358

A look at the “97.4% of climate scientists” meme

by Sapere Aude as part of our “dissident denial” series

c

On 4 February, 2017 the Daily Mail published an article entitled: “World Leaders Duped by Manipulated Global Warming Data”.

“…The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

Eight years ago, the “Climategate” scandal enjoyed some brief exposure. A large cache of emails had been discovered (possibly hacked into) at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

The mails revealed that in 1997, in the runup to the Kyoto Climate Change Conference, a similar manipulation of data had taken place relating to the 1995 global climate report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The original report contained statements from scientists to the effect that there was no risk of a CO2-caused climate catastrophe.

On the Jesse Ventura talk-show of 19.12.2009, Dr. Ben Santer, lead author of the IPCC reports, admitted that he had deleted from Chapter 8 of the 1995 report those sections which had explicitly denied the claim of human-caused climate change. On the show he was confronted by Lord Monckton (a leading so-called ‘climate denier’) about the changes he had made.

Monckton: After scientists had submitted their finished draft, Santer came and rewrote parts of it – specifically where, in five different places, it had been explicitly stated that there is no provable human effect on global temperature. I have seen a copy – Santer went through the draft, deleted the relevant parts and wrote a new summary … which remained as the official conclusion.

Santer: Lord Monckton has pointed to cuts in this chapter … and there were cuts. In order to preserve harmony with the other chapters, we dropped the final summary.

Because the original 1995 report had already been signed by more than 100 scientists, Santer had to quickly find new signatories for the amended (falsified) report. Santer was just then in a conference in Kassel, Germany and he had no chance of quickly finding another 100 scientists to sign the amended report. However, at that time Kassel University was the home of the Center for Environmental Systems Research.

Its head, Professor Joseph Alcamo was responsible for looking after climate affairs in Germany on behalf of the UN, UNEP and the IPCC. On 9 October 1997, Prof. Alcamo sent an email to his assistants, who were waiting in Kyoto, telling him to secure the required new signatures for the falsified report. The email was discovered in November 2009 among thousands of other emails at the CRU Institute at the University of East Anglia. The key parts of the email are reproduced below:

I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

If the report comes out only a few days before Kyoto I’m afraid that the delegates we want to influence won’t have any time to consider it. We should give them a couple of weeks to take note of it.”

Simultaneously, Greenpeace activists were also working to get signatures on a document of their own to influence the media, using a tried-and-tested technique for signature gathering: Don’t read the fine print — just sign!

To showcase their campaign, Greenpeace was organizing a media event ahead of the Kyoto meeting to display the document signed by concerned “scientists.”

Alcamo continued:

If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a different day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions.

These two high-profile cases should surely raise some doubts about the truth of what has frequently been hyped as the ‘greatest threat humanity faces’ – the threat of runaway global warming. Are we dealing merely with a few minor ‘touch-ups’ to official reports and the views of a small minority of dissenting scientists – or is the whole story of global warming/climate change an enormous scam?

We are told ad nauseam that global warming is “settled science”; that there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists as to the reality of human-caused global warming. Figures such as “98% of scientists”, even 99.5% according to ex-president Obama, are routinely trotted out.

Anyone who questions this “truth” is immediately vilified as a dangerous “climate denier” – one of the many derogatory accusations hurled at Donald Trump.

But President Trump was not always a ‘climate denier’. In December 2009, Trump and three of his children signed a letter to President Barack Obama (the letter was also signed by dozens of business leaders and was published as an ad in the New York Times), calling for a global climate deal:

We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today. If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet. [Emphasis added].

The day after announcing his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination, Trump appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show (17 June, 2015), where he said that he is “not a believer in man-made” warming, adding:

When I hear Obama saying that climate change is the No. 1 problem, it is just madness.”

And in early December of that year he criticised the Paris climate summit, saying:

While the world is in turmoil and falling apart in so many different ways … our president is worried about global warming. What a ridiculous situation”.

(At the conference, President Obama urged world leaders to agree to an ambitious deal to combat global warming).

During a campaign speech at the end of December Trump said:

So Obama’s talking about all of this with the global warming and the – a lot of it’s a hoax, it’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, ok?”

In January 2016, after Bernie Sanders had criticised Trump for his earlier suggestion that global warming was a hoax invented by the Chinese, Trump expands on the idea that ‘climate change’ is a “money-making industry”:

I think that climate change is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money …”

And in September, some six or so weeks before the presidential election, but at a time when the contenders are already choosing their “transition teams”, word is leaked that Trump has chosen Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to head the transition at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ebell had previously accused climate scientists of “manipulating and falsifying the data”.

On the same day, Trump’s campaign manager tells The Huffington Post that Trump “believes [climate change] is naturally occurring and is not all man-made”.

What is the truth?

One of the most quoted percentages of scientists who support the IPCC’s claims is 97.4% – a remarkably precise figure.

We have to ask: 97.4% of what?

It cannot be 97.4% of all the scientists in the world – how could all of them have been canvassed? Perhaps 97.4% of ‘climate scientists’? But there are relatively few of these. Today’s “climate scientists” are primarily biologists and geologists and mathematicians and physicists who happen to have brought their varied scientific training to bear on the issues of weather and climate.

A figure that is not so often quoted (almost never, in fact – suggesting a deliberate suppression of unwelcome data) is that of the 31,487 scientists (more than 9,000 of them with a PhD) who have signed the following petition letter to the US Congress:

We urge the US government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals.

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gases, is causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and/or the disruption of earth’s climate.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth”. [Emphasis added]

The signatories support the Global Warming Petition Project. The website explains that:

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists.”

It should be evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs – are not “a few.” These scientists are convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

To the 31,487 signatories of the Global Warming Petition Project we must add the 4000+ scientists (including 72 Nobel Prize winners) who have signed the “Heidelberg Appeal”: an appeal (issued to coincide with the opening of the UN-sponsored Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992) against…

an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress, and impedes economic and social development [and] against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data.” [1]

Another document urging caution was circulated among reputable scientists in the wake of the Kyoto Climate Conference. This document is known as the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change.

The document expressly states the following [emphasis added]:

As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that — contrary to the conventional wisdom — there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes (i.e. weather balloons) show no current warming whatsoever — in direct contradiction to computer model results.

Among the signatories of this declaration are scientists from NASA, the Max Planck Institute, one of the former Presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, and many members of the American Meteorological Society. These people are not lightweights in the field of science.

Clearly the so-called “consensus of scientists” so often referred to is not a consensus at all. But the many voices of dissenting scientists have been drowned out – at least until recently – by the constant repetition by politicians and the media of the ‘human-caused global warming’ myth, and by biased sources such as Wikipedia, which uses the “climate denier” slur to attack anyone who challenges the official myth.

If the 97.4% figure were correct, one could reasonably assume that the 31,487 scientists who have signed the petition must represent a large part of the 2.6% of scientists who, according to the 97.4% claim, oppose the consensus view. However, that immediately reveals a problem with the calculation.

If 31,487 is 2.6% of the grand total of scientists who must be assumed to have expressed an opinion on the matter … then that grand total is in the order of 1,180,000 scientists.

Did someone really canvass nearly 1.2 million scientists worldwide? There is no evidence of that.

It is, however, known that in 2009 a paper by Professor Peter Doran and graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmermann of the University of Illinois in Chicago was published based on a survey Zimmermann had sent to 10,257 earth scientists, with two questions. Answering the questions was expected to take no more than two minutes:

  1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
  2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

[Note that the second question already presumes what was left open in the first question i.e. change. Note also that the second question is too vague to be scientific …. what does “a significant contributing factor” mean? Is a 1% or 2% contribution “significant”?].

3,146 of the scientists replied (a 30.7% response rate). Of those, 82% answered “yes” to question 2.

Only 77 of the scientists polled identified themselves as “climate scientists”. The student singled out the 75 of them who agreed that human activity was “a significant contributing factor” in changing global temperatures.

