Final reminder

A final reminder for anybody interested — the Australian Libertarian Society is co-sponsoring the Heartland Institute’s 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, in New York.

If you (or a friend) are interested in going, then there are some complimentary passes available (excluding travel and accommodation). You need to e-mail Nikki Comerford (NComerford@heartland.org) and send her your name and contact information and mention that you are a guest of the ALS.

The conference is going to be taking a heterodox approach to the issue — giving speaking time to various skeptics who question some elements of the mainstream story. I’m sure there will be something for everybody to hate. 🙂

81 thoughts on “Final reminder

  1. What whipping was this? I didn’t notice! You’re the one who stopped commenting! I was hoping you were doing something useful, like reading newspapers.

  2. “What whipping was this?”

    The one where you showed you don’t read reliable sources, like to repeat refuted ‘arguments’, don’t know what Climate Audit is, don’t know the difference between weather and climate, don’t know what the temperature was 1,000 years ago, don’t know what the temperature was 8,000 years ago, and don’t know what ad hominem is.

    At that point you stopped directing any comments or questions towards me, so you’re wrong that I “stopped commenting” too.

    So yes, a thorough whipping is what you got. You’re welcome to come back any time. 🙂

  3. What whipping?
    You’re the one who relies on the IPCC, with it’s flawed hockey stick graphs.
    None of my arguments were refuted so much as ignored (do you agree that Btitain has had a cold summer as well as a cold winter? What does that say about carbon ‘swamping’ the sun?).
    I do know the difference between weather and climate, and I do know what the temperature was 1000 years- it was marked on the graph as the ‘Medieval Warm Period’. I also know that 8000 years ago, the temperature was warmer than now, as your graphs demonstrated.
    I call on other people to comment on this point. Let them tell us what those graphs in the discussion column prove. Mark Hill, will you add your voice?
    And ‘Diddums’ is an ad hominem argument, the only one you made to my comments. If you think that was a valid point, you would lose all your future debates.
    So,NO, there was no whipping. your tongue-lashings are unnoticeable. You can come back any time, but I hope you bring some arguments with you.

  4. Come on you two… you’re not evening arguing about anything now. I’ve got homework for both of you. Read Patrick Michael (CATO) new book “climate of extremes”.

    He makes a compelling case that AGW is real, but it’s not as bad as it seems and the best response is to leave people alone and let them get rich.

  5. I take Patrick Michael’s view actually. I am not qualified to argue with the science and a rigourous analysis shows us to be better off by doing nothing. Stern was wrong and you’ll see below I am of the view that trees are very cheap.

    The best policy responses are, in order: i) remove alll energy market distortions, ii) nothing else, save for lower capital taxation and trade and investment barriers to increase global growth rates, iii) tax deductions and subsidies for tree planting, iv) a revenue negative carbon tax, v) a reveneue neutral carbon tax and lastly, vi) an ETS.

    Idea i) (removal of energy market distortions) would apply to all. In iv – vi, money raised from the reduction could fund tree planting to lessen the level of the quota or tax rate.

  6. Hilariously, Nicholas now wants to showcase his ignorance further.

    The IPCC is a review of ALL the evidence to date. They don’t make their own. The original hockey stick graph (not by the IPCC, by the way) was mildly flawed, but has since been replicated by many others using different techniques.

    You didn’t ask me about Britain’s summer, you asked Shem. And he probably ignored it because it shows you still don’t know the difference between weather and climate.

    ‘My’ graphs aren’t mine, and they show that it’s warmer now than 1,000 or 8,000 years ago, as anyone who isn’t blind can see. I suspect, given your general approach to this argument, that you didn’t even bother looking at them.

    And ‘diddums’ is not an ad hom argument. It’s just poking fun at your defensiveness and petulance.

  7. “No.”

    Given different methods have given the largely the same result, the flaws can’t have been too great, right? But feel free to attach whatever adjective you think suits – the frenzy over Mann et al is basically a red herring.

    It says a lot that denialists like Nicholas think the mere mention of it is some sort of devastating critique when it’s a minor skirmish on the side of the main battle, a battle which has turned into a rout of the skeptics.

