of Justice… Global governance requires localising global issues”

    So Lamy makes it clear that the move toward a world government has been in play since the 1930s.
    The Club of Rome makes it clear Global Warming is one of the methods used to herd the Sheeple:

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”

    There is a heck of a lot more evidence but I am not in the mood to write a book.

    • rah says:

      To sum that it comes down to: Follow the money!

      • Gail Combs says:

        Yes, RAH
        You do not have to be a scientist all you have to do is a bit of research on all the players to unearth the whole smelly mess.

        • rah says:

          Unfortunately for many the only time they bother to follow the money is when the political party they don’e like is in power.

    • TSK says:

      Gail Combs,

      This serving contains more of the conspiracy theory that was purveyed in the first part of your response to me. I find it hard for you to think that rhetoric such as “It is not the scientists it is their pay masters” is going to have some argumentative value. It smells of Koch Brothers drivel to me.

      Having once lived in Europe for nearly 20 years, I find this statement “the UK and other european countries are now vassal states of the EU” absolutely hilarious. It smacks of an irreality that is hard to penetrate. The conspiracy aims to denounce the push for world government. That’s where I spit the dummy and you jump the shark.

      You’ve got to try to interact with the science and not rehearse your shroud of Tea Party obfuscation. I want to know how you reject the science, not how you construct a barrier in order not to see it.

      Tell me why for example the percentage of C13 in the atmosphere is decreasing despite the fact that plants & trees don’t take any out of the atmosphere in the process of photosynthesis.

      • Gail Combs says:

        If you have lived in Europe for a while you must have had your ears plugged solid the whole time. There is a heck of a lot of bitter complaining about the UK laws being handed down from the EU and then getting rubber-stamped and I am NOT talking about climate but well before I got into looking at the Global Warming Scam.

        When the news that FMD had been identified in Britain was flashed to Brussels, the European Commission immediately, on Wednesday February 21, used its powers to impose a worldwide ban on all exports from Britain of livestock, meat and animal products, to last until March 1. The cost of this ban alone was estimated by the Food and Drink Federation to be £50 million. Looking obviously shaken, the minister of agriculture Nick Brown, said “the impact of this outbreak on our export trade is substantial”. Mr Scudamore confirmed that MAFF was investigating whether the infected pigs had been fed on illegally imported meat. But three days after the virus was first identified, they still had not banned movements of animals around the country….

        One of the biggest puzzles in the early days of the crisis was why MAFF’s strategy for tackling the disease was so dramatically different from that used 30 years earlier to bring the 1967/8 epidemic under control. Farmers were baffled as to why it seemed to be taking so long to slaughter and dispose of infected animals. Why did MAFF often have to wait days for samples to be confirmed as ‘positive’ by Pirbright? Why was it not possible for local vets to order slaughter on diagnosis? Why did they have to apply for authorisation to a committee of MAFF vets in London, at Page Street, Westminster? Why, after slaughter, was it then taking so long to dispose of carcasses? ….

        Only due to careful trawling through the website of the European Commission did the explanation for all these riddles emerge to public view. The reason why MAFF’s strategy for tackling foot-and-mouth had so dramatically changed was that the British government was no longer in charge of policy on foot-and-mouth. The power to determine how the disease should be tackled had been handed over to Brussels back in the 1980s….
        http://www.warmwell.com/footmoutheye.html

        You either are very dense or a troll trying to confuse the fence-sitters since you can not even understand something as glaringly obvious as what Pascal Lamy said. “Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law. Thanks to the work of the European Court of Justice in ensuring enforcement and respect for the rule of law.”

        And Just in case it flew over your head just WHO Lamy is:

        European Commission:

        When Delors became President of the European Commission in 1984, he took Lamy with him to serve as chef de cabinet, which he did until the end of Delors’ term in 1994. During his time there, Lamy became known as the Beast of the Berlaymont, the Gendarme and Exocet due to his habit of ordering civil servants, even Directors-General (head of departments) “precisely what to do – or else.” He was seen as ruling Delor’s office with a “rod of iron”, with no-one able to bypass or manipulate him and those who tried being “banished to one of the less pleasant European postings”.
        Eppink, Derk-Jan; Ian Connerty (translator) (2007). Life of a European Mandarin: Inside the Commission (1st edition ed.). Tielt, Belgium: Lannoo. pp. 22–3. ISBN 978-90-209-7022-7.

        Of course Marxist are not logical thinkers and repudiate reality so I should not be surprised at your complete failure to follow logic.

        For the fence-sitters, the reason why arguing with a Marxist is like wrestling a pig in sh…t.
        The Philosophy Of Karl Marx

        • TSK says:

          “If you have lived in Europe for a while you must have had your ears plugged solid the whole time.”
          Not having the pleasure yourself to live there, you just wouldn’t know.

          And babbling about Marxism just brands you as a RWNJ and elicits images of you refusing to pay taxes and attempting to shoot revenuers.

          The UK has only ever had one foot in the EU. That’s their own stupidity. Other countries involved in the single currency have reaped the benefits and the GFC would probably have hit them worse without the EU. You notice when the wall went down all the Eastern European states wanted in. Turkey’s been trying to get in for decades. Look at the real European countries rather than Britain. They’re still living in the shadow of past glory.

          And those European countries are all to my knowledge staunchly nationalistic and are well aware of the kinds of things that threaten their nationhoods. It is simple-minded to call them vassal states.

        • ”Not having the pleasure yourself to live there, you just wouldn’t know.”

          I’ve lived in Europe longer than you. You just don’t know enough. Debate over. Go away and study.

        • philjourdan says:

          I have lived in Europe, and making stupid statements such as:

          babbling about Marxism just brands you as a RWNJ

          Brands you as the nut job, unwilling to discuss anything, but quick to cast aspersions to end discussion.

        • Gail, I admire your effort but arguing with TSK is like trying to argue logically with Marxists.

          There are two theories about how it can be done. Neither one works.

  24. Gail Combs says:

    TSK says:

    …and touting views that seem to be straight out of the fossil fuel producers’ playbook?

    Now that is the funniest thing I have read in awhile. Hate to tell you but it is YOU TSK who seem to be quoting straight out of the fossil fuel producers’ playbook.

    For a start John H. Loudon, Better known as “the Grand Old Man of Shell”, headed Royal Dutch Shell from 1951 to 1965…. He was President of WWF from 1976 to 1981, and also a member of The 1001.

    David Hone is not only SHELL OIL’S Senior Climate Change Adviser he is also Chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association.
    Besides lobbying the UK Parliament to strangle Shale Gas by insisting that CCS be deployed – in which venture he’s succeeded- he and his mentor James Smith. SHELL OIL’S previous UK Chairman took SHELL very deeply into Carbon Trading.

    Shell Oil wants to push natural gas. Ged Davis, the Shell Oil VP and IPCC lead author who wrote the Sustainability Scenarios for the IPCC shows this in the “Sustainable Development (B1)” part of the February, 1998 Climategate e-mail which asks for comments on the attachment: “Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios” by Ged Davis

    To quote from the Sustainable Development (B1) section:

    “…The impact of environmental concerns is a significant factor in the planning for new energy systems. Two alternative energy systems, leading to two sub-scenarios, are considered to provide this energy:

    1. Widespread expansion of natural gas, with a growing role for renewable energy (scenario B1N). Oil and coal are of lesser importance, especially post-2050. This transition is faster in the developed than in the developing countries…”

    No wonder Shell Oil (and BP) have been pushing global warming since day one when they provided the initial funding for the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia. It will be a real money maker. tear out the old infrastructure and replace with Natural gas, Solar and Wind. A new twist on ‘the broken window fallacy’ where the entire country has to shell out to pay for replacing the ‘window’ the energy sector is so busy breaking.
    There are a ton more connections between “big Oil’ and the IPCC and the Climate research group at East Anglia.(CRU)

    CRU it was founded in 1970’s by two Big Oil companies (Shell and BP) and the last I looked that hadn’t been removed from their Wikipedia page (yet):

    Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[5] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[4]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit
    Then you look at what two agencies founded the IPCC the WMO and UNEP. From there look at who founded the UNEP:

    During December 1972, the UN General Assembly unanimously elected Maurice Strong to head UNEP. Also Secretary General of both the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and the 1992 Earth Summit, Strong has played a critical role is globalizing the environmental movement.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Environment_Programme
    Where did Strong get his start?