Coincidentally, 75 is precisely 97.4% of 77. But 75 out of the original 10,257 is a risible 0.73%!

As might be expected (for example, from its track record of routinely describing any challenge to suspect modern dogmas as “conspiracy theories”), Wikipedia reveals its bias in favour of the establishment’s “global warming” myth by claiming that the Doran and Zimmermann paper shows that “active climate researchers almost unanimously agree that humans have had a significant impact on the Earth’s climate” – when the original wording, as noted above, was that human activity was merely “a significant contributing factor”. Predictably, the article fails to mention the selection process involved – or the vastly higher number of dissenting scientists who signed the petition.

In a 2013 paper published by the Institute of Physic’s IOPScience and cited by NASA, University of Queensland climate communication fellow John Cook also stated that 97 percent of scientists who took a position on global warming agreed that humans were the primary cause. According to

Cook and his co-authors:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming”.

However, a peer review of Cook’s paper by David Legates (a former state climatologist and professor at the University of Delaware), published in the April 2015 issue of Science and Education, debunked the 97 percent consensus figure.

Legates pointed out that only 41 of the 11,944 academic papers Cook examined in his meta-analysis (0.3%) explicitly stated that most of the global warming since 1950 was caused by human activity:

It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when in the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%”.

Cook’s paper was also criticized by other scientists for what they said was a number of methodological errors. In a book published by the Heartland Institute and entitled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, its three authors stated:

Probably the most widely repeated claim in the debate over global warming is that “97% of scientists agree” that climate change is man-made and dangerous. This claim is not only false, but its presence in the debate is an insult to science.”

Despite the general media support for the IPCC’s claims, there have been notable exceptions – as shown by the Mail on Sunday quote with which I began.

More than six years ago, on 13 October, 2012, the same paper published another surprising article with the headline: “Global warming stopped 16 years ago [i.e. around 1996] reveals Met Office report quietly released

… The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 … there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures … This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years. […] The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

The article included a graph (see below) which charts the fluctuations in average global temperature between 1997 and 2012. There are peaks and troughs, but the significant finding is that the average global temperature in 2012 (just half a degree above the world average of 14C) was exactly the same as in 1997. That pattern has continued to the present, with warmer and colder years, but no average increase.

graph provided by the Daily Mail in 2012

graph provided by the Daily Mail in 2012

Even more surprisingly, on 11 December, 2016, another British newspaper – the Sunday Express – published another remarkable article with the startling headline: “World on BRINK of MINI ICE AGE: Fears sparked as solar activity reaches new low. SOLAR ACTIVITY has reached its lowest point since 2011, prompting fears the Sun has reached its solar minimum early.

The writer explains:

If the Sun has reached its solar minimum early, it could mean we could be in for a prolonged cold period. Images captured by NASA between November 14 and 18 shows that there are barely any sunspots. NASA says that solar activity has dwindled at a much faster rate than expected following a peak in 2014. The Sun follows cycles of roughly 11 years where it reaches the solar maximum and then the solar minimum.”

2014 was a year with record high temperatures. It was touted by the ‘climate change’ lobby as proof of man-made global warming. The Express article may well have puzzled many of its readers since it would have been the first time for many or most of them that global temperature had being linked to sunspot activity and sun cycles. But this was not a new suggestion. In 2002, an issue of the magazine Science included the editors’ “prognostications for next year’s hot research topics. Such as:

What is happening to the world’s store of ice?

What exactly is the sun-climate connection, now that “researchers are grudgingly taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change” and in “triggering droughts and cold snaps.”

They could have added a whole bunch more, such as: Why is the atmosphere not warming appreciably in contrast to all model predictions? Why the disparity between temperature trends of the atmosphere and surface? What’s happening to CO2?”

Piers Corbyn is the older brother of Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the British Labour Party. He runs a very successful long-range weather forecasting business which has consistently proven to be more accurate than the ‘official’ meteorological offices such as the UK’s Met Office. Corbyn based his predictions on solar cycles and sunspot activity.

He has been challenging the ‘global warming’ swindle since at least 2008. In September of that year he posted an “initial response” to the BBC’s “Climate Wars” programme, in which he stated:

..This ‘Climate Wars’ production is a shameful and desperate effort from the BBC’s ‘green religion department’ to shore up the failing theory of CO2-driven Global Warming and Climate Change….

..The piece – and the Global Warmers camp in general – while pretending to be objective, skilfully avoid applying sound science and provide no answers to the mounting evidence which refutes the crumbling Global Warming theory. It puts lipstick on scientific fraud – but it remains fraud.

The website’s ‘mission statement’ includes the following:

WeatherAction supports True-Green-Policies to defend biodiversity and wildlife and reduce chemical and particulate pollution, and points out that CO2 is not a pollutant, but the ‘Gas of Life’ (plant food).

WeatherAction defends evidence-based science and policy-making. WeatherAction completely supports campaigns for geo-ethical accountability and CLEXIT (Exit from UN Climate Change Deals) and is against data fraud and the political manipulation of data and the so-called ‘scientific’ claims now dominating climate and environmental sciences.

Evidence shows that man-made climate change does not exist and the arguments for it are not based on science, but on data fraud and a conspiracy theory of nature.

If Corbyn and the many thousands of scientists now speaking out about the ‘climate change’ fraud are correct, how and why did a situation come about in which the world was told that it faced an imminent catastrophe if CO2 emissions were not drastically cut?

How many trillions of dollars, pounds, euros etc. have been spent promoting the urgent need to “reduce our carbon footprint”. And why would scientists and politicians lie on such a scale?

The origins of “the great climate fraud” will be examined in a further instalment.

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
358 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jose
Jose
Feb 19, 2020 5:51 AM

CO2 is heavier than air. Thats why people suffocate when those African lakes turn upside down. It cannot be a greenhouse gas.

Anthony Matthews
Anthony Matthews
Feb 12, 2020 11:36 PM

It should be noted that John Bates has said that he has not accused his colleagues of data manipulation. Also, the Independent Press Standards Organisation ruled that the Mail article was inaccurate and misleading. Later, the Daily Mail, more or less, acknowledged as much. So, putting that story up front wasn’t exactly an auspicious start to the piece. From then on things get even worse. For instance the scientists involved in the ‘climategate’ scandal, (and, yes, the emails were hacked – or stolen, to be precise), were cleared of any wrongdoing by a number of independent investigations from different countries.… Read more »

breweriana
breweriana
Jan 18, 2020 5:36 PM

Your mistake is that you do not seem to understand that it is not the current CO2 from plants, humans, animals etc. causing the problem, because it is simply recycled back into the Earth’s system, as it always has been. The Earths system was in perfect balance. The problem is the millions of tons of pre-historic CO2 being released from burning fossil fuels by man – CO2 captured from sunlight that last hit planet Earth millions of years ago – and nature cannot keep up with the new rate of re-cycling needed to trap this rush, hence the increase in… Read more »

Jams O'Donnell
Jams O'Donnell
Dec 28, 2019 5:50 PM

Well, well, well. And here I was thinking this site was both left and progressive. How wrong one can be. De-bookmarking oG will give me little more screen space. But how disappointing. Just another bunch of climate-change deniers with specious arguments and no overall vision.

Admin1
Admin
Admin1
Dec 28, 2019 8:33 PM
Reply to  Jams O'Donnell

OffG has never denied climate change, but we do publish a variety of opinions on this important topic. We are also aware of the attempts to bully and manipulate people into conforming to the current corporate fake Green agenda. Thanks for your totally spontaneous first contribution here

Jams O'Donnell
Jams O'Donnell
Dec 29, 2019 8:17 AM
Reply to  Admin1

OK – I mostly agree with you that there is an attempt by big money to manipulate Green issues. However, giving space to assorted climate deniers is not the way to counteract that. As for my “totally spontaneous” contribution – sarcasm is not the way to win converts, and I am not some kind of corporate shill – you can research my comments on various internet sites as ‘Jams O’Donnell.