    Why else do you think the Heartland Insitute can’t get any recognised scientific organisations to be co-sponsors, and trumpets nobodies like the ALS or the laughable OISM?

  8. “largely the same result”

    No. Don’t even pretend that when you do not massage the data, you get a result anything like the Hockey stick.

    It is a big issue. It makes people who don’t have any technical knowledge uneasy. It was a PR loss. It is bad if the science shows we have a problem because it gives ammunition to denialism, as you would call it.

    “recognised…nobodies”

    Here you are cherry picking. The individuals are of a high calibre (e.g) Linzden. Individuals, not organisations speak at conferences. Backing conferences is just a way for organisations to raise their profile.

    “skecptics have been routed”

    So does this mean the most alarmist point of view wins?

  9. Given different methods have given the largely the same result, the flaws can’t have been too great, right?

    No that’s not true. It would be like saying that counterfeit money is money because it looks the same. It really is poor that you would excuse what increasingly looks like a fraud rather than a series of mistakes with that sort of argument. It demeans science you block head.

    But feel free to attach whatever adjective you think suits – the frenzy over Mann et al is basically a red herring.

    Is it, why? So it doesn’t matter as the ends justify the means?

    It says a lot that denialists like Nicholas think the mere mention of it is some sort of devastating critique when it’s a minor skirmish on the side of the main battle, a battle which has turned into a rout of the skeptics.

    Why the hostility. If something is a fraud or is wrong then it’s wrong. You have no argument to make on that score. You’re sounding hysterical now.

    Why else do you think the Heartland Insitute can’t get any recognised scientific organisations to be co-sponsors, and trumpets nobodies like the ALS or the laughable OISM?

    Why does that matter? If individuals provide useful exchange of ideas than that all that counts.

  10. Don’t even pretend that when you do not massage the data, you get a result anything like the Hockey stick.
    .
    You’re right about the hockey stick being wrong Mark. It’s a semiotic trick designed to create concern. The typical criticism of the hockey stick is that it excludes the Medieval Warm Period. However it’s worth noting that denialists try and make the medieval warm period hotter than the last 150 years which is also nonsense.
    .
    Here’s the data. It shows that the spike is higher than the MWP. Not so much as to cause panic but when one looks for explanations what does one find.
    .
    The thing is the whole debate is a subset of ideological debates viz political-economy. That is simply not wise.

  11. I don’t have to pretend.

    Lindzen is an exception (now who’s cherry picking?). And he certainly doesn’t support the views put forward previously by others in the conference. For example, he supports the IPCC reports (though criticises the Summary), and says anything less than 20 years isn’t very relevant (take note, Nicholas).

    “alarmist point of view wins”

    No. Contrary to people with entirely the wrong idea about science, one extreme idea being rejected doesn’t mean the opposite extreme is right. Besides, governments are too timid/conservative/lobbied to do anything radical.

  12. adrien

    How do we know the spike is a regular pattern that exists in inter glacials. Even 1000 years in earth time is less than a second.

  13. JC, that’s wrong. It’s more like we have a bunch of pebbles, and I count them and say it’s 101, and you count them and say there’s 99. See my first link at #15.

    And it’s a red herring because it’s just one piece of a 500-piece jigsaw, the overall picture of which is the consensus on AGW.

    Hostility? This from a man calling me a blockhead! LOL

    The lack of scientific backing is certainly a concern in a conference supposedly about science.

  14. Fatty

    Mark accepts the science broadly like I do. However what I do acccept is the way lay people like you think you can speak about science as though you are a PhD in the area. You’re not, not even close.

    And then there’s the issue of allowing people to speak and show a modicum of respect.

    Seriously, how the fuck would you know if that conference doesn’t turn out to be worthwhile? there are some reasonable speakers and to be honest I like hearing the opposite side of a debate.

    And please don’t send people to realclimate.org as some sort of authority. It’s a political activist site and Gavin Schimdt is intellectually dishonest.

  15. The lack of scientific backing is certainly a concern in a conference supposedly about science.

    Yea? Why? they’re not initiating any new scientific ground. They will be basically discussing stuff that’s already out there.