    Born in Oak Lake, Manitoba, Strong had his start as a petroleum entrepreneur and became president of Power Corporation until 1966. In the early 1970s he was Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and then became the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme. He returned to Canada to become Chief Executive Officer of Petro-Canada from 1976 to 1978.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong
    Strong is also a trustee of a Rockefeller Foundation – ALL Standard Oil money.

    • TSK says:

      Gail Combs,

      When I talk about the fossil fuel producers’ playbook the obvious sources to consider are the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil.

      (The smaller Shell, banking on natural gas, is just another fossil fuel producer, but this one is trying to get under the radar by championing CC&S rather than funding numerous front organizations to misrepresent reality as the Kochs and ExxonMobil have done.)

  25. TSK says:

    The talk of Marxism, be it even an allusion, is just a variation of Godwin’s Law. You put up barricades and you snipe contentlessly.

    The only content I’ve seen in the discussion so far is Gail Combs’s sorry reheating of the reduction in number of weather stations as an attempt to jimmy temperature figures. That’s a variation of “It’s not happening (please).”

    • philjourdan says:

      No, it is not a version of Godwin’s law. Talking about Stalinism could be. Talking about Maoism could be. But Marx was a coward who only wrote what the thought others should do. So it is not. However invoking Godwin’s law incorrectly as you have done is a demonstration of desperation and ignorance.

  26. That’s because most of us are content with the trail of silly assertions and unanswered questions you left behind, Junior.

    • TSK says:

      Colorado Wellington,

      I’m sure you feel right at home amid silly assertions and unanswered questions. You seem happy with this conspiracy laden slop, boy.

      Yet there are no answers to my original question except the non sequiturs of Gail Combs, who wants to talk about anything but evidence for climate change.

      I can understand denialists banding together to feel less challenged, but the real world has a way of intruding.

      • Mack says:

        Lookie here TSK…. here’s a bit of your crap AGW science from your bible, The IPCC reports. ….http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-ts-5.jpeg
        It shows all this massive anthropogenic effect,, all this massive atmospheric effect, of the “radiative forcing” on the Earth’s surface temps . Then there’s this little section further down which quantifies the suns contribution to this “forcing”, You know, that little inconvenient piece of truth we call the natural , non Man-made, stuff from the SUN……and what is it?
        Hell, it’s 0.12 watts/sq.m…… about a flash-lights worth of energy from the sun.on 1 sq.m.
        I mean…do the intelligent loons who’ve concocted these numbers think that nobody is going to read what they’ve written.? No, I think they are counting on gullible AGW brainwashed people like you TSK . to take it all in, hook line and sinker.

        • TSK says:

          Umm, Mack, the sun has been, and always will be, responsible for the major forcing on our climate balance. Such a balance can change, notwithstanding the significance of the sun for the system. But, Jeez, do you still really not understand the evidence for AGW? You too, explain to me why the percentage of C13 is decreasing in our atmosphere. Do you really doubt the greenhouse effect of sufficient carbon in the atmosphere?? Have you drunk too much of the denialist kool-aid?

        • Mack says:

          Oh yes, it’s “our climate balance” . This “balance can change”
          What balance TSK? What I think you’re trying to say, but you don’t seem to have a clue about , is radiative balance…or imbalance? Please elabourate further.
          “Evidence for AGW?” .There’s not one shred of evidence, anywhere, of a correlation of atmospheric CO2 , to any warming of the Earth’s climate. (don’t send me off to anything that is fantasised by scientists with models)
          I don’t give a monkeys about your red herring of the % of C13 decreasing., it’s irrelevant….and while you’re at it..I’m sorry to disappoint, but planting of trees is meaningless too . The lungs of the world apparently is not the Amazon, but the oceans.

          Oh, but this has the Koch bro’s input…so you better not watch it. eh.

      • philjourdan says:

        Baaa, goes the sheep. Scratch an alarmist and you will always find a mindless sheep. Thank yoy for outing yourself.

      • Gail Combs says:

        TSK,
        Where is YOUR evidence of Human caused ‘Climate Change’ is CATASTROPHIC?

        As E.m. Smith said above, every time anyone digs beneath the surface there is nothing but a smelly mess. There is no science -zip, zilch, de nada that shows CATASTROPHIC man caused warming can happen. NONE.

        Dr Happer’s recent research based on OBSERVATIONS not hokey ‘models’ has just shot down that faint possibility.

        The Science Method say YOU and the Climastrologists have to PROVE the null hypothesis is wrong and there is no prove. NONE.

        The earth has been slightly warmer (and life bloomed) and the CO2 levels have been 10X higher. All the geologic data shows the earth is LONG TERM COOLING. If CO2 is a magic gas then we should be trying to put as much as we can in to the atmosphere to STOP COOLING!

        The latest ‘ruling’ from the Quaternary climate scientists is that the Holocene will not go ‘long’ as MIS11 did.

        A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records
        Lisiecki & Raymo
        ABSTRACT
        We present a 5.3-Myr stack (the ‘‘LR04’’ stack) of benthic d18O records from 57 globally distributed sites aligned by an automated graphic correlation algorithm. This is the first benthic d18O stack composed of more than three records to extend beyond 850 ka,…

        RESULTS
        Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA Community Members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with d18O values below 3.6% for 20 kyr, from 398 – 418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6% for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398– 418 ka as from 250–650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.

        Click to access Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf

        NOAAs calculations show how close to the Solar Insolation (June 21 insolation minimum at 65N) during the depths of the Wisconsin Ice Age the earth now is:

        NOW (modern Warm Period) 476 Wm-2
        Depth of the last ice age – around 463 Wm−2 (13 Wm-2)
        Holocene peak insolation: 522.5 Wm-2 (46.5 Wm-2)
        (www1DOT)ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/orbital_variations/berger_insolation/insol91.jun

        A fall 2012 paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? gives the calculated solar insolation values of several glacial inceptions:
        Current value – insolation = 479W m−2 (from that paper)

        MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2,
        MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2,
        MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2,
        MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2,
        MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2
        (wwwDOT)clim-past.net/8/1473/2012/cp-8-1473-2012.pdf

        So no matter who you use as a reference, the earth is in the ball park Solar Insolation for glacial inception.

        If Ruddiman’s “Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis” is correct, the ONLY thing keeping us out of the next ice age is Carbon Dioxide. Also we are not out of the woods by a long shot . The Milankovitch Cycle low point will continue for thousands of years. A grand solar minimum plus massive volcanic eruptions maybe all it takes to tip the Earth into glaciation. (There are some studies indication more volcanic eruptions during times of minimal solar activity. – You can look that up yourself.)

        WORSE the Eemian, the interglacial just before the present one had two thermal pulses (warm periods) before the Big Drop. Earth is now exiting that second thermal pulse.

        So this is where the REAL DEBATE on Climate Change is. -(You didn’t expect the Elite to clue in the Great Unwashed now did you? Instead you see them including the US Universities buying up farmland in Africa, South America and Australia, the non-glaciated areas….)

        On the use of simple dynamical systems for climate predictions: A Bayesian prediction of the next glacial inception

        In this paper we consider the problem of the timing of the next glacial inception, about which there is on-going debate…

        We will illustrate our case with reference to a debate currently taking place in the circle of Quaternary climate scientists. The climate history of the past few million years is characterized by repeated transitions between `cold’ (glacial) and `warm’ (interglacial) climates. The first modern men were hunting mammoth during the last glacial era. This era culminated around 20,000 years ago [3] and then declined rapidly. By 9,000 years ago climate was close to the modern one. The current interglacial, called the Holocene, should now be coming to an end, when compared to previous interglacials, yet clearly it is not. The debate is about when to expect the next glacial inception, setting aside human activities, which may well have perturbed natural cycles…..
        arxiv(DOT)org/pdf/0906.3625.pdf

        And you idiots want to strip the earth of the CO2 security blanket that might be keeping us out of the next ice age. Especially when according to other papers C3 plants (99% of the plant species) were undergoing CO2 starvation when the earth is in the glaciation phase of the Milankovitch Cycle.

        Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
        biblioteca(DOT)universia.net/ficha.do?id=912067

        The Royal Society: Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution
        rstb(DOT)royalsocietypublishing.org/content/353/1365/159.abstract

        • TSK says:

          Gail Combs,

          Where is YOUR evidence of Human caused ‘Climate Change’ is CATASTROPHIC?
          Why have you started with the emphasis capitals? (You can use html code for bold as well as italics.)