Jams O'Donnell
Jams O'Donnell
Dec 29, 2019 8:19 AM
Reply to  Jams O'Donnell

Re my comments possibly not so easy as I assumed, – but try on Disqus

Jose
Jose
Feb 19, 2020 5:56 AM
Reply to  Jams O'Donnell

its a scam to justify am imposed one world dictatorship. Brought to you by the lie masters of the universe.

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 11, 2017 2:16 PM

@Sorry Not Buying It You talk a lot about the scientific method and how you read peer reviewed papers to avoid the oversimplifications of the media; you also accuse me of “scientific gaffs”; but then you say stuff like this that makes me not take you seriously at all: “Though of course the amounts in terms of percentages of the whole atmosphere are very small. 400 parts per million. With such tiny fractions it’s very hard to offer certitude.” As you should know by now, it isn’t the concentration that is important, but the total MASS of carbon in the… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 4, 2017 3:08 PM

Meanwhile, I’d be curious to see how many AGWers drive vehicles with internal combustion engines (or charge their Teslas with electricity from coal-burning power stations)… and consume on a Western Level of environment-damaging consumption. Personally, I’d be delighted to see private cars banned from most parts of the city, and people like me (who walk, or take public transport, everywhere) given substantial tax breaks. I’d like to see fossil fuels phased out entirely… not because of C02 (regarding which there is no proof of danger, still) but because of all the other direct and corollary toxins, erosions and degradations of… Read more »

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 4, 2017 6:22 PM
Reply to  StAug

One of the worst examples of the people who acknowledge acceptance that global warming is man made is set by those who spout it whilst driving around in massive gas guzzlers ‘cos they’re cool and wouldn’t dream of wasting their money on eco friendly alternative forms of reducing their carbon footprint when there are so many wonderful ways to spoil themselves on the latest technology or handbag with matching shoes. Their answer when asked whether they should be contributing to lowering that foot print? “Well what can I do, I’m only one person?” or “There aren’t enough of us to… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 4, 2017 7:02 PM
Reply to  mohandeer

Amen, M! Amen (in a non-Judeo-Christian way, of course)

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 4, 2017 8:53 PM
Reply to  StAug

Well, I’m a Warmish Lukewarmer. And I ride a bike and put a brick in my toilet tank, and don’t fly anywhere that can be got to by less fuel-extravagant means.
But I am pretty sure the Goldman Sachs and Al Gore breed of alarmists don’t plan to allow any carbon restrictions to apply to them

StAug
StAug
Mar 4, 2017 9:00 PM

Excellent, MLS! How would one start applying pressure, do you think, to get some timetable started re: phasing fossil fuels entirely out….? While boosting APPLE-style leaps-and-bounds Solar Energy Tech improvements? Because why quibble over C02 when it’s fossil fuels wreaking terrible ongoing (ramifying) environmental damage with or without AGW?

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 4, 2017 9:24 PM
Reply to  StAug

Sadly I’m not optimistic. Genuine research into renewables is patchy. Scams and get-rich-quick schemes predominate. Only nuclear currently provides a viable large scale replacement for fossil fuels, unless we want to see a massive and potentially civilisation-threatening decay of living standards and infrastructure, and nuclear is a worse potential pollutant than hydrocarbons in many ways. If the C02 question had not been hijacked by cowboys and opportunists we’d have far more chance of getting a rational deployment of funds for research. The Green movement has been completely played by the clever use of the wrong sort of alarmism into backing… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 4, 2017 9:33 PM

“Genuine research into renewables is patchy.” Which must be by design; with such a huge potential market, where’s the competition/ innovation….? Squelched by the same forces pushing alarmism, imo: a vicious circle designed to keep things profitable (and under control) for a closed circle of players.

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Mar 9, 2017 6:28 PM
Reply to  StAug

“Squelched by the same forces pushing alarmism, imo” Errrr…no. The “alarmists” are the ones pushing governments to invest in renewables, and have met with real success in Scandinavia (where a far, far greater portion of total energy production is from renewables) and have been stiffled in the US where the government has consistently FAILED to invest in renewables AGAINST the wishes of the very people you blame for this lack (note also in Scandinavia, public opinion and government policy is far more acknowledging of the reality of AGW than in the US). When governments DO invest in renewables, you whine… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 9, 2017 7:26 PM

“Your misdiagnoses are becoming disgusting.”
Your use of the OTT-propaganda-vocabulary (“disgusting”? why not “despicable” like that other feller? Do you two ever appear in the same comment thread at the same time, btw…?) is becoming blatant. Or, as you might put it, “repulsive” or perhaps “satanic” or “pustulant”…?
Why not stick to “facts” (as you see them) and “logic”? You undermine your case with those rhetorical hissy fits.

Sorry, Not Buying it
Sorry, Not Buying it
Mar 5, 2017 1:33 AM
Reply to  StAug

“and people like me (who walk, or take public transport, everywhere) given substantial tax breaks” Seriously? You had to smuggle THAT in? You’ve shown the petit-bourgeois content of your outlook on multiple occasions, but this is becoming silly. As for solar energy, it is certainly a very important component of transitioning away from fossil fuels and one that can surely be developed much further, but it’s doubtful that it represents the panacea you make it out to be. It also comes with serious corollary costs having to do with toxins, and is green only in a relative sense. Ultimately, the… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 5, 2017 6:41 AM

Well, Sorry, old chum, your talent for missing the point, spinning things self-servingly and garbling perfectly-logical assertions from your “opponents” will serve you well if you’re looking to make a living as a shill/troll! I won’t fall for the trick of trying to untangle and unpack the mess you’ve made of my perfectly good comments (giving you the opportunity to garble, tangle and obscure even more)… I’ll just wish you well! Your job is to hinder discussion and polarize the debate and make a general mess of the threads and you’re about 30% there! Luckily, the discussion isn’t limited to… Read more »

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Mar 9, 2017 6:31 PM
Reply to  StAug

“Well, Sorry, old chum, your talent for missing the point, spinning things self-servingly and garbling perfectly-logical assertions from your “opponents” will serve you well if you’re looking to make a living as a shill/troll! I won’t fall for the trick of trying to untangle and unpack the mess you’ve made of my perfectly good comments (giving you the opportunity to garble, tangle and obscure even more)… I’ll just wish you well! Your job is to hinder discussion and polarize the debate and make a general mess of the threads and you’re about 30% there! Luckily, the discussion isn’t limited to… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 9, 2017 7:40 PM

Come back to gum up the rest of the threads, eh? Get to work, Man/Woman! Dangerous amounts of clarity were poking through….!

StAug
StAug
Mar 5, 2017 7:29 AM

“As for solar energy, it is certainly a very important component of transitioning away from fossil fuels and one that can surely be developed much further, but it’s doubtful that it represents the panacea you make it out to be. It also comes with serious corollary costs having to do with toxins, and is green only in a relative sense. ” Sounds suspiciously like an argument from the Fossil Fuels industry…. or the Nuclear. There is no source of energy on the planet that comes close, in magnitude, to the energy provided by the Sun itself, though all the fossil… Read more »

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Mar 9, 2017 6:39 PM
Reply to  StAug

“Sounds suspiciously like an argument from the Fossil Fuels industry…. or the Nuclear.” Only to someone who thinks in absolutes and who believes in panaceas. “There is no source of energy on the planet that comes close, in magnitude, to the energy provided by the Sun itself, though all the fossil fuels on Earth come to us, in the end, via the Sun.” Irrelevant for two reasons: 1) I was talking about the effects of heavy metal contamination; 2) what matters isn’t the magnitude of the source, but the magnitude of what we can EXTRACT. “The “toxins” associated with producing… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 9, 2017 7:37 PM