    You never read a science piece in a newspaper, the economist, Reason?

    I watched a lengthy interview with Bolt and a marine scientist who is often pronouncing death and destruction of the Barrier Reef and it was a draw.

    It was actually an excellent interview.

    Here: http://www.abc.net.au/austory/

    click the second one: Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and Bolt.

    And then there’s the more important part of the story. What should be done about AGW and at this stage it doesn’t look good for the mitigators.

  16. If they were saying anything worthwhile, wouldn’t they have the backing of scientific organisations?

    I can’t watch the interview now, I’m at work, but I’ll give it a look at home.

  17. Seriously, you can’t use that argument.

    Is Algore the divinity student dropout a scientist? The head of the IPCC is an Indian railway engineer. Jim Hansen is not a climate scientist. Tim Flannery isn’t. Gavin Schmidt isn’t either, i believe.

    Barry Brook the famous Australian Professor of ” climate change” isn’t a climate scientist.

    Lambert hasn’t even written a formal paper in IT for a decade and he seems to be peddling the idea that the Stick is good science. I would only place him in the very minor leagues as I think he simply isn’t that good at science or even discussing it.

    These are people you have no issue discussing climate change I presume?

  18. What argument can’t I use? Gore, Flannery and Lambert are largely in accord with climate scientists. Why would I have a problem with them? Lambert doesn’t study the climate, but he’s good at statistics.

    Hansen is a climate scientist! From Wiki:
    “He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967…He is currently an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology”

    Brook B.Sc. (Hons I), Ph.D is a climate scientist. From his uni’s website:
    “Professor Barry Brook holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide. He has published two books and over 130 peer-reviewed scientific papers…He has received a number of distinguished awards in recognition of his research excellence, which addresses the topics of climate change, computational and statistical modelling and the synergies between human impacts on Earth systems…In 2006, he was awarded the Australian Academy of Science Fenner Medal for distinguished research in biology and the Edgeworth David Medal by the Royal Society of New South Wales, and in 2007, the H.G. Andrewartha Medal by the Royal Society of South Australia and was listed by Cosmos as one of Australia’s top 10 young scientists.”

    Schmidt has a PhD in Applied Mathematics and works as a climatologist.

    Rajendra K. Pachauri is an double-PhD holder, one in economics – no climate scientist, but no dummy either.

  19. 1. Lambert is very good at stats?

    Yea, proven for example the bollicking he gotten over Lancet. It’s embarrassing for the idiot. He’s dug a hole so deep he’s reached the core and thinks it’s AGW.

    Follow this Yellow brick road:

    http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/02/more_on_burnham.php

    But as I said he’s small time anyway.

    2. Hansen has NO formal training in climate science.

    3. Brook has no formal qualifications in climate science. He went to Maquarie doing Biology. Homer went to Macquarie!

    He recently remained silent when he was asked if he knew any of the “peers” that checked 13 million peer reviewed papers. I suspect his buddy Cory was one of the peers. Cory is a zoologist.

    4. Schmit has no qualifications in atmospheric science.

    5. Mr. IPPC has no formal qualifications in atmospheric science.

    6. Gore dropped out of uni.

    I can’t believe that you could even argue this.

    NOT one of these clowns has any formal qualifications in atmospheric science.

    Lindzen has by the way.

  20. Pat Michaels is very well qualified to be talking about climate science. And he will be speaking at the conference. I can’t see how it hurts to listen to heterodox opinions.

  21. I would just like to correct one very erroneous idea put forward by another commenter.
    I am not a denialist- I am prepared to be persuaded by the evidence. However, if someone comes along with new evidence, I will point that out for your edification.
    However, I AM an anti-Jarrahite!
    My position now is to oppose anything jarrah supports, because of the way he makes his arguments, and the attacks he makes on people.
    And Jarrah IS an Ice-age Denier!!!

  22. Pat Michaels is very well qualified to be talking about climate science. And he will be speaking at the conference. I can’t see how it hurts to listen to heterodox opinions.

    The problem with Pat Michaels is that he is a dishonest cherry picking joke.