          My evidence for AGW being “catastrophic”? I only need the givens of science. The scientific properties of carbon dioxide were studied in the 19th century. John Tyndall circa 1860 noted CO2’s capacity to trap heat. Svante Arrhenius put a measure to that capacity and developed his greenhouse law which resolved to a “radiative forcing”. From this study he alerted the community to the possible effects of burning carbon, ie he basically started the notion of global warming before 1900, well over half a century before denialists imagine their grand conspiracy theory could have begun. The greenhouse effect of carbon was known throughout the 20th century and only became contraversial when fossil fuel companies began pumping oodles of cash into making it so.

          If you want to read something scientific on global warming, you could try Dickinson & Cicerone, “Future global warming from atmospheric trace elements”, Nature 319, 19 Jan 1986, 109-115. If you want more there’s plenty I can recommend. And you could try the data in the IPCC documents.

          But catastrophic? You’ve already had a small foretaste of it with the California drought (check out the water throughput of the Colorado River at its mouth) and the hurricane that ripped its way up the east coast. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent. In Australia the incidence of bushfires has risen over the last century and hit earlier in the year. The people in south-eastern Florida are on the firing line of sea level rise (where the water has already risen a foot and the financial fallout of accompanying erosion is hurting; see this – http://www.wri.org/publication/sea-level-rise-and-its-impact-miami-dade-county), as are the Pacific island nations (that foresee their total lands disappearing under the water). Wildlife, insect and fish migrations further from the equator. Parmesan & Yohe write in “A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems”, Nature 421, 2 January 2003, 37-42, that their “analyses generates ‘very high confidence’ (as laid down by the IPCC) that climate change is already affecting living systems.” That’s just a handful of current, ongoing, and predicted events.

          The Science Method say YOU and the Climastrologists have to PROVE the null hypothesis is wrong and there is no prove. NONE.
          The “null hypothesis” is based on a lousy assertion, the notion of natural cycles being part of climate change. However, all events have specific causes. Outside that you have religious notions. There are cycles to be sure, solar cycles and Milankovitch cycles, but these are astronomical entities and though they have influence on events on earth, there are no climate cycles per se. Climate changes because it is forced to change, not because they are god given. That should be self-evident. The effects of carbon have been well-known for over 100 years and a sufficient build-up will raise global temperatures, and has done so. There is no need to add any more on account of fears of cooling.

          The earth has been slightly warmer (and life bloomed) and the CO2 levels have been 10X higher. All the geologic data shows the earth is LONG TERM COOLING. If CO2 is a magic gas then we should be trying to put as much as we can in to the atmosphere to STOP COOLING!
          Although you and most climate denialists seem to hate climate models, the claim here of CO2 levels being ten times higher is based on a climate model, GEOCARB (wouldn’t you know? and gush goes a flood of hypocrisy). Here’s a quote from Vandenbroucke et al, “Polar front shift and atmospheric CO2 during the glacial maximum of the Early Paleozoic Icehouse”, 2010 (here: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/34/14983.full)

          “Energy balance models suggest that the elevated pCO2 levels of 8× PAL could have been balanced, to a large degree, by reduced solar flux from a “faint young Sun” to produce mean global surface temperatures that approach the modern. All this is consistent with the early Late Ordovician (Sandbian) being a “cool” world sensu Royer.”

          Had there not been such a level of CO2 the world would have become an iceblock.

          I can’t quite see why you’ve gone off on the tangent about the possibility of glacial inception. It is a separate issue from AGW. You seem to have deliberately confused the two issues so that you could come out with the melodramatic “you idiots want to strip the earth of the CO2 security blanket”. You’ll have me blubbering in the aisles with this tearjerker. But what a ridiculous interjection! Seriously, how on earth can you come out with this silly claim with any sense of reality? How can humans strip the earth of the CO2 security blanket?? It’s put the shit in the atmosphere and are helpless to get rid of it. The best they are hoping for is to limit anthropogenic carbon from now on. And here you are with the lamest of claims. Prolonged denialist advocacy seems to be turning your brains to jelly. Perhaps you’d be better off giving up advocacy and turning to writing soap opera.

  27. TSK says:

    Colorado Wellington,

    You can play the Luddite all you like, but of the thousands of peer-review papers published few than 0.1% supported denialism. In John Cook et al’s peer-reviewed paper the conclusion from those climate scientists who enunciated an opinion on the subject 97.1% espoused climate change. Real world, boy. Not your backroom confabulations of denial conspiracy theorists.

  28. Argumentum ab coquus. I knew i’d tease it out of you.

  29. TSK says:

    Mack, you were asked to explain the percentage decrease in C13 in the atmosphere. I await your response. Until it comes you merely obfuscate with counter-questions. So… anything to say?

    • Mack says:

      No, I’ll wait for Gail Combs to come on line and clout you with this specific issue of C13
      you’ve got yourself hung up on. Meanwhile you can elabourate to me about this “radiative balance (or imbalance)” bullshit. You know, that “climate balance” you’ve just blathered out before.

      • TSK says:

        Well, you can sit back in the choir then, can’t you? You haven’t got a part in this opera.

        • Mack says:

          I’ve actually answered your question dumpkolf. The trees and plants are irrelevant and the C 13 has probably gone into the oceans…hence the decrease of C 13….as if it matters.
          You, the fat lady, have not even made an appearance tonight.

      • Gail Combs says:

        And I will defer to E.M. Smith and Tom Quirk.
        The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios

        Tom Quirk observes that the geographical distribution of atmospheric carbon isotopes provides a better fit to the undersea volcanism hypothesis than to the anthropogenic hypothesis as a cause of the rise: see

        Click to access A%20Clean%20Demonstration%20of%20Carbon%2013%20Isotope%20Depletion.pdf

        Added to that:
        Looking closer, the 12C pulse begins in 1750, before the industrial revolution could possibly have had an impact on the balance. There’s a recent paper which found a ten times increase in dust deposits in US lakes when agriculture really hit its stride. Increase dissolved silica and phytoplankton blooms in spring are delayed as diatoms, extremely efficient competitors which are silica limited, out-compete the C3 phytos.

        One of the problems with Climastrology is the assumption nothing is happening to either the coal or the ice. Craig Venter, discovered microbes a mile underground so there are Coal-Eating Microbes:
        Microbial Degradation and. Modification of Coal
        and a napthalene-eating ‘bug’ was found in a coal-tar disposal site.

        And microbes have been discovered in polar ice:

        Price, P. Buford; Sowers, Todd. Temperature dependence of metabolic rates for microbial growth, maintenance, and survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, v.101(13); 2004 March 30; 101(13): 4631–4636.
        doi: 10.1073/pnas.0400522101. PMCID: PMC384798.
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC384798/
        Abstract
        Our work was motivated by discoveries of prokaryotic communities that survive with little nutrient in ice and permafrost, with implications for past or present microbial life in Martian permafrost and Europan ice. We compared the temperature dependence of metabolic rates of microbial communities in permafrost, ice, snow, clouds, oceans, lakes, marine and freshwater sediments, and subsurface aquifer sediments. Metabolic rates per cell fall into three groupings: (i) a rate, μg(T), for growth, measured in the laboratory at in situ temperatures with minimal disturbance of the medium; (ii) a rate, μm(T), sufficient for maintenance of functions but for a nutrient level too low for growth; and (iii) a rate, μs(T), for survival of communities imprisoned in deep glacial ice, subsurface sediment, or ocean sediment, in which they can repair macromolecular damage but are probably largely dormant. The three groups have metabolic rates consistent with a single activation energy of ≈110 kJ and that scale as μg(T):μm(T):μs(T) ≈ 106:103:1. There is no evidence of a minimum temperature for metabolism. The rate at -40°C in ice corresponds to ≈10 turnovers of cellular carbon per billion years. Microbes in ice and permafrost have metabolic rates similar to those in water, soil, and sediment at the same temperature. This finding supports the view that, far below the freezing point, liquid water inside ice and permafrost is available for metabolism. The rate μs(T) for repairing molecular damage by means of DNA-repair enzymes and protein-repair enzymes such as methyltransferase is found to be comparable to the rate of spontaneous molecular damage.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The problem is the UN Framework on Climate Change says there is only a Hammer (human induced) in the Climastrologists tool box so nothing else is ever considered. ALL changes are to be blamed on humans.