“You do know that solar energy isn’t the only form of renewable energy, right? We need a series of new technologies, not only solar.” List the ones that make better sense than solar, please. I’m sure wind power/ sea-based turbine can be fine supplements. But what could possibly best Solar? “No, you are. After all, you’re an AGW denier who aligns himself with the same forces making it difficult to bring more renewables online.” Nah, either you’re just not sophisticated enough to catch the nature of the con (the AGW industry, as is, in no way works toward the total… Read more »

paulcarline
paulcarline
Mar 10, 2017 11:18 AM
Reply to  StAug

I agree almost entirely [em]. The almost [em] refers to the big problem of ‘de-industrialising’ developed economies, and conversely of attempting to prevent ‘undeveloped’ economies from achieving even a modest level of comfort and self-sufficiency. It’s not too difficult for individuals or smaller groups to ‘drop out’ and ‘go green’ (live off the land etc), but for the vast majority in the cities it’s simply impossible. Using only solar energy for heating etc may be possible in Florida and southern Spain, for example, but people in much colder places – like Scotland, where I live, and certainly anywhere much further… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 10, 2017 12:45 PM
Reply to  paulcarline

Paul! The main form of Solar would have to be from satellites in Geosynchronous orbit, probably, sending energy (microwaves? laser?) from the constant high noon of space. Supplemented by the diurnal, cloudless-skies-willing varieties. Re: moving two-thirds of Humanity. that’s the Evil Eugenicist’s dream. With the will, the conversion from one energy format to the other would be no more implausible than the conversion of farmland-to-super-highways was (or the conversion to Internet Infrastructure). Thirty years? Forty? The major obstacle is the Very Powerful Fossil Fuel Lobby, which is, of course, also “The Government” and The (Petro-Dollar) Economy. Hard to make things… Read more »

Paul Carline
Paul Carline
Mar 10, 2017 9:46 PM
Reply to  StAug

I didn’t suggest it wasn’t possible … just that I’m not aware of any detailed study or proposal as to how the transition could be made. The basic requirements are food, water and shelter … sounds simple, but a convincing experiment would need to involve a largish city (minimum 100,000, preferably 2-300,000) – like a massive “Eden Project”. In colder climates, food production would be the biggest problem. I know there are some very clever integrated systems, but they mainly use hydroponics, which I don’t like (though presumably better hydroponically produced food than starvation …). It would have to be… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 10, 2017 10:35 PM
Reply to  Paul Carline

Well, obviously, initially you’d be gradually phasing Fossil Fuels out while phasing Electric-via-Solar in. It would happen over a period of decades… it wouldn’t be a matter of abruptly starting from scratch, like all the great paradigm shifts in housing, communication, transportation and energy we’ve seen from the 18th century forward. “… just that I’m not aware of any detailed study or proposal as to how the transition could be made.” That’s exactly the point: such studies or proposals, if attempted, are only ever undertaken to show how Solar fails… because such a change is the last thing TPTB want.… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 10, 2017 1:16 PM
Reply to  paulcarline

re: ‘de-industrialising’: I’d call it “RE-Industrialising”

Jen
Jen
Mar 3, 2017 8:52 PM

My sole contribution to the climate change is this: Does anyone know how much of anthropomorphically caused weather and climate change is due to wars around the planet, especially wars where DU weapons are used and uranium oxide and other chemical compounds (that may trap heat) are released into upper as well as lower atmosphere levels?

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 3, 2017 11:31 PM
Reply to  Jen

Short answer – no.
We just don’t know enough about natural variables to have much idea of what specific manmade activities (if any) will have enough impact on climate to make a perceptible difference. But one thing is for sure war does degrade and pollute our environment dangerously. Though I doubt this will factor largely in the MSM discussion of “climate change”.

Sorry, Not Buying it
Sorry, Not Buying it
Mar 4, 2017 8:29 PM

“We just don’t know enough about natural variables to have much idea of what specific manmade activities (if any) will have enough impact on climate to make a perceptible difference.”
Not according to science.

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 4, 2017 8:49 PM

I’m very puzzled. In previous comments you have admitted there are huge levels of uncertainty about how the climate works. You have admitted we don’t know the extent C02 acts as a forcer, you have admitted we don’t know the extent solar activity influences climate. You have admitted we don’t know what caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Ages. You have admitted we don’t know how much human activity may be responsible for the warming. So, why do you reflexively respond to me when I say exactly the same thing by claiming “science” has all the answers??… Read more »

Sorry, Not Buying it
Sorry, Not Buying it
Mar 4, 2017 10:04 PM

“I’m very puzzled. In previous comments you have admitted there are huge levels of uncertainty about how the climate works.” You’re puzzled because you don’t pay attention (to me OR to the science. Proof of that is in this statement: “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly.” Such BASIC errors – which you then try to laugh off by introducing other ones – mean that you’re not interested in the science, only in how you can weave together… Read more »

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 4, 2017 11:58 PM

MLS responds to Sorry Not Buying It You’re puzzled because you don’t pay attention (to me OR to the science. Proof of that is in this statement: “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly.” Such BASIC errors – which you then try to laugh off by introducing other ones I did apologise for writing 1.800 as 1800. I don’t remember any other errors being pointed out to me, but I can be a bit vague, so if I’ve… Read more »

Sorry, Not Buying it
Sorry, Not Buying it
Mar 5, 2017 2:05 AM

“I did apologise for writing 1.800 as 1800.” Please don’t insult everyone’s intelligence. Here’s what you actually wrote: “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly.” That wasn’t a typo, but an instance of ignorance on your part. Why are you now trying to brush it off as a typo, as though you could substitute 1800ppm with 1.800ppm and still maintain the meaning of that sentence? Here, let’s try it: “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is… Read more »

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 5, 2017 4:33 AM

Here’s what you actually wrote: “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly.” That wasn’t a typo, but an instance of ignorance on your part. Why are you now trying to brush it off as a typo, as though you could substitute 1800ppm with 1.800ppm Yes it really is a stupid sentence. I don’t know what else to say. I do know the composition of the atmosphere though, and my real point was the percentage of water vapour which… Read more »

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Mar 9, 2017 6:57 PM

You talk a lot about the scientific method and how you read peer reviewed papers to avoid the oversimplifications of the media; you also accuse me of “scientific gaffs”; but then you say stuff like this that makes me not take you seriously at all: “Though of course the amounts in terms of percentages of the whole atmosphere are very small. 400 parts per million. With such tiny fractions it’s very hard to offer certitude.” As you should know by now, it isn’t the concentration that is important, but the total MASS of carbon in the atmosphere. We’re talking many… Read more »

paulcarline
paulcarline
Mar 10, 2017 11:33 AM

MLS is entirely correct that we (scientists) cannot say anything with certainty about the causes of variations in weather and climate. The 1995 edition of The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference has this to say about “Global Warming”: “There is no real consensus concerning the increase in global temperatures. Some studies have show that the world’s average temperature has risen by 0.5 degrees C since 1600. Other studies have noted a 0.3 degrees C rise in mean surface air temperatures in the past 100 years. It is unknown [em] whether the rise is part of the Earth’s natural… Read more »

Brian Angliss
Brian Angliss
Mar 3, 2017 8:28 PM

I’m afraid that your information on the Global Warming Petition Project (GWPP) is wrong. The number is repeatedly often because it supposedly counters the actual overwhelming consensus based on 200 years of theory and mountains of data that industrial climate disruption (my preferred term for AGW) is real. And contrary to what you believe, 31,487 is actually a “few” people when you compare it to the number of people who meet the GWPP organizers’ absurdly broad criteria. First, just having a Bachelor’s of Science (or higher) degree doesn’t make one a scientist. Having a degree, working in a scientific field,… Read more »

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 4, 2017 4:37 AM
Reply to  Brian Angliss

thanks for a very useful comment and also the link you provided.