    As such, he is probably a perfect choice to speak at this conference.

  23. JC’s argument that people like Hansen isn’t a climate scientist is simply retarded. Scientists frequently move into different areas that what they did their PhD in. Hansen has an absolutely spectacular research and publication history in the climate sciences. Even before he moved into studying climate specifically, he was (from 1966) publishing papers related to the atmosphere.

  24. Ken:
    If Ken ever gets chest pains he goes and see a skin specialist at the top of his field. LOL.

    Your dishonesty knows no bounds. You and that standing joke of a clown, Lambert have trashed Lindzen, Lomborg at every opportunity and now you come on here telling us that specialtizations are transferable.

  25. Some of the stupid things these untrained “ climate scientists “ have said or done.

    Hansen- Jail the disbelievers. For some reason he hates Exxon executives

    Brook- It’s not feed the people cake. It’s feed the people Kangaroo tails for protein as cows farts are causing global warming. Have you seen his economics of AGW. It’s the most appalling thing I’ve ever read.

    Gore- bitter about losing an election because he’s so dislikeable. Tells everyone AGW is the moral issue of the century and we then find fatso flying around on Google’s private jets.

    MR. IPCC- who cares what he thinks. He’s a railway engineer.

    Lambert- a vicious, intellectually dishonest little clown.

    Gavin Schmidt- funded by a far left PR. firm. It would be like trying to pin a dog with a bone in its mouth as far as honesty goes.

    This motley crew of characters would be perfect extras in the next pirate movie, Ken.

    Seriously, I think there is something about the science of AGW, but I gotta tell you these critters don’t help the cause one bit.

  26. No JC, I would see the person with the long history of treating chest pains. That would make him a specialist in chest pains.

    If somebody has a resume that makes clear that they have been at the absolute top of the field in cardiology for over forty years, then only a complete idiot would care that they were initially a skin specialist. Christ, could you be any dumber?

    I’ll let you in on a fairly obvious non-secret. The problem with Lindzen, Lomborg etc isn’t their degree. It’s the quality of the their arguments. In fact, try and find a single attack by me on Lindzen qualifications.

  27. In fact, try and find a single attack by me on Lindzen qualifications.

    Ken, with the utmost disrespect, if you ever criticized him about qualifications I’d say you’d need a straight jacket.

    Ph.D., (born February 8, 1940) is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    So your comment is silly as you couldn’t have a better pedigree in formal quals. and even someone like you wouldn’t try that…. I think?

    If somebody has a resume that makes clear that they have been at the absolute top of the field in cardiology for over forty years, then only a complete idiot would care that they were initially a skin specialist.

    No, Ken, that wasn’t the point, you nimbus. The point was that if the skin specialist had no formal quals in cardiology a reasonable person would have doubts. It’s the training, Ken.

    What formal quals have those clowns in atmospheric science, if I may be so bald (no, not you Shines):-)?

    Answer the question and don’t go off on senile tangent.

  28. How do we know the spike isn’t a regular pattern that exists in inter glacials. Even 1000 years in earth time is less than a second.
    .
    I don’t but those who stuff this stuff have some idea.
    .
    Seriously, how the fuck would you know if that conference doesn’t turn out to be worthwhile?
    .
    If there’s good people and open debate, and being a libertarian thang it should be then of course it’ll be…

    There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purposes of not permitting its refutation

    On Liberty
    p 37
    .
    Thing is, it seems to me that the force of science is on the side of ‘we have a problem Houston’. So the answer becomes ‘what is to be done’? No doubt some disruption of the money-go-round is unavoidable.
    .
    But if we cook the world than that’ll really fuck things up.

  29. Bloody hell. Besides Nic and Bird, very few of us disagree on the science or actually care.

    I have problems with some of the sloppiness of the predicitons made by alarmists, but they are not relevant to the policy debate.

    What matters is rigourous analysis doesn’t show there to be a case for mitigation. Australian mitigation will be negligible and there is a ranked order of the best to least desireable of mitigation and growth policies.