          East Anglia’s Phil Jones, illustrates this in the Climategate e-mails when he said this about some scientific articles he did not like: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

        • TSK says:

          This:
          Looking closer, the 12C pulse begins in 1750, before the industrial revolution could possibly have had an impact on the balance.
          smacks of someone looking at a graph like this

          and only noticing the convenient average line but not looking at the actual curve.

        • TSK says:

          I thought you preferred data rather than models! It’s interesting that the model produced that nice curve, isn’t it??

        • TSK says:

          Figure from here: h**p://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/smoking_gun_humans_climate_change.html)

  30. rah says:

    Sigh! As usual it seems our friend needs to be spoon fed the facts. Obviously didn’t take my suggestion about looking into studies of that “survey” that have without a doubt discredited it. So TSK open wide because here comes the choo choo train:

    1. Fraud, Bias and Public Relations – the 97% ‘consensus and its critics http://www.thegwpf.org/new-paper-the-97-consensus-and-its-critics/

    From page 3:

    “1 Summary
    Recent reports that 97% of published scientific papers support the so-called consensus on man-made global warming are based on a paper by John Cook et al.1 Precisely what consensus is allegedly being supported in these papers cannot be discerned from the text of the paper. An analysis of the methodology used by Cook et al. shows that the consensus referred to is trivial:

    • that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas
    • that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent.

    Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper. Numerous critiques of the paper have been published, some by supporters of mainstream views on climate science. These have demonstrated substantial biases in the methodology. Cook has certainly misrepresented what his research shows. More importantly, one researcher has made an allegation of scientific fraud, at this point unrebutted by Cook and his colleagues.”

    2. “Honey, I shrunk the consensus” — Monckton takes action on Cooks paper
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/monckton-honey-i-shrunk-the-consensus/
    Level of endorsement of “scientific consensus” in 11,944 abstracts

    3. Even Cook himself later walked back his claim from 97.1 to 90% http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e

    And if your aren’t full yet I can provide more for you but I want you to chew on those and see if your full yet.

    • TSK says:

      rah,

      1. http://www.thegwpf.org/new-paper-the-97-consensus-and-its-critics/

      You reach into Nigel Lawson’s stinkhole and pull out a diatribe by the accountant who doesn’t like the hockey stick, a diatribe with no peer-review. He attempts to manipulate Cook et al’s data to say that it is insignificant in that the definition of AGW was too broad. Had Andrew Montford had a reasoned case he could have got his paper published in an appropriately accredited journal. He didn’t bother. He was merely doing a job for Lawson. There is no stopping climate sceptical papers being published as there is in fact a small number already published. Montford’s problem revolves around his lack of reading ability, unable to see that his “shallow consensus” is rendered bunk by Cook et al’s level of endorsement category #5.

      2. http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/monckton-honey-i-shrunk-the-consensus/

      This one’s a gem. Cutting through Monckton’s silly rhetoric, he doesn’t like the removal of papers that don’t state an opinion on AGW (66.4% of total), though he is unable to show a logical means of using those removed. He only goes further off the rails from there. But do try to show from Cook et al’s data how Monckton got his dissection. He seems totally disinterested in the fact that, when a follow-up survey yielded responses matching 2142 of the originally analysed papers, of the authors whose papers didn’t state an opinion about half of them committed to supporting AGW when their views were solicited with little to no slippage from the rest into denial. Monckton contributes nothing useful to the discourse. To quote the Guardian on the matter for light entertainment, “Monckton’s blog post and paper tried to deny the consensus by ignoring 98% of the papers that endorse it.”

      3. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e

      Here we have a case of you not reading carefully enough to know that the 97.1% and the 90% refer to different samplings, so it’s not strange that they yield different percentages.

      It’s understandable that the first two weren’t peer-reviewed, because if they had a case they’d be able to get peer reviewing. Scientists like to make a name for themselves and getting provocative material published will help them do so.

      The 97% figure that the denialists are railing against should not be controversial, as it is not a new figure: in Jan 2009 Doran & Kendall Zimmerman published a similar finding in EOS (Am.Geophys.Union). They had 3146 responses to a survey of 10257 Earth scientists.

      It’s understandable that Lawson and Monckton are having tantrums over the climate change consensus: they’re isolated enough without being told how isolated they are. What they are interfering in the debate for is hard to fathom. Neither is qualified to do so. They are politicians. Nothing more. They should stick to talking about how to gull voters.

      • rah says:

        So your response to #1 is to denigrate the researchers but not their data or conclusions? Data BTW that Cook refused to supply initially when asked. But at least he didn’t “lose” it years later like Phil at EAU did.

        Response to #2 . Lord Monckton (and others) have clearly shown that Cook consolidated definitions to fabricate his consensus. Even scientists like Roy Spencer were included as believing in significant AGW. What a bunch of hog wash. As Lord Monckton so amply demonstrated: “The paper strangely omitted the key results. (Why make 7 classifications, if they were not going to disclose how many papers fell into each category?)………….

        Of nearly 12,000 abstracts analyzed, there were only 64 papers in category 1 (which explicitly endorsed man-made global warming). Of those only 41 (0.3%) actually endorsed the quantitative hypothesis as defined by Cook in the introduction. A third of the 64 papers did not belong…..

        None of the categories endorsed “catastrophic” warming — a warming severe enough to warrant action — though this was assumed in the introduction, discussion and publicity material.”

        The 97% consensus is bunk! Was bunk from the beginning and remains bunk. And even Ray Charles could see there was no scientific reason for publishing such a paper in the first place. It was a political document and not a scientific document. “the seeker after truth does not place his faith in any mere consensus, however venerable. Instead, he checks”. wrote Al-Haytham recognized as the father of the scientific method.

        • TSK says:

          You’ve confused research with assertion. There is no research on Montford’s effort. And you didn’t read my final sentence on him: “Montford’s problem revolves around his lack of reading ability, unable to see that his “shallow consensus” is rendered bunk by Cook et al’s level of endorsement category #5.” He is simply muddled. His effort shows a writer incapable of peer-review.

          For your benefit, this is category #5:
          Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming

          So Montford missed the point for his “shallow consensus” includes #5.

          On to Monckton: it is a crass blunder to use the 12000 abstracts as a yardstick, when 60+% don’t yield a position one way or the other. You wouldn’t count informal votes in an election: they don’t point to any candidate. All it does is distort what can be said of the data, which was the point of Monckton’s rubbish. Cook et al clearly point out that they have three indicators for support of AGW and three to the contrary. You would understand the distinctions if you had read them, for clearly Monckton wasn’t bothered to do so. If you don’t read them all you won’t understand the individual categories. And once again he ignores the self-rating survey of the authors, as you do. That makes Monckton’s quibbling look downright silly.

          I wish you people would actually read the paper your sources think they criticise. It would help you reduce efforts wasted in error.

        • rah says:

          Thankfully I now have to get ready to do something constructive. Drive a truck. So I will leave this discussion to others for the time being though it really is already over.

      • philjourdan says:

        Actually, what your whining about amounts to is you do not like the science of statistics. Which is par for the course.

        You do not arbitrarily remove responses to a survey you do not like. Period. Doing so negates the survey, and makes it merely a mirror for the author.

  31. TSK says:

    In short, Mack, you’re clueless and floundering about guessing. Try to explain how the oceans would differentiate C13. Duffer.

  32. TSK says:

    Well Mack, coming back I find you skulking off to fossil fools who are no better readers than you are… at least in the case of hopeless chiefio, who barely looks his sources before losing concentration. Brushing aside the fruitless speculations and citations of other tertiary sources (Alexander Cockburn, another scholar you would hope, but no), chiefio comes out with gems like:

    How about the formation of carbonate deposits in the ocean? This article from Science Daily discusses a recent discovery that the whole history of C12 : C13 may be a bit broken since we don’t really know how carbonate formation tracks against atmospheric concentrations. Oops.
    Oops indeed. The source states:
    While this idea appears to be sound over the last 150 million years or so, prior to this time there are no open oceanic sediment records which record the 13C/12C ratio, and therefore, geologists are forced to use materials associated with carbonate platforms or epicontinental seas.(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080910104202.htm)
    That’s “sound over the last 150 million years“. chiefio’s quibbling is on that sort of level, just clueless like you. So thanks for your effort.

    I’ll now try Gail Combs. Cheers.