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 4, 2017 9:04 PM
Reply to  Brian Angliss

But as a scientist I’m appalled at the use of consensus in place of data. Science doesn’t measure a theory by how many scientists believe it, Science is about data not belief. The data is what it is. And it’s ambiguous. Which is why there are so many shades of opinion. And look at the wording of so many of the “consensus” statements. carefully worded to try and wring agreement from those who don’t agree! One scientists will sign a statement claiming a “significant” human impact on global warming because he feels sure his models demonstrate CAGW is a high… Read more »

Brian Angliss
Brian Angliss
Mar 10, 2017 7:57 PM

MoriaritysLeftSock, consensus has a place in science. It always will, and it should. We don’t have to re-prove the existence of gravity or the wave nature of light before we calculate trajectories of propelled objects or how much a He-Ne laser beam will diffract when it hits a knife edge. There is so much data underlying those positions that they’re accepted as fact. And that’s ultimately what a scientific consensus is – a consensus of opinion based on the mass of underlying data. And at this point, the data is truly overwhelmingly in favor of the reality of industrial climate… Read more »

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 11, 2017 2:44 AM
Reply to  Brian Angliss

1) Observation by repeat experiments that establish a given law or theory is NOT the same as “science by consensus.” We all know that 2+2=4. But this is not a “consensus”. We haven’t all agreed to believe this. We all know it, because it is demonstrated to be a fact. Newton’s Laws of thermodynamics can be confirmed by observation. We haven’t just all got together and agreed they’re probably true! Numbers of scientists who believe something is not evidence for it being true. Period. 2) This claim of “overwhelming “ evidence is so often made, and always in abstract. The… Read more »

Brian Angliss
Brian Angliss
Mar 11, 2017 5:36 AM

First, I’m not a scientist. I’m an electrical engineer who works in aerospace. But I have a masters degree in optics and communications, which combined to give me a decent background in stuff like the physics of IR absorption by the atmosphere and enough statistics (albeit rusty at this point) that I can follow most statistics in climate papers. I will not claim to be an expert, however. We can say 2+2=4 is a fact because that’s math, and 100% certainty with positive proofs are possible in mathematics. But we can’t say that the Laws of Thermodynamics are “facts.” They’re… Read more »

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 11, 2017 12:40 PM
Reply to  Brian Angliss

You asked for evidence, so here you go: Modern warming cannot be due to solar heating because the sun would be heating the stratosphere more than it would be heating the troposphere. Oh please. If only we knew enough to make such pronouncements. The climate is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system remember. Even if we had 2,000 years of good observation data we could not make specific statements such as this. Ask any climate scientist to put his reputation behind that claim. They won’t. The evidence for a correlation between sunspot activity and global climate is very good. The precise… Read more »

paulcarline
paulcarline
Mar 10, 2017 11:43 AM
Reply to  Brian Angliss

Simple response: there is no “overwhelming scientific consensus on the causes of global warming”. The incessant repetition of a lie does not make it a truth, despite what Goebbels said. There has been no global warming since about 1998. The “hockey stick” was pure invention – in real terms a blatant fraud. Satellite data (the most reliable) contradict both weather station data and computer models (the GIGO phenomenon). The ‘great climate change lie’ is sustained by dishonest scientists and governments and others i.e. by those who stand to gain financially or otherwise from it.

Brian Angliss
Brian Angliss
Mar 10, 2017 7:26 PM
Reply to  paulcarline

Paul, you’re wrong. Flat. Out. Wrong. First, the hockey stick is present in pretty much all the data that exists – boreholes, stalagmites, ice cores, as well as tree rings. And multiple independent reconstructions, using improved statistics, all show the same thing – the hockey stick is not an artifact of the analysis method, but is embedded in the data itself. As for whether it was a “fraud,” Penn State and the National Science Foundation both investigated those claims after Climategate and both found that claims of fraud were unsubstantiated. Second, satellite data does have greater geographic coverage than surface… Read more »

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 11, 2017 2:57 AM
Reply to  Brian Angliss

The hockey stick is most definitely NOT present across the board. It was a blatant and quasi-fraudulent contrivance by Mann et al, the product of poor methodology and conflating data from different sources. Not only did it controversially omit both the MWP and the LIA, but it used flawed programming that produced hockey stick-shaped spikes even from random data. It’s no longer used as a reference in serious studies.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

Brian Angliss
Brian Angliss
Mar 11, 2017 6:28 AM

MLS, you are also incorrect about the hockey stick. Even if the original methodology was fatally flawed (and it wasn’t, regardless of what you and others might think), the hockey stick has been replicated using alternative and improved methodologies, additional proxies, and on and on and on. But so you don’t have to take my word for it, here’s links for you: Boreholes Huang et al 2008 (look at Figure 2, specifically the spike at the 0 years BP end of the figure) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034187/full Pollack and Smerden 2003: http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/smerdon/Pollack_and_Smerdon_Journal.pdf Stalagmites Smith 2006: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1329/pdf Ice cores Oerlemans et al 2005: http://spordakost.jorfi.is/data/fraedigreinar/Oerlemans_2005_science.pdf… Read more »

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 11, 2017 11:53 AM
Reply to  Brian Angliss

WTF Brian? NONE of those links express any support for the Mann et al (1999) Hockey Stick. NONE. Your first link specifically references the “controversy” of Mann et al (1999) IN ORDER TO DISTANCE ITSELF FROM IT. The graphs in this link are NOT Hockey Sticks specifically because they include the MWP and LIA which Mann et al ignored. Your second link DOES NOT REFERENCE THE HOCKEY STICK (Mann et al 1999) AT ALL. It does not even cover the same period as that covered by the Hockey Stick. Why did you link to it? Your third link only briefly… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Mar 11, 2017 6:47 PM
Reply to  Brian Angliss

Did you just get “busted,” Brian? 7 out of 8 times? 7 out of 8 times only because one link failed? And then who would bother following up that failed reference after your previous 7? Unless MLS is the one who purposely misrepresenting your sources. When I have the time, I’ll have a look, too. Not very good for your “integrity” as a poster of comments if nothing you linked to “proves” what you clearly contended they support, i.e., that contrivance by Mann et al known as the hockey stick. Excusable if you don’t understand what you are linking to.… Read more »

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 11, 2017 9:08 PM
Reply to  Brian Angliss

Thanks for the links, I investigated all but one of them, which does not work. I recognized several of them and had them already downloaded, but then my laptop crashed and I did not have Word backed up. Lost the lot. Here are the ones that linked: 3 Science 325, 1236 (2009); Darrell S. Kaufman, et al. Cooling Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Clim. Past, 8, 227–249, 2012 http://www.clim-past.net/8/227/2012/ doi:10.5194/cp-8-227-2012 © Author(s) 2012. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Climate of the Past Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries The Annals of Applied Statistics 2014, Vol. 8, No. 4,… Read more »

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 11, 2017 11:41 PM
Reply to  mohandeer

None of his links support his claim. I took the trouble to explore them all. His claim the hockey stick is still valid is not sustainable, because it has been abandoned by all serious climate scientists after the faulty maths was exposed. I don’t say this as an opponent of AGW. I”m NOT, as I apparently have to keep repeating, an opponent of AGW. I’m an opponent of bad science and bogus claims. It’s so frustrating to read non-scientists who can’t tell the difference between good science and snake oil airily claim that anyone who questions any part of the… Read more »

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 11, 2017 7:49 PM
Reply to  Brian Angliss

I “liked” your comment, for reasons I have already given in an earlier comment. I don’t think you’ll get anywhere with “facts” and “truths” with certain people on this subject, it would appear that lies and misrepresentations have replaced honest responses to genuine queries, but I wish you luck. The problem, as you have pointed out, is that much of the strategy these days in denying the man made GW theory is the promulgating of generalizations based on one aspect only and even within this deceit, there are the “omissions” either deliberate or just not taken into account, even though… Read more »

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 12, 2017 12:08 AM
Reply to  mohandeer

Forgive me but you seem stuck in a version of reality that is now about twenty years out of date. I have friends on both sides of this debate. And I know who gets the big bucks and the TV exposure. It really isn’t any longer the denialists. There is far more money to be made in conducting a study that promotes climate alarmism than in promoting climate “denialism”. This is a simple fact. I don’t suggest this should not be the case, I happen to support the general hypothesis of AGW, and the alarmist interpretations of feedback need to… Read more »