    I suggest anyone concerned about AGW or energy shortages read this article by scientist and environmentalist Barry Brook on nuclear energy as being viable:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2484303.htm

  30. Ken’s right. Researching and publishing papers on climatology (a field encompassing physics, chemistry, biology, geology and a whole lot of maths) is what makes you a climate scientist. There was no Bachelor of Climatology 20, 30, 40 years ago. Graduating with a B.Sc in maths, physics (all kinds), biology, chemistry, geology would all equip you with the means to eventually become a climate scientist.

    Newton trained as a mathematician, but became possibly the most famous physicist ever. This is not to compare anyone to Newton, but to demonstrate that training in logic and the scientific method is what counts, not what kind of physics you did as an undergrad.

    Mark, you want to know some problems with Lindzen’s arguments? The most relevant ones are his claim that three is no consensus, and that humans are only to blame for 30% of the rise in temps. He’s wrong on both counts.

  31. Ken — Michaels is a quality climate scientist and your dismissal of him seems to be caused by him coming to the “wrong” conclusions.

    The bias in the link you provided is clear from the first paragraph when it questions his position as “state climatologist” with a implied hint of fraud. Michaels explains the full story in the preface to his latest book.

    The governor of Virginia didn’t like what Michaels was saying, so told him not to speak as “state climatologist” when it came to global warming issues. The University consequently suggested that he should refer to himself as “director of the Virginia State Climatology Office, given by the American Association of State Climatologists”. This title was unworkable for the media, so Michaels was effectively left with a choice of speaking his mind or keeping his job. He left his job.

    This is not the only example of politicians driving out climatologists with the “wrong” opinions. I don’t think these sort of witch-hunts are good for the pursuit of truth.

    The link you provide is a hollow attempt at character assassination. It draws on Lambert twice — who is clearly more interested in political point-scoring than the truth. And Quiggin, though I think more intellectually honest than Lambert, is also not the most objective source of climate commentary.

    I’m not saying that Michaels has never made a mistake… but if making a mistake invalidates all arguments and justifies being entirely dismissed, then we would need to ignore everybody.

    By providing a Lambert-link and calling him a joke, you are seeming to be shouting down the debate and mocking non-believers. That is not the approach of somebody pursuing the truth.

  32. Fatty

    Seriously, do you try your best to wreck conversations? How old is Lindzen? There were specializations in atmospheric science way back.

    You’re equating say Gavin Schmidt with Newton? No joke , are you? This is the person who basically works for a PR firm.

  33. This is a piece, the dishonest little Lambert referred to at his blog as being a fraud

    Posted by Patrick J. Michaels

    Well, Paul Krugman sure smeared me in his May 29 column (sub. req’d.) where he accused me of “fraud pure and simple” in congressional testimony eight (!) years ago.

    Krugman’s screed was just another salvo in the current global warming charm offensive, coinciding with Al Gore’s screeching movie, demonstrations against Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center, because he had the audacity to NOT blame last year’s Hurricane Katrina on global warming (which would have been “fraud pure and simple”), and multiple smearings of any climate scientist who dares to speak out against the current hysteria.

    Krugman was incensed with my July 27, 1998 testimony before the House Committee on Small Business. In it, my purpose was to demonstrate that commonly held assumptions about climate change can be violated in a very few short years.

    One of those is that greenhouse gas concentrations, mainly carbon dioxide, would continue on a constant exponential growth curve. NASA scientist James Hansen had a model that did just this, published in 1988, and referred to in his June 23, 1988 Senate testimony as a “Business as Usual” (BAU) scenario.

    BAU generally assumes no significant legislation and no major technological changes. It’s pretty safe to say that this was what happened in the succeeding ten years.

    He had two other scenarios that were different, one that gradually reduced emissions, and one that stopped the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2000. But those weren’t germane to my discussion. Somehow, Krugman labelled my not referring to them as “fraud.”

    The BAU scenario produced a whopping surface temperature rise of 0.45 degrees Celsius in the short period from 1988 through 1997, the last year for which there was annual data published by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the time of my testimony. The observed rise was 0.11 degrees.