    • TSK says:

      Sadly, I see Gail Combs has—among others—cited the same nonsense. His another gem:
      OK, so both C12 and C13 are stable and they are looking for a ‘plant’ signature in burned fuel, not a nuclear decay signature. One Small Problem… C4 metabolism plants absorb more C13 than do C3 metabolism plants. Over the last 100 years we’ve planted one heck of a lot more grasses world wide than ever before. Grasses are often C4 metabolism…
      Of course C4 plants also take less C13 than the atmospheric proportion, but they still remove less C13. However, C4 plants didn’t develop until after the age of the fossil fuel deposits. (And then there’s the silliness above about us planting a heck of a lot more grasses. This writer might have thought about the amount of wheat, barley, oats and rice we’ve planted.) There’s only so much nonsense one can cope with at once in a writer like this.

      • philjourdan says:

        In what world is “Gail” a male name? What an idiot.

        • TSK says:

          Looking for trouble I see, Rover. Your parsing of the sentence is absurd. If you had used your brain instead of your limbic system, you would have noticed that it was a typo: “His” for “Here’s”. Go back and read for sense, not offence. You’ll see that you’ve just smeared egg over your face.

        • philjourdan says:

          How is “his” a typo of “here’s”? Or are you just naturally illiterate?

          I can see “hers” being a typo. His? That was intentional as the letters are not even close. So where is your brain then?

          More mindless blather from the loon. And lame excuses. A simple apology to Gail would have sufficed, but then that would require a real person.

        • TSK says:

          I see the notion of a typo is too difficult for you.

          Let’s look, Don Chixote.
          1. Where’s the verb in “His another gem:”? You dunno.
          2. How can you put a possessive pronoun before “another” grammatically? Again, you are clueless. Go and try it in your head: “your another mistake.” Doesn’t work, does it?

          So now I find you are also linguistically challenged. Yet, if you read “Here’s another gem:” as was my intention—which a rational person could see—, it’s all nice and grammatical. Stop being a fool. (And that “being” is giving you the benefit of the doubt.)

          If you want an apology, I’m sorry, I thought you had a reasonable grasp of English. I see now I was wrong.

        • philjourdan says:

          As I showed you, a typo is switching a letter, or skipping one. It is not completely changing the word. Which is what you did. So your hilarious attempt to excuse your boorish behavior makes it even more amusing!

          I did not say anything about your grammar. I figured it went hand in hand with your gender identification. But hey! Keep digging. China is not far away at your rate. LOL

          What an idiot.

        • TSK says:

          Don Quixote writes:
          As I showed you, a typo is switching a letter, or skipping one.
          You may have asserted this limited idea, but opening your mouth doesn’t augur well that something of intellectual prowess will emerge.

          How things get transformed from one’s brain to the computer screen is not limited to what’s in your philosophy, Horatio. These days any disjunction in “written” communication between intent and manifestation is called a typo, ie any error that arises from the act of typing. When E.M. Smith talking about his point writes below “these process”, to me that’s a typo. He meant “this”, not “these”, an anaphoric link to a singular in the previous paragraph, but in the act of typing the mistake was made. Up in Boston the difference between “his” and “here’s” is one of sound length. In typing the wrong one can come out. But if you had been a reasonable person, you would have understood the communication, but you’ve proven you are not.

          Now take your hands off your best friend and get back to cleaning your gun. I won’t listen to any more of your grunting and groaning.

        • philjourdan says:

          You have a serious disconnect on what this forum is. I never opened my mouth. But you sure stuck your feet into yours.

          Nor does anyone here claim to be “clairvoyant” (with the possible exception of you), so we must go on what is WRITTEN, not what the clown is THINKING. You wrote it, you own it. And your petty ad hominems and claims of clairvoyance are amusing and also non sequitur.

          If it had been a typo, you would have stated that and let it go. Instead, like all trolls, you attempt to justify the unjustifiable by attacking everyone but the perp of the problem. Yourself.

    • TSK says:

      And one more piece of nonsense from chiefio:
      In wandering off to learn more about C12 / C13 origins and ratios I ran into this gem. It does raise the interesting question: If human CO2 dropped dramatically during the great depression, where is the signature in the record?

      Answer:
      The second line of evidence is that the changes in the C isotopic signature of Juniperus tree rings late in the 20th century were not unique to this time period. Instead, the patterns of change in δ13C, Δ13C, and Ci/Ca after 1980 were not significantly different from the isotopic signatures found during the 1930s, when SO2 emissions were sharply reduced during the US Great Depression(Evidence of recovery of Juniperus virginiana trees from sulfur pollution after the Clean Air Act, Thomas et al., PNAS Sept 17, 2013, vol.110/23, 15321)

    • TSK says:

      chiefio speculation:
      And would also argue that volcanic emissions from subduction zone volcanoes ought to be C13 deficient to the degree that ocean bottom ooze is being recycled. Has this been considered? Does C12:C13 ratio modulate with the level of volcanic activity?

      Response indicated in this:
      Ratios of modern marine organisms are about 1% higher than those of terrestrial organisms.(http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02679635)
      If the speculation were correct then you wouldn’r expect this to be so.

      • E.M.Smith says:

        I’m generally going to sit out this food fight as I see little to be gained attempting to “fix the stupid” level of folks tossing mud at me. Just an example, though. Here TSK attempts to “poo poo” the notion that subduction recycle of sediments might shift isotope ratios by reference to “modern marine organisms”. Completely missing the fact that it takes many millions of years to subduct sediments. Carbonate rocks formed as a plate moves from a mid ocean ridge take more millions of years to reach the subduction zone. “modern” need not apply.

        My “point” was not to prove any particular C12 : C13 ratio exists in these process. Rather it was to point out gaping holes is what is known and that in many ways the assertion of any given C12 : C13 ratio as being attributable to any particular source (like human fuels use) is folly due to that gaping hole set.

        Now a useful ‘complaint’ would have been to find the actual C12 : C13 ratios for a large set of volcanoes and show that they were not an issue. But since that data likely does not exist for the last 1000 years, that’s hard to do… which was sort of my point…

        Also above there was some “complaint” about my saying ” This article from Science Daily discusses a recent discovery that the whole history of C12 : C13 may be a bit broken since we don’t really know how carbonate formation tracks against atmospheric concentrations.”

        Yes I said “the whole history” and “a bit broken”. Somehow “whole history” becomes 150 MY and “a bit broken” is taken to mean “completely broken” in the way the response was made: turning “While this idea appears to be sound over the last 150 million years or so” into “That’s “sound over the last 150 million years“.”. What happened to “appears to be” and “or so”? Lost on their cutting room floor. So I point out “a bit broken” in both time scale and weasel words, and that gets turned into “absolutely fine in the only part that matters”. I don’t see much reason to respond to warped complaints about things I did not say. YMMV… Oh, and where were the presently subduction melting sediments 160 MYA? Hmmm?

        Essentially, the whole ‘complaint’ has that kind of tone. That I haven’t “proved” something or other, so must be of defective thinking skill. (Sad, that, since “my mother had me tested” 😉 and I’m well above the average. Oh, and NASA had me tested too. Yes, I’m “NASA certified”. Something I used to revel in, but in the last couple of decades NASA has lost a lot of luster so I don’t mention it much now.) Bragging? No. Citing facts. The attacker is using an ad hominem (a rather stupid strategy) and it is simply refuted with the truth. But back at “proving”… The purpose of my article was a ‘survey of issues’, not a proof of any particular one. So I’m attacked for not proving them? Huh?

        But perhaps the ad-Homer (apologies to Mr. Simpson) can be forgiven that point. Likely didn’t read the article, and is certainly not familiar with my “Dig Here!” style of article. For your edification: I like to do what I call “ploughing the field” to do a survey of where there be issues. I can turn up far more in one posting than can possibly be fully explored in even a decent sized book. I leave it for others to “Dig Here!” and see how much remains to be mined.

        So, for example, the (cited) articles which show wide variations in isotope ratios in all sorts of natural gas, oil, etc. Then the simple question: “How do you determine the isotope ratios of fuels that were all burned up in the 100 years prior to now?” and “Who has sampled all the supplies being burned today and what are they?” That we have no answers to those questions is a “problem with the C12 :C13” ratio. Which was what I was pointing out. Or the (cited) article about fish “gut rocks”. Turns out they pull a lot of carbonate from the ocean. Only discovered a few years ago. Nobody knows what ratio they have (or didn’t then) and nobody can say what the massive uptick in fishing has done to the deposition rates or ratios. (Maybe they will someday, after a lot of work).