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 12, 2017 3:06 PM

MLS: “And do please try to get beyond the idea this is a bogus debate with idiot an shills one one side and heroes on the other. It;s silly and frankly insulting to the many good people who work in this area.” I have already stated that several times had you been reading the comments and not entirely locked in your own argument. Your comment and insulting attack is rather redundant given your current investment in this debate. I will repeat again what I made clear earlier, there are people on this site currently lying(or presenting argument without context) in… Read more »

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 12, 2017 3:39 PM
Reply to  mohandeer

People lie. That isn’t an excuse for refusing to listen to both sides of a debate.
What lies are being spread on this forum? What truths do you see being concealed?
Let’s discuss the state of the data and not hide behind generalised arguments for failing to engage

jen
jen
Jun 1, 2020 1:45 PM
Reply to  paulcarline

I don’t buy this. Why are Polar ice caps melting in front of our eyes, extinction of species, soil erosion, sea levels rising, extreme weather events: bushfires, floods, etc… Yes we’ve always had floods and fire …
Maybe this will say it better than me. https://grist.org/series/skeptics/

ultra909
ultra909
Mar 3, 2017 6:13 PM
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 1:40 AM
Reply to  ultra909

No it doesn’t-faked ‘pseudo-science’. So the OFFGuarian is now the On Daily Mail. Unbelievable!

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Mar 3, 2017 5:03 AM

My thanks to those who took the trouble to answer my earlier questions. I think the resulting conversations were helpful. I have a couple of new questions. 1) How do current temperatures compare to a) the Medieval Warm Period (now renamed the “Medieval Climate Anomaly”) b)the Little Ice Age c) most of geological history (viz – are we currently above or be;ow average) 2) What caused the Medieval Warm Period a) solar activity b) increased CO2 c) we don’t know 3) Is the relation between climate fluctuation and CO2 levels a) a good observation of correlation with some accompanying physics… Read more »

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 3, 2017 2:05 PM

Well done MLS. Now we are entering the real debate, but be warned, there are very few absolutes in a science that can only be, at best, well intentioned and at it’s worst, deliberately misleading, but you are at least doing the right thing by asking questions. Although I choose to believe in the man made GW theory, it in itself can never prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is factually correct in it’s analysis and sometimes the answers leave you with even more questions. I know, I chased the subject matter down for many years and still am no… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Mar 3, 2017 7:51 PM

Great series of questions, yet again. And none can really be answered without some serious investigation of the scientific literature. And I believe each question raises ‘contentious issues’ within various branches of specialization within the overall field of climatology and much else besides. To take but one of the issues you raise: climate fluctuation and solar activity, which cannot be sorted out without tapping the expertise of specialists in solar physics, astronomy, geology, paleontology, ecology, and the list goes on, and on. . . To answer these questions, in my estimation, will require years of diligent research on my part,… Read more »

Deborah Harris
Deborah Harris
Mar 2, 2017 10:50 PM

Seriously don’t like the way Admin & Catte interact with website, I’ve never come across it before. LOL even in their ijon70 got it right & I agree with them; “Sorry, I have neither time nor patience for dealing with crap. You either stick to “because facts should be sacred”, or publish provably false, completely unverified nonsense like the above. Can’t have the cake and eat it. I could spend hours dissecting every sentence of this bullshit and showing why it’s wrong, as I have done on occasions, but there comes a time when you just accept that someone is… Read more »

Admin
Admin
Mar 3, 2017 2:56 AM
Reply to  Deborah Harris

Maybe even — gasp, shock — talk to actual climate scientists.

As we said last time you made the (exact) same suggestion, we are talking to climate scientists and a couple of them are indeed posting in the comments.
Goodbye and thank you for your contribution.

Deborah Harris
Deborah Harris
Mar 3, 2017 4:51 AM
Reply to  Admin

One last link before I go which I think is really good to take a look at, http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/
Take care & Adios

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 1:43 AM
Reply to  Deborah Harris

Exactly! Sapere aude is, of course, a fake name, for Monckhausen by the look of this vile, omnicidal, pile of excrement. Every dirty denialist lie, regurgitated in the name of-cheques from the fossil fuel industry? Hatred of future generations? Utterly, utterly, despicable.

MoriartysLeftSock
MoriartysLeftSock
Mar 4, 2017 11:14 PM

I fear you are not well sir.

StAug
StAug
Mar 5, 2017 6:58 AM

I fear he’s (or she’s) just an actor; no one can be that unrelentingly (cartoonishly) OTT, from start to finish, can he/she? An actor and sock puppet of another avatar already participating in the threads, I suspect. Someone among the AGWs was feeling impatient with merely sticking to the AGW talking points…?

Jim Porter
Jim Porter
Mar 2, 2017 9:19 PM

Just saw an apt cartoon – What if it’s a hoax and we create a better world for nothing – haha

Admin
Admin
Mar 2, 2017 9:45 PM
Reply to  Jim Porter

That’s assuming that the world we would make as a result of “climate action” would be quantifiably better. Can we take that for granted?

Jim Porter
Jim Porter
Mar 3, 2017 9:13 AM
Reply to  Admin

Agreed – it all depends on who is driving the direction and this particular subject is entrenched in BIG money. Any change in direction taken too quickly at the moment could have just as many negative ramifications as positive as there are so many people, businesses and governments who are so deep in the present shape of things (one example, car sales – changing to electric could destroy billions in existing stock). There are thousands of things that change would effect but it will come, so be prepared for it.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 1:51 AM
Reply to  Jim Porter

Obviously you are either ignorant of how dire our situation is, or are a denialist pretending to accept reality. Unless we TOTALLY decarbonise as fast as possible, catastrophic climate destabilisation will wipe us out by 2050. Going slowly because some capitalist might be annoyed is a recipe for mass suicide, or, more correctly, mass homicide.

Jim Porter
Jim Porter
Mar 4, 2017 8:21 AM

This is when politics overtakes science – I never said go slow, I said going too fast will have ramifications, so being aware you can plan against the negative. It is not just a few capitalists who would be effected, it is everyone as this subject is so much a part of the fabric of our society. It needs governments to actually take control but as the capitalists own those governments, I don’t see what is necessary to happen, happening. In all my other posts here I have said as such. 2045 is what I have read for all the… Read more »

Deborah Harris
Deborah Harris
Mar 3, 2017 1:25 AM
Reply to  Jim Porter

What if all the conspiracy theories are one big conspiracy to distract everyone.

StAug
StAug
Mar 3, 2017 6:42 AM
Reply to  Deborah Harris

“What if all the conspiracy theories are one big conspiracy to distract everyone.” You mean what if Watergate, Gulf of Tonkin, Enron, Iran Contra, the Madoff/Goldman Sachs episode, BCCI Bank Scandal, Teapot Dome and the Black Sox Scandal, et al, had never happened…? Erm, what’s your point? Something to do with Time-travel? Those and thousands of other conspiracies happened, and the various “conspiracy theories” associated with each (nb: even the “mainstream” and/or false, Gov-supported, conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, Boston and 7/7, and so forth, are conspiracy theories) were either accurate in the first instance or not. You might just as… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 2, 2017 5:55 AM

ESSENTIAL READING from a scientist and teacher about how Big Science is often used as a tool of deception, profit and control:
http://activistteacher.blogspot.de/2010/06/some-big-lies-of-science.html

Deborah Harris
Deborah Harris
Mar 2, 2017 10:54 PM
Reply to  StAug

Maybe he should have stuck to teaching his students physics like he was paid to do & then refrained from calling a colleague a “house negro” & he wouldn’t have been dragged through court over a racist slur & end up in debt for over $1million dollars.

StAug
StAug
Mar 3, 2017 6:48 AM
Reply to  Deborah Harris

Rancourt is a radical in the classic (late-’60s) sense and radicals often suffer difficulties within the context of the mainstream institutions people like you appear to rely on for a sense of the Normal. Rancourt’s use of the term “house Negro” was justified (if a little risky) and his greatest “crime” was teaching his students to learn to think. And, btw, shouldn’t you be leaving harmless comments over at The Guardian instead of flailing around over here, out of your depth?