    I cited the reasons for this. In fact, the rate of carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere was quite constant–rather than itself increasing like compound interest–during the period. Ten years later, Hansen published a paper in which he hypothesized that “apparently the rate of uptake by carbon dioxide sinks, either the ocean, or more likely the forests and soils, has increased.” This was not assumed in any of his scenarios. In fact, the general hypothesis has been that, as the planet warms, the ocean takes up carbon dioxide at a slower rate.

    Then, contrary to everyone’s expectation, the second most-important global warming emission, methane, simply stopped increasing. Some years have shown an actual drop in its atmospheric concentration. To this day, no one knows why.

    There’s also the nagging possibility that we haven’t yet figured out the true “sensitivity” of surface temperature to changes in carbon dioxide. Scientifically, that’s a chilling possibility.

    On May 30, Roger Pielke, Jr., a highly esteemed researcher at University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, examined Hansen’s scenarios. Of the two “lower” ones, he concluded, “Neither is particularly accurate or realistic. Any conclusion that Hansen’s 1988 prediction got things right, necessarily must conclude that it got things right for the wrong reason.” (italics in original)

    That’s precisely the keynote of my testimony eight years ago: in climate science, what you think is obviously true can literally change overnight, like the assumption of continued exponential growth of carbon dioxide, or how the earth responds.

    Honestly, the more you dig the more you find the damage an alarmist like Lambert has done to science.

    Notice how Hansen used 1998 as a reference years to make his point, while those on the other side are criticized for doing doing so.

  34. I do hope everyone takes up Jarrah’s invitation, and clicks on the blue ‘see’ at post #9 above, and goes to the Holocene Temperature Variance chart, and tells us what they think it means. to me, it seems to mean that the Earth was warm for a long time, 8000 years ago. If it does not mean that, what does it mean.

  35. Ah, Nicky boy, you’re trying to move the goalposts. Your original claim was that it was “warmer” 8,000 years ago. Now you’ve tacitly accepted that was wrong, you change it to just “was warm” . That’s the kind of intellectual dishonesty that will make JC call you a vicious little clown. You don’t want that, do you?

  36. Yes Fatty. You brought up newton to somehow show that anyone can be a climate scientist: even the best.

    So despite the two denials you’re actually trying to pull this off. You’re suggesting that Lambert is this generation’s Newton. A rotund Fig Newton is more like it. LOl.

    You incorrectly suggested that atmospheric science wasn’t taught 30 years ago. A quick look at Dick Lindzen shows that to be false.

    This is getting to be very amusing.

    We have Ken Miles rushing off to a skin specialist if he ever develops chest pains and you’re comparing mediocrity to Newton.

  37. No, it was warmer than the average line on the graph (the 0C line), for lots of time. Take a look, everyone else, since Jarrah needs glasses. Or will you finally admit that the Earth has had variable temperature for unknown reasons in the past? I doubt if that was carbon in the past, so I’m doubting it now.

  38. We have Ken Miles rushing off to a skin specialist

    JC, you really really need to work on your basic reading comprehension. My point is that forty years experience in treating chest pains at the highest level makes one a specialist.

    It’s a really simple point, so if you try really hard, you may be able to cotton on.

  39. John H,

    My major point is the links first case. Of Pat’s dishonest misrepresentation of Hansen’s work before congress.

    PM’s defense of his fraud (as cited by JC in this thread) is as weak as it comes. It completely ignores Hansen’s own description of what scenario is the most the likely.

    Maybe misrepresenting other people is ok on this blog, but don’t cry witch-hunt when somebody calls out PM’s bullshit.

  40. Ken

    Explain exactly why you think his argument was weak. Which Hansen scenario was ignored?

    Details please and no lamberting on this blog please.

  41. Ken

    The example of the skin specialist is to demonstrate the silliness and shallowness of your argument that training is somehow fluid and easily transferable in science. It’s not. Don’t you even get that point?

    A top of the line skin specialist could never do the job of a cardiologist without serious training. Do you get it now.

    Those clowns I cited have no training in climate science.

    That is the argument used against Lomborg and others by Lambert too I might add so whichever way you turn you hit a dead end. You’re in a cul de sac of un-reason.