        But go ahead, have a food fight if you wish. Argue over Gail and names ( Gale / Gail can go both ways as a name and I’ve known both men and women named “Gail” – phonetically… I only heard it spoken not saw it written for the men). Nit pick on subsets of sentences with the details chopped out and the meaning shifted. Name call and use ad-homs. But don’t expect me to participate. I was pointed at this particular food fight and said (there) that I found them tedious and a waste of time. But thought I ought to at least let folks know why I don’t bother feeding trolls nor ‘fighting stupidity’. One of my key mantras is “Intelligence is limited, but stupidity knows no bounds. -E.M.Smith”; and that is why I don’t waste my time “fighting stupidity”. In a mud slinging fight, the way to stay clean is not to participate…

        • TSK says:

          The specific progressive change in the 13C/12C ratio is a modern phenomenon of the last few hundred years. That is the subject of the current discussion. There is a strong correlation between a large progressive influx of 12C into the atmosphere known from the over-exploitation of fossil fuels since the start of the industrial revolution and the decrease in the ratio. During this time the sea has acted as a carbon sink, ie the carbon is going the wrong way—into the sea—, and has no noticeable impact on the 13C/12C ratio. It is a common denialist ploy to change the subject and say “but what about this thingy that I haven’t analysed which just might have had some influence in some other time scale that I haven’t tested”. We are not talking about a phenomenon that takes many millions of years, but one that is still going on and that started with the industrial revolution. Both tree rings and ice cores provide a long record of δ13C and show the decrease.

          The δ13C evidence comes from around the world. For example, check this South African analysis that argues the explanation for their δ13C data in a 77yr tree ring record “can be related to the anthropogenic impact on atmospheric CO2”:

          http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edmund_February/publication/222045593_Declining_Trend_in_the_13C12C_Ratio_of_Atmospheric_Carbon_Dioxide_from_Tree_Rings_of_South_African_Widdringtonia_cedarbergensis/links/543794930cf2027cbb20206a

          (pdf)

          This paper cites several others with similar conclusions. We have a functional theory that closely fits the facts: the decrease in δ13C reflects the increase in atmospheric 12C over the exact same time frame. When faced with a walks like a duck and talks like a duck situation, you know that there is something wrong with conclusions of this kind: “it might actually be an ostrich or a chicken or a dodo or perhaps even a feathered human making idiosyncratic mating calls.”

  33. Gail Combs says:

    TSK is over looking:

    ” C4 metabolism plants absorb more C13 than do C3 metabolism plants.”

    Trees are C3 and Corn is C4 as is grass. We have cut down a heck of a lot of forest world wide and at least in the USA we are planting corn like mad.

    “Bacteriogenic methane from Illinois generally has a C13 values in the range of -64 to -90% relative to the Peedee Belemnite ( PDB ) standard. The 11 samples from pipelines and storage reservoirs that have been analyzed have all had C13 values in the range of -40 to -46%.

    Got that? Bacteria make methane with even less C13 in it than natural gas. So a little swamp gas can look like a whole lot of human generated C13 deficient CO2 once it air oxidizes.”

    It is not just the swamp gas that E. M. Smith points out , and thanks to the EPA and Animal Rights activists the amount of swamp land is INCREASING, but the bacteria a mile down that is chomping away at the coal and producing methane.

    And then there are the volcanoes…

    However the big problem is given the errors in the calculations due to the above considerations there is really no way to see the “Manmade CO2 Signature” within all the noise. The man made contribution is about 2.3% —- ERROR BARS STRIKE AGAIN folks.

    http://www.antti-roine.com/download/file.php?id=156&sid=6ce22ca5ef568c24ed87ddc09bb784f5&mode=view

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Gail! Bear with me for a moment…

      I found this interesting information about goats.

      “A healthy rumen is crucial for a goat to properly digest roughage. Digestive enzymes in the abomasum and small intestine cannot break down roughage correctly unless it has been prepared by rumen microorganisms. For a goat to thrive, its rumen bacteria must be healthy. Healthy rumen bacteria can be killed by improper feeding (too much grain, moldy hay or grain, dog food, et cetera), oral antibiotics and pathogenic bacterial toxins (such as those produced by Clostridium perfringens, type C and D). When bacteria die, the goat cannot digest its food, so the rumen becomes a vat of decaying food and bacteria that quickly becomes toxic. The rumen quits contracting, and it becomes stagnant, causing more bacteria to die and perpetuating the cycle. Indigestion can range from mild to severe and fatal. A goat will show signs by eating less or not at all and by changes in behavior. The goat may be more inactive and may make complaining sounds.”

      The pertinent point is that without a proper ability to digest, even when a goat eats enough food, it may be unable to assimilate any of it. It is almost as if the goat starves to death with a full stomach.

      I would suggest that TSK may be suffering from the intellectual version of the same malady. You may feed him facts and data all day long — but I do not see any evidence that it is being assimilated.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Perhaps several doses of this will help TSK. (It is what I feed my goats especially after worming or antibiotic treatment for Cocidiosis)

        • rah says:

          Did you guys know that it is still common practice by many European docs to do the same for humans? We aren’t ruminants of course but an imbalance the normal culture in our guts can still cause us problems so it makes sense to try and restore that balance in a person having certain digestive problems by providing a cocktail containing the normal fauna found in the gut. In my case it was administered to me by an Italian Army doctor. He just gave me a medium sized ampule and had me break off the top and drink it right down. For some reason the practice doesn’t seem to be common here in US medical practice.

        • Gail Combs says:

          RAH,

          You are correct in that. We Americans are stuck having to eat active culture yogurt to get our digestive system back in good working condition after taking antibiotics.

        • Mack says:

          And I think that works just as well Gail …saving a costly visit to the Doc., esp. in the US. 🙂
          O bummer, announcing just this, would be more effective than 2 Grubers.

        • Power Grab says:

          @ rah: Tell more about the European docs and replenishing the gut flora.

          My ears perked up because I thought I had become allergic to wheat or developed an intolerance to gluten, but it turned out to be fixable by avoiding the chloraminated tap water…plus some probiotics and temporary dietary restrictions, just until the good bugs could re-establish themselves.

          It took about a year of experimentation, but now I’m back to being able to eat wheat without having to spend 3 days in the bathroom.

          Avoiding the poison tap water seems to hold everything together. Now I use well water or spring water. I don’t even have to take probiotics every day. I can eat everything again now, but I try to get organic products for the things I eat frequently, just to cut down on the germ-killers I ingest.

    • TSK says:

      Gail Combs,

      Contrary to your first statement I had previously said specifically,
      Of course C4 plants also take less C13 than the atmospheric proportion, but they still remove less C13.
      The interest here is that C4 plants still differentiate between C13 and C12, taking proportionally more C12 than in the atmosphere generally.

      (And going on about corn is a parochial approach given the amount of rice grown in China and India. Then again how much wheat is in your household compared to corn? Bread is such a staple throughout the western world.)

      Moving on to bacteriogenic methane:
      Bacteriogenic methane from Illinois generally has a C13 values in the range of -64 to -90% relative to the Peedee Belemnite ( PDB ) standard. The 11 samples from pipelines and storage reservoirs that have been analyzed have all had C13 values in the range of -40 to -46%.

      Now let me give you the prior sentence:
      Determination of the C13/C12 ratio of methane is a simpler and more versatile tool [than radiocarbon measurement] for identification of leakage gas. (https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-6491-MS)

      This paper—and you should always refer to the original material where possible, rather than someone’s excerpt from it—deals with identifying bacteria from its C13/C12 signature. We then go back to the previous quote and understand that the first sentence about certain bacteria from Illinois reflects a high ratio and is not a general reflection of bacteriogenic methane at all.
      _____

      FFS, why do you guys always come up looking like loozers? You quote nonsense from diletanttes who are merely looking for gotchas and are deficient in reading skills generally. You never seem to deal with primary research materials, but rehash others’ poor understandings of them, second- or third-hand or even a daisy-chain of reiterations away from meaningful data.

      I find this sort of behavior on the internet from creationists and ID supporters, ie they don’t really care about what the material they use actually says, just as long as they can get a soundbite that reflects their spin on it.