Deborah Harris
Deborah Harris
Mar 2, 2017 3:38 AM
ultra909
ultra909
Mar 2, 2017 6:32 AM
Reply to  Deborah Harris

It seems obvious to me that the use of the word “denier” to describe anyone who is not full retard on the Catastrophic AGW bandwagon is a deliberate rhetorical device to conflate such people with “Holocaust denial”.
And we all know that’s beyond the pale, right? Clever psychology.
Except that basically makes it an ad hominem, which means they don’t have an argument.

Deborah Harris
Deborah Harris
Mar 2, 2017 10:34 PM
Reply to  ultra909

I said “Essential reading” & provided a link about the dark money. Someone has investigated the dark money funding climate change contrarians, where’s the “they don’t have an argument” in that.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 1:58 AM
Reply to  ultra909

Actually, calling the rabble of knowing liars and disinformers and moronic dupes ‘denialists’ is utterly apt. The Holocaust that anthropogenic climate destabilisation will cause will kill orders of magnitude more people than all the victims of the Nazis. And these are victims who might yet be saved, but the climate destabilisation denialists are doing their vile worst to ensure that they are NOT saved. Moreover the truth of anthropogenic climate destabilisation and the details are better understood than the facts of the Nazi Holocaust. You are WORSE than Nazi Holocaust deniers.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 1:53 AM
Reply to  Deborah Harris

Looks like a few quid of that dark money has found a home at OffGuardian.

ultra909
ultra909
Mar 1, 2017 5:30 PM

Margaret Thatcher’s role in the genesis of the great global warming scare:
https://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

StAug
StAug
Mar 1, 2017 6:45 PM
Reply to  ultra909

Hmmm, I got a “your connection us not private” warning when I clicked the link…!

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Mar 1, 2017 7:07 PM
Reply to  StAug

I didn’t follow the link, either, although it’s probably safe to do so if you don’t enter any information at that site, and then again even doing so would probably not result in any difficulty. Better safe than sorry, I guess. But to address the issue of Margret Thatcher and the very real role that she played (and why) in raising AGW as an “urgent international issue” to be raised sort of runs along this line (and I think it is a line that is very plausible): Mrs Thatcher is now often considered to have been a great UK politician:… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 1, 2017 7:39 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Great, N!

ultra909
ultra909
Mar 1, 2017 9:13 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Was exactly the same text. Not sure what is going on with the dodgy SSL certificate. Use one of Norm’s links instead.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Mar 1, 2017 9:20 PM
Reply to  ultra909

And now I notice that the second link I provided, which should direct to John Daly’s blog doesn’t work. And that is why, when I find what to my mind is an interesting piece of info., I copy and paste albeit ensuring that links to the place of origin are prominently displayed. That way I always have the article, whatever may happen to it elsewhere.
But yes, that is a good piece of analysis by Courtney. Glad you reminded me of it.

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 3, 2017 2:45 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Mrs. T was already planning a way of cutting off the subsidies our coal mining industries were getting – because they weren’t making any money and she had a landslide victory because the coal industry was the root cause of the crippling strike action with everyone and his uncle coming out on strike. There was criminal bodily harm taking hold, so she took hold of the reins. The global warming argument was just the excuse she needed to pull the plug, so she always had a vested interest in promoting GW as man made. Nothing she said at that time… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 2:02 AM
Reply to  mohandeer

A truly moronic ‘argument’. Two hundreds years of science and observation, plus the total concurrence of ALL the Academies of Science of the planet, negated by a puerile argument based on Thatcher’s desire to destroy the coal mining unions in the UK. Are you really this stupid?

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 4, 2017 4:53 AM

As a proponent of man made global warming I find it irksome that someone like you with your insulting and arrogant deliberate attempts to belittle others for their beliefs, are on the same side as me on the matter in question. You are a dazzling example of the wrong kind of support the subject needs. Please decide to become a denier, it would help our cause immeasurably to be without you as the voice of reason.

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Mar 1, 2017 1:03 AM

The best thing that can happen if the global warming people are correct and we act is that we save the world. The worst thing that can happen if YOU guys are wrong and we don’t take action is social and ecological disaster. But it seems that all too many people are banking everything on whether we can be “certain” before they’ll get behind taking action. It’s the equivalent of facing a loading gun, but rather than moving your head out of the way you instead postpone doing so pending more “confirmation” even though you’ve already determined a 95% probability… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 1, 2017 6:42 PM

“It’s the equivalent of facing a loading gun…” Inaccurate analogy. It’s much closer to facing a guy who says he has a gun in his pocket, and if you don’t sign this, and this, and that legal document, things could get nasty. If there were a referendum on curtailing industrial development in the already-over-developed West, I’d vote on it tomorrow. If there were a binding referendum on clean air and clean water that would mean fewer conveniences and higher prices but a greener, quieter world: they’d get my vote in a heartbeat. Legislation to strictly monitor and control biotech monsters… Read more »

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Mar 2, 2017 3:13 AM
Reply to  StAug

“Inaccurate analogy. It’s much closer to facing a guy who says he has a gun in his pocket, and if you don’t sign this, and this, and that legal document, things could get nasty.” I got it right the first time. Climate change scientists don’t have the power to threaten governments and people, so it’s your analogy that fails. “But what they want, instead, is for the world to enter into a scheme of arcane fiddles, mumbo-jumbo and heavy-hitter-favoring-loopholes involving a kind of Wall Street for “Carbon Credits” and unknown powers of control and enforcement (I’ve mentioned before that it’s… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 2, 2017 5:40 AM

“I got it right the first time. Climate change scientists don’t have the power to threaten governments and people, so it’s your analogy that fails.” We’re being threatened with supposed “extinction”, no? The Boogieman, in this case, is nothing short of Apocalypse. But there is no proof that it’s more than a scary story designed to elicit the desired response (hysteria). Anyway, all the rest of your responses are written from the perspective of someone who believes (but does not know) that the science is settled on this matter; it’s precisely like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness: fun up to… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 2:11 AM
Reply to  StAug

At least here, StAug, you drop the pretense and show yourself as simply another fanatic denialist. In fact anthropogenic climate destabilisation is proceeding far faster than the most pessimistic IPCC Reports, and will, if creatures like you continue to win, cause human extinction and that of most higher life on Earth, this century. Whether you are just a liar, or a Rightwing ideologically-driven moron, is irrelevant-you are an enemy of Life on Earth.

StAug
StAug
Mar 4, 2017 5:18 AM

“you are an enemy of Life on Earth”
Hilarious! No hyperbole there, eh? Am I dealing with the B Team now? Do go on…

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 10, 2017 1:59 PM

“you are an enemy of Life on Earth.” Whose life? The Syrians, Iraqis, Libyans, Serbians, Donbass ethnics? Or are we talking Orangs, gorillas, snow leopards? Climate deniers are not necessarily the enemy of Life on Earth, unless they have been actively promoting the many wars that certain “civilized” cultures of the larger economies, who by the way, are the ones who contributed the most to global warming, if we accept that it is man made. Whilst I acknowledge the man made science as having merit, I do not “KNOW” that they are, without doubt, correct. Do you expend as much… Read more »

Sorry, Not Buying it
Sorry, Not Buying it
Mar 4, 2017 8:39 PM
Reply to  StAug

“We’re being threatened with supposed “extinction”, no?” Please don’t twist words. You know exactly what I’m talking about. “The Boogieman, in this case, is nothing short of Apocalypse. But there is no proof that it’s more than a scary story designed to elicit the desired response (hysteria). Anyway, all the rest of your responses are written from the perspective of someone who believes (but does not know) that the science is settled on this matter; it’s precisely like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness: fun up to a point. Then the circular logic becomes tiresome.” Translation: you have nothing to counter… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 4, 2017 8:50 PM

Dude, I missed you! Your bumbling team member (“Mulga Borat”, I think; intern?) was making a total mess of it! So, where were we? Ah, yes: your unfounded certainties. Your unwillingness to admit that all you “know” about the topic is what you read from partisan, non-objective (deeply vested) sources… like all the rest of us. Lovely. Feel free to pile more passionate opinions atop the stack we’ve already amassed. It will neither help nor hurt but you’ll enjoy venting a bit more, I’m sure.