  42. And as for calling me bird’s little brother, them’s fighting words! I’m sure I’m bigger than he is! I should point out, Mr. Jobs, that the book of Job was about a man who was afflicted, not one who afflicts others! Others called him names, and judged him, not the other way around!
    When will you start handing out curses? Oh, that’s right, we know you. Job done!

  43. “No, it was warmer than the average line on the graph (the 0C line), for lots of time.”

    The point being that NOW is warmer than any time during the Holocene, which you disputed, and continue to repeatedly dispute despite the evidence being crystal clear.

    I’m sorry to say, but that’s Birdism, plain and simple.

    And JC, you’re free to continually suggest I mean the opposite of what I say, but that just makes you a intellectually dishonest little clown, by your own reckoning! It also makes you look more stupid than usual.

  44. Fatty

    More often than not no one really has any idea what you’re saying because you seem to go into lamberting mode when you’re caught suggesting something silly.

    However if by chance I took what you said the wrong way, present it and I’ll be ever ready to apologize.

    My guess however is that I haven’t taken anything the wrong way. lol.

  45. “no one really has any idea what you’re saying”

    No, that’s just you. Because you’re stupid.

    “present it and I’ll be ever ready to apologize.”

    #45, doofus. Now apologise.

  46. But you were implying Gavin Schmidt is the new Fig Newton. LOl.

    No, I’m not stupid, you are Fatty because every time you’re caught saying something silly which is almost on every thread you go into a lamberting routine with incoherent garbage. It’s oppressive.

  47. “But you were implying Gavin Schmidt is the new Fig Newton”

    Sure, in Opposite World. Which you seem to inhabit. Exhibit A is #45. And I want that promised apology, doofus. Failure to provide the apology will be taken as proof of your vicious, clown-like intellectual dishonesty. 😉

    “It’s oppressive.”

    I can’t help but be reminded of the mud farmer.

    “lamberting”

    You do realise that the Cambrian was a time when “scum…covered the land”? Ha ha ha ha LOL

  48. Ha! Yet again you try to pass off your stupidity as “just a joke” or whatever. It hasn’t worked before, and it doesn’t fool anyone now.

    And where’s my apology, doofus?

  49. how about you apologize for the oppression we are forced to endure as a result of the nonsense arguments you put forward covering up a stupid argument.

    Easy with the abuse fella. It’s not tolerated here.

    And one other thing… Doofus is a term I first coined to refer to an idiot. Get your own, Mr. Originality.

  50. So, no apology, despite the promise at #54. I guess you’re now stuck with being an intellectually dishonest vicious little clown.*

    * As per your own terms, so not abuse at all, just your opinion of yourself. LOL

  51. Listen fatty, I told you i was being ironic. That doesn’t deserve any apology especially if you’re too stupid to see irony. I didn’t lie. That’s what you mostly do.

    No, I didn’t first coin the term, you thick idiot …. as in ever. You lifted it’s use from me, so get your own.

    Stop pretending you know science and talk as though you know anything about it when you never went past 12th grade. You know crap.

    You think you can pass that nonsense that atmospheric science hasn’t been around as a discipline before Hansen graduated. Not true. You then go off on some tangent that science is transferable through various sub disciplines. Again not true.

    You’re about as intellectually dishonest as Lambert on pretty much everything.

    Go get yourself an education higher than 12 th grade and then tell us about science, otherwise screw off.

  52. Ayrdale-
    I hope you’re happy now! you’ve got Jarrah commenting all over the place!
    And will someone besides Jarrah look at those graphs and tell us what they think are shown on them? Extra opinions are needed here.

  53. Nothing here has yet convinced me that it is not the variable sun at work. If carbon were swamping the sun’s input then the rate of warming would stay the same, and not be slower in this decade than the nineties- even the ice age denier has conceded that! (in the discussions column). And no-body has yet come up with a different explanation for Mars also heating up at the same time as the Earth was.

  54. “I told you i was being ironic.”

    Offering to apologise if you’re wrong is being ironic? To quote the classics, I do not think it means what you think it means.