      It’s also a bit like those people who won’t believe anything unless it was published in their newspaper. You know, like Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal (unlike the original), which pushes Murdoch’s unique brand of populace control, divine giver of Faux News.

      I pick a sentence with significant terms from the material someone quotes here and do a google search and find the same sentence repeated throughout denier-land, but nowhere else. You might think that that is somehow evidence of analytical thought amongst deniers, but sadly it is just oft repeated spin. What is needed in such debate is argument based on good research not rehearsals of others’ mistakes. What you end up with is this:

      • TSK says:

        I know, it’s “dilettantes”. Dyslexia.

        • Mack says:

          “primary research materials” yeah, yeah,, the primary literature,, always the primary literature. Well let’s look at the primary literature…Primary literature back in Galileo’s time said that the world was flat. But lo and behold, the primary literature central to your quack “greenhouse” theory also depicts the Earth as a FLAT disk casting a shadow. wow…. modern science!
          So you are in the company of great minds TSK., such as the president of the Flat Earth Society who also says he believes in AGW.
          Then you regurgitate the same old tripe we’ve come to expect fom you deluded,paranoid clowns…”creationists” “Murdoch press” “Fox News”… you need to get reading, boy…get to my link.

        • TSK says:

          Sorry, bud, you have no substitute for primary sources. Everything else is based on them. Eventually the rubbish you cite is based on perverse readings of secondary sources that use them. It’s just that you are a few more layers of obfuscation away. Hence your general cluelessness when choosing sources to prop up your failing belief system. You go off to some denialist blog rather than ever attempting to understand the status quo, blubbering about the scientific community’s conspiracy. What utter foolishness. Keep it up and you will end up an old fool out in the storm railing at the wind, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

        • TSK says:

          Who knows what stupidity lies within the hearts of men?

          …TSK

  34. Mack says:

    OK Steve…you bounced that one. …and strangely I’m not even miffed,…rather pleased in hindsight. 🙂

  35. Jason Calley says:

    Sometimes it is so much fun debating the details that we lose sight of the basics. The simple fact is, the theory that increasing CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming has failed. It has failed in the only laboratory we have, the Earth. You can argue about WHY it failed, you can argue about carbon isotope levels and sources, you can argue about various forms of review — but in the end, we need to always go back to the simple observed and measured fact that the predicted catastrophic warming has not taken place. Additionally, the warming has not taken place for a time period that precludes CAGW to a high degree of certainty.

    Science is based on prediction. Why? Because prediction is the mechanism which best excludes fallible human bias. Even when the CAGW modelers were allowed to give multiple predictions from multiple models, they still failed to predict the current lack of warming. The theory has failed. There is no upper troposphere hot spot. The poles are not in a “death spiral.” The radiative properties of additional CO2 have NOT driven global climate into a new and dangerously warmer state.

    If you bet on a horse in a race, and your horse loses, that means your bet was wrong. Your ticket will never pay off. You may argue that “if the track had less mud” your horse would have won. You may argue that “I picked the best horse, but the jockey was not very good!” None of that matters. The simple truth is, you failed to pass the test of prediction. Your horse lost. Your theory for picking horses is wrong.

    • rah says:

      The warmists are still somewhere between the 1st and 2nd stage of grief (Denial and Anger) over the death of the pet doomsday theory which they hoped would drive us to their one world government nirvana .

      • philjourdan says:

        Great point! But note the first word – denial. I see a lot of projection on their part.

      • TSK says:

        I may be at the anger stage, but you lot are certainly still in denial.

        (And boy did you fall over your mouths on that one.)

        You have one dill in fear of “world government”, another with a PhD in chair polishing, claiming to know better than thousands of the world’s scientists, another who has nothing to say except that he is a failed language pedant. Most of you would be better off if you took up makrame. It would give you something more useful to do with your hands and keep you off the streets.

  36. Gail Combs says:

    TSK says:
    “…Then again how much wheat is in your household compared to corn? …”

    Do not make idiot assumptions. The amount of corn in my house is over 50 pounds and sometimes over 100 lbs. The amount of wheat is nil since I can not digest it.
    …….
    We are talking about CHANGES in the amount of C3 vs C4 plants and changes in the C13/C14 ratios

    So here is one change.
    In 2000, the U.S. produced almost ten billion bushels of the world’s total 23 billion bushel crop on 72.7 million acres. (EPA)
    June 29, 2012 – U.S. farmers planted 96.4 million acres of corn, up 5 percent from last year, making it the highest corn acreage in the last 75 years…. (NASA)

    Another change that no one has even mentioned is the feeding of that corn to livestock and chickens. There has been a major change since the 1960s from feeding livestock mostly on pasture to feeding in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) where the ratio of corn to grass is much much higher.

    – In just the past 20 years, there has been dramatic change in animal agricultural production in Missouri and the United States. These changes have included a significant increase in the overall size of individual operations, an increase in the number of animals raised per operation and a shift towards raising poultry and certain livestock within production barns. Concentrated animal feeding operations, frequently referred to as CAFOs, are large animal agricultural facilities that raise a specific number of animals in production barns or confinement pens…..

    On top of that as people became more wealthy in the West, Japan and now China meat eating has increased.

    ..In the last 60 years almost every corner of the globe has seen major demographic changes, like population increase and urbanization, in hand with rapid economic development.

    These processes have played a major role in changing traditional lifestyles; a vivid example being the sweeping shift towards diets richer in meat and animal products. This adoption of protein-rich and energy-dense eating habits has been branded as diet Westernization and is occurring throughout the world….
    The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reports that since 1961, the production and consumption of every major meat category has increased significantly. In particular, the production of beef, sheep and goat meat has more than doubled, while the production of pork and poultry increased by a factor of three and a factor of nine respectively, as shown in this graph….
    United Nations University
    ourworld(DOT)unu.edu/en/tokyo-drifts-from-seafood-to-meat-eating

    From primary source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02679635

    . Ratios, of modern marine organisms are about 1% higher than those of terrestrial organisms. The average C13/C12 ratio of modern marine organisms is also about 1% higher than that of ancient organic matter in marine sediments….
    Missouri Department of Resources
    (wwwDOT)dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/cafo/

    So a change from ocean fish to meat in Japan and China is going to change your C13/C12 ratio

    Not primary, but still decent info. since it is written by Madeleine Stone, Environmental scientist at the University of Pennsylvania. The article is on the use of C13/C14 ratio to distinguish between C3 plants and C4 plants and the applications in tracing climate changes via lake bed deposition and peat as well as tracing human agriculture.

    ……Still don’t think isotopes are interesting? If you have a friend whose fidelity to vegetarianism is in question, sending a sample of their hair to an isotope lab should resolve the situation. Chances are, if you’re a vegetarian your C13 levels will be relatively high, indicating a more plant-rich diet (a disproportionate number of the world’s major crops are C4 plants).
    https://wyrdscience.wordpress.com/tag/plant-biology/

    Humans breath out about 8.5 percent as much carbon as we burn. (And do not forget all that CO2 from belching cows, goats and sheep fed high corn diets.)

    And then you get into the Abiotic oil…

    Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find
    Date:
    September 12, 2009
    Source:
    Vetenskapsrådet (The Swedish Research Council)
    Summary:
    Researchers in Sweden have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.

    Too main variables in an analysis of afew parts per million to make a reasonable conclusion.

    As I said the Error bars!!

    Now I have to go save the life of a goat…

    • Mack says:

      ….from something like TSK type trolls living under ricketty bridges Gail. 😉

    • TSK says:

      Gail Combs,

      Sorry for taking so long to respond. I was actually doing work so had little head space to respond to a more meaningful post.

      I must say I don’t really understand your basic position. You seem interested in C4 plants when they don’t in any way help explain the decrease in 13C/12C ratio, as they don’t remove more 13C proportional to the atmospheric content. The ratio change we see regarding the stable carbon isotopes fits well with the increase of CO2. As CO2 increased the 13C ratio changed. There is a strong correlation. This is easily understandable when perhaps the biggest source for the extra carbon in the atmosphere comes from burning fossil fuel which is comprised of 13C depleted carbon. There is no notable change in the quantity of 13C in the atmosphere, just of 12C. This is because there were no C4 plants around at the time of the formation of the fossil fuel strata. C4 plants remove a ratio much closer to the atmospheric range and so would have little effect on the 13C/12C balance. As the ocean has acted as a carbon sink, it is not the source of the reduced ratio.

      1. The ocean is not the source for the imbalance.

      2. C4 plants are not the source for the imbalance.

      3. Fossil fuels are deficient in 13C and fit the facts well as a source for the imbalance.

      • Gail Combs says:

        You keep missing the point. The earth is not a simple system. It is messy. You do not have one or two or even ten sources of CO2 in the atmosphere you have hundreds. They just found squirrels and beavers are a much larger source than originally thought and that doesn’t even include the termites or the oceans, who are major emitters. Heck if the Russians are correct oil is not even from organic sources.

        Then someone tries to say they can show a C12/C13 ratio that blames the increase in CO2 on Mankind when man is responsible for a few parts million at most?

        Go pedal that to your literary majors who have not had to deal with chemical analysis for forty years.

        • TSK says:

          Then someone tries to say they can show a C12/C13 ratio that blames the increase in CO2 on Mankind when man is responsible for a few parts million at most?
          Wouldn’t it be nice if you could justify this claim with unassailable evidence? But of course, you are talking plain old horse twaddle.

          There is no benefit in setting up strawmen: “The earth is not a simple system. It is messy.” Most people who’ve looked into it know. And people who’ve done chemical analysis for forty years are not immune to the blunder of denialism.

    • TSK says:

      And FWIW, this link provides indications of world consumption figures for various grains:

      http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5019e/y5019e0b.htm

  37. rah says:

    More on the 97% myth. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=24484

    June 3, 2014

    Global warming advocates routinely toss out the statistic that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made. Where did that figure come from? Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, and Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, explain the history behind the misleading number.

    In short, there is no basis for the claim that 97 percent of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

    In 2004, Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard science historian, examined 928 abstracts of scientific journal articles, finding that three-quarters of them believed that humans were responsible for most of the observed warming of the last half-century.

    However, Oreskes did not analyze articles by prominent scientists — such as Richard Lindzen and John Christy — who question the “consensus” view.
    Additionally, a recent study in Nature magazine confirms that academic abstracts often contain claims that are not proven in the studies themselves.

    A 2009 article by University of Illinois student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran also made the 97 percent claim.

    The authors made this conclusion after conducting a two-question online survey of 3,146 scientists, only 79 of which were experts in climate science and had published half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change.
    It did not include the scientists most likely to understand the natural causes of climate change: solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers.
    Moreover, the survey did not specify whether the human impact on global warming was large enough to constitute a problem.

    In 2013, Australian blogger John Cook reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011, concluding that 97 percent of the authors who stated their position on the subject believed that human activity was responsible for some warming.

    However, when University of Delaware geography professor David Legates reviewed Cook’s papers, he found that only 41 of them (0.3 percent of all of the abstracts, and just 1 percent of those that expressed an opinion) believed human activity was causing most current warming.

    On the other hand, write Bast and Spencer, the Petition Project — a group of physicists and physical chemists in California — has collected more than 31,000 signatures from scientists agreeing that there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of…carbon dioxide…or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

    Source: Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer, “The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%'” Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2014.

  38. rah says:

    Oh TSK……………………………..
    97 Articles Refuting The ‘97% Consensus’ on global warming..http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/#comment-1817468

    “The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.“

    – Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

    • TSK says:

      I’m sure you can find more people whinging because they don’t like the various surveys of scholarly opinion because those individuals don’t find the results reflect their views.

      As to Mike Hulme, his comments are taken out of context. Hulme continues,
      It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?

      Hulme understands AGW reality and wants to believe that the public does too. He may be right, but certainly there are enough of you denialists to help RWNJs like James Inhofe retard progress in heading off the results of prolonged increasing levels of atmospheric carbon. His offhand comment on an internet forum dealt with a survey that he considered not necessary after 2009. I think he was wrong. There is still a huge part of the population, skeptics, RWNJs and religious nutters waiting for the apocalypse,—the ‘non-believers’ Hulme refers to—who need to be connected to reality.

      Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia, accepts AGW and your use of his comment here—as with the whole flotilla of the denialist bloggers—is only cynical cherry-picked confirmation bias.

      • rah says:

        WHAT “results of prolonged increasing levels of atmospheric carbon”? Show me a single definitive sign of the CAGW that was claimed by so many that you trust we would see by now. Just ONE sign TSK that can be separated from natural variability and “the noise” that absolutely without a doubt can be attributed to the increase in CO2.

        The ice at the poles seem to be doing fine. Atlantic Hurricane season below normal. Pacific Typhoons historically average in numbers and intensity. Tornado occurrence in the US in the last 3 years the lowest since the age of weather radar began. Wildfires below normal. Flooding events normal. All of those claimed to be worse in numbers and/or intensity from a warming earth. The world produced more food this year than has been produced in history.
        And don’t bother posting those stupid graphs that claim this was the warmest year or that the ground surface temps the warmest in recorded history because they do not agree with the satellite data. Nor does NOAA’s “Arctic Report Card” reflect reality in that about every other source disagrees with their claims.

        I wouldn’t give a darn if there wasn’t ice at the poles. Fact is on the earth as a biosphere the greatest booms in life and biodiversity occurred when temps were considerably warmer than they have been for the last few centuries and the polar ice caps were darn near nonexistent.

        Have you ever read this book? The Resilient Earth: Science, Global Warming and the Future of Humanity
        http://www.amazon.com/The-Resilient-Earth-Science-Humanity/dp/143921154X

        • TSK says:

          WHAT “results of prolonged increasing levels of atmospheric carbon”? Show me a single definitive sign of the CAGW that was claimed by so many that you trust we would see by now. Just ONE sign TSK that can be separated from natural variability and “the noise” that absolutely without a doubt can be attributed to the increase in CO2.
          1. Sea level rise & accompanying erosion in places such as SE Florida.
          2. Movement of habitat of fish toward the pole.
          3. 0.7+% temperature rise over the last century.

          You do need to take the peg off your nose before you can smell your shit.

          The ice at the poles seem to be doing fine.
          Yet the massive 12000yr stable Larsen B ice shelf dropped its load into the sea 2 years ago. In their conclusion, Banwell et al, “Breakup of the Larsen B Ice Shelf triggered by chain reaction drainage of supraglacial lakes”, Geophysical Research Letters 40/22 , wrote: “If current warming trends prevail, lake-induced breakup may threaten other Antarctic ice shelves.” “Doing just fine?” You are plainly… in denial. Just follow the satellite images of the ice shelf doing just fine here:

          http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/larsenb.php

          And take a look at Ellesmere:

          http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Ellesmere/

          Much of your litany that followed are not things I’ve talked about, so you can pick those fights with others.

          I wouldn’t give a darn if there wasn’t ice at the poles. Fact is on the earth as a biosphere the greatest booms in life and biodiversity occurred when temps were considerably warmer than they have been for the last few centuries and the polar ice caps were darn near nonexistent.
          While this is true, you are in total denial regarding the impact for the current life regime. The overpopulation of our planet has led to the necessity of genetically modifying food sources in order to keep up with demand and a serious crop failure today would make the Irish potato famine look like a small fast. Even a small change in environmental conditions could cause our overstressed food supply chain to melt down. Great booms in life and biodiversity don’t mean a damned thing to those likely to suffer because of a considerable temperature rise. The earth and its environmental reactions are not concerned with civilization. That is a human burden and much of it is hooked in to the mantenance of the status quo. If that status quo is upset, then so is the foodchain.

          And finally, wouldn’t you know that you’d recommend a self-published book by a climate denialist?

      • wayne says:

        TSK says:
        … certainly there are enough of you denialists to help RWNJs like James Inhofe retard …

        Come on TSK… surely you can find it somewhere in your nasty dimwit self to do better than that?

  39. Bacteriogenic methane is not the correct expression. That would mean methane that produces bacteria.

    I think we are looking for bacterial methane or bacteric methane, or maybe bacteriogenous methane.

    • Gail Combs says:

      And here I though that was how live started. A soup of complex hydrocarbons that got zapped. (Take your pick of zappers…)

    • TSK says:

      Bacteriogenic methane is not the correct expression. That would mean methane that produces bacteria.
      It seems the coiner gets to say! Look at iatrogenic: it means “caused by a physician”; or try anthropogenic, “caused by humans”; cryptogenic, “caused by hidden (ie unknown agent)”; zoogenic, etc.Bacteriogenic is the term used in scholarly literature and it does mean “caused by bacteria”. It’s just one of those quirks of language and we gotta live with it.

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