    “If carbon were swamping the sun’s input then the rate of warming would stay the same”

    Only if you ignore all the other feedbacks.

    “And no-body has yet come up with a different explanation for Mars also heating up at the same time as the Earth was.”

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/theres-global-warming-on-mars-too.php

    Like I’ve said before, you can find out plenty just by having a look around.

  55. Fatty:

    Please don’t use science blogs as a source. They host Lambert as a science authority at that site so it immediately becomes unreliable as the honestly meter falls flat.

  56. “a source”

    They’re not a source. They just have a simplified explanation with links to the sources or more in-depth explanations. They’re a conduit, a middle man, a gateway – not a source.

    Still waiting, BTW.

  57. It looks like we’ll wait a long time for Jarrah to apologise, but i’m sure it will be worth it! and, despite the uncertainty of what is happening on Mars, I still think that the variable Sun is likely to be the main culprit. Humans could be doing bad things to the atmosphere, but I don’t think the link is conclusively proved. (Otherwise, there’d have been no reduction at all in the rate of increase, because the 90es were warming at a faster rate than now.)

  58. “Jarrah to apologise”

    I must have missed the time you asked for one.

    “I still think”

    Why? What evidence do you have?

    “(Otherwise, there’d have been no reduction at all in the rate of increase, because the 90es were warming at a faster rate than now.)”

    As I’ve said before, only if you somehow think CO2 and the Sun are the only drivers of climate change, or that temperature changes must be smooth. Both of those suppositions are wrong.

  59. Jarrah, without the sun, there would be no climate! If some cosmic dust were to get between us and the Sun, and reflected half the heat away before reaching us, we’d know it! I call that the major influence. Whilst we have found some life forms that rely on volcanic heat, even they rely on water, which would be unusable ice in a frozen world!

  60. John Humphreys,

    I note that on the page you announced your co-sponsorship of the Heartland Institute’s Conference on Climate Change, you put it that the global temperature for 2008 is the coldest since 1994. This is incorrect.

    The web page where you oroginally made this claim:

    http://australianlibertarian.wordpress.com/history/activities/kyoto-campaign/

    On this page, the global temperature for 2008 is marked “(updated 26 November 2008)”, which means that you presented the temperature for the year before it was complete.

    It was a simple matter to follow the link from that page to the UAH temperature data page (monthly), and do some simple math.

    The temperature for 2008 (now with data for every month) is warmer than 1999 and 2000. Here is the link to the satellite data you provided if you wish to confirm.

    http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

    My methodology was very simple. I added up the months for 1999, 2000 and 2008 respectively and divided by 12 to get the average global temperature. This is the typical procedure done by the various temperature record institutes.

    I hope you will correct your statements accordingly on the pages where they appear.

    http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2008/11/26/2009-conference-on-climate-change/

    http://australianlibertarian.wordpress.com/history/activities/kyoto-campaign/

    And any others. Thank you in advance.

  61. Hi Berynn. The post you are referring to was written in November 2008, so it was based on the information available by November 2008.

    You are correct that the subsequent information changed the 2008 average. However, it is not reasonable for you to expect me to know that before it happens.

    You would have been able to work this out if you (1) looked at the date of the post; and (2) then did the average for the available information. I will not explain averages, as you have shown that you already have a remarkable skill in that area. 🙂

    It is not normal to go back over old posts to update them for new information… but I have updated that post anyway in response to your request.

  62. I appreciate the reply, John. I think it is well to update as more information comes to hand while web pages remain available to the public. But if it’s not normal to update old posts, perhaps a new one could have been posted that included the correction.

    I’m not sure why you elected to give the global temperature for 2008 before the year had even finished – apart from that, at the time you posted it made for a good soundbyte. Otherwise I’m not sure what the point was. Some years are colder than previous, after all. We don’t expect that kind of variability to cease, whether the world is warming or cooling or or trending little either way.

    Not being familiar with this site, I don’t know what the priorities are and perhaps my comments are inappropriate for this venue. I am keenly interested in climate science.

    Again, thank you for the reply, and for taking my suggestion on board.

  63. Pingback: Climate change conference « Thoughts on Freedom

Comments are closed.