Sorry, Not Buying it
Sorry, Not Buying it
Mar 4, 2017 9:44 PM
Reply to  StAug

I’m sorry that you have such a religious aversion to Earth systems science and mistake it for “partisan, non-objective sources”. Truly, I am. In any case, you’re still holding an empty bag. That can’t be laid at my door, unfortunately, regardless of whether you choose to childishly skulk around and designate people as “Borat”.

StAug
StAug
Mar 5, 2017 7:02 AM

“Earth systems science” of which you are a leading Scientist, right, Sorry? Or are you just a punter with an opinion like the rest of us? Laugh

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Mar 9, 2017 7:06 PM

We GET IT, StAug: you neither know nor believe anything, and are committed to keeping the world proletariat in the capitalist death-trap with your perpetual pessimism and proud agnosticism about everything. Earth systems scientists are themselves mere “punters” in your book.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 2:07 AM

I find the denialist lie that they accept the truth of anthropogenic climate destabilisation, but oppose any concrete action to prevent it because the financial parasites are hovering, looking for opportunities to suck blood, utterly unconvincing. We have to do something, anything, everything, or we are history.

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 12, 2017 4:29 PM

The 1% “own” this planet including commerce, government, military, science etc. etc. How can we make any kind of decision on the way forward, when a) we cannot decide whether the science is even accurate, b) that governments, owned by the 1% will deploy fair and just practice in committing to a resolution of a problem that many perceive does not even exist – because the science is overly confusing, c) that it is worth the price that must be paid, usually by those who have the least and d) if we cannot even control the incessant attacks(wars) against those… Read more »

paulcarline
paulcarline
Mar 2, 2017 10:49 AM

There is no loaded gun. There is no global warming. In fact, we are apparently heading into a significantly cooler period. But industrial civilisation has done and is continuing to do immense harm to the planet and to its ‘life-support’ systems (especially clean air and water). It has also brought immense benefits. Just about everything we tend to take for granted in our lives is a result of advanced technology and engineering. Try living in a mud hut somewhere where you have to spend three hours a day getting water and looking for wood to cook whatever meagre food you… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 2:14 AM
Reply to  paulcarline

Paul’s is a really slimy, but familiar, denialist trope. Deny the greatest of all ecological disasters, and PRETEND to be more concerned about lesser, if still dreadful, ecological crises. A despicable, but as I said, well-known, denialist canard.

Sorry, Not Buying it
Sorry, Not Buying it
Mar 4, 2017 8:43 PM
Reply to  paulcarline

“There is no loaded gun. There is no global warming. In fact, we are apparently heading into a significantly cooler period. ”
Errr…no. We’re not “apparently” heading into a cooler period.

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Feb 28, 2017 5:09 PM

I’d like to pose a couple of questions to those here who believe the theory of man-made global warming is “settled science” (and no I am not a “denier, “ I am, if anything, a warmish lukewarmer). 1)Do you believe we know enough about how climate works to positively exclude all other sources of warming beside carbon-forcing? Do you – for example – believe we know what caused the Medieval Warm Period, or the numerous Ice Ages? 2)To be able to know this we would need to have sufficient data on every other force that influenced climates in the past… Read more »

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Feb 28, 2017 5:47 PM

Finally, a category into which I can finally pigeonhole myself with respect to the whole AGW thing: “warmish-lukewarmer-ism.” Thank you for sorting out that part of my identity. I was lost, but now I am found.
Good questions, by the way.

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Feb 28, 2017 11:58 PM

And lo and behold – none of the loudest voices here has even tried to answer my little questions!
Please- everyone who has posted here about how the data is beyond all doubt and only idiots could not realise this – answer my questions. You know about the science, right? You read all the research papers, didn’t you?
You didn’t just read a few headlines and jump on a bandwagon…did you?

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Mar 1, 2017 1:15 AM

“You didn’t just read a few headlines and jump on a bandwagon…did you?”
Your sophomoric statements make it seem that this is perhaps what you’ve been doing, what with your claims about how “only” CO2 is a significant factor for climate modelers.

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Mar 1, 2017 1:13 AM

“1)Do you believe we know enough about how climate works to positively exclude all other sources of warming beside carbon-forcing?” Who told you that only carbon forcing is meant to be significant? CO2 isn’t even the most potent greenhouse gas; the importance of CO2 is that it’s building up in the atmosphere and that it’s indeed a greenhouse gas. But there are other gases that humans are also emitting. CO2, however, seems to be the overall most important one. “3)Do you have any idea how many other potential climate-forcers there are? Do you have data on why none of these… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Mar 1, 2017 1:50 AM

Who told you that only carbon forcing is meant to be significant? I believe it was in a previous comment, someone said that all natural forcers had been eliminated as a potential cause for current warming, and that therefore only manmade C02 could possibly be causing it. It’s a fairly oft-repeated claim among lay alarmists. CO2 isn’t even the most potent greenhouse gas; Yes I know, which is why I don’t think the case for manmade warming has yet been proven. What surprises me is that you know this and still believe the case is proven. the importance of CO2… Read more »

GM
GM
Mar 1, 2017 1:59 AM

Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly

You wouldn’t have that problem if you paid attention to your units.
Methane is measured in ppb not ppm.

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Mar 1, 2017 2:56 AM
Reply to  GM

Oh dear. Well that’s a garbled sentence all right. Should say “and methane is 1.800ppm and water vapour is around 10,000ppm….”

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Mar 2, 2017 4:04 AM

Water vapor isn’t technically a forcer, because it relies on other factors to get it going and is very sensitive to these other factors. What it does do is to magnify what the forcers are already doing.

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Mar 2, 2017 4:02 AM

“I believe it was in a previous comment, someone said that all natural forcers had been eliminated as a potential cause for current warming, and that therefore only manmade C02 could possibly be causing it. It’s a fairly oft-repeated claim among lay alarmists.” But not non-lay alarmists? Because that’s what we’re talking about here: what do the data actually show and have the scientists gotten it right? Or aren’t we talking about that? “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established… Read more »

Catte
Catte
Mar 2, 2017 8:02 PM

Even a 5 percent risk would be far too high.

I appreciate the argument, but – going with this 5% risk for the moment – don’t we need to discuss how much the world should do to avoid something that has a 95% chance of not happening? Should we at least understand what the risk/benefit ratio is before signing off on this? Aren’t you worried these “precautions” could become just another avenue of exploitation by the 1%?

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 3, 2017 2:29 AM
Reply to  Catte

I can assure you with some degree of certainty that the 1% have already capitalized on the disparate ramifications of this debate. I really don’t think it would matter whether the man made GW “truthers” had got it right or the alternate “truthers” could prove their case. The 1% will always be one step ahead of the rest of us. I made a comment earlier whereby I explained that many of those who were advocating the man made argument whilst buying up and otherwise acquiring Africa’s rich coal reserves, which makes them a liability in every sense. I don’t know… Read more »

falcemartello
falcemartello
Mar 4, 2017 1:59 AM
Reply to  Catte

@ Catte I agre with u 1 million % The Climate change debate has been manipulated by and for the anglo-zionist oligarchs. Look at their proposals CARBON TAX and floating it on the stock exchange. Weather and Climate change totally different things. The facts that the polar caps r melting is scientific evidence and this alone is effecting the weather patterns thru out the world. The other angle is what most third world leaders have been arguing for at least since the 80’s that the anglo-zionist r using and formulating arguments with regards to climate change in order to hamper… Read more »

Sorry, Not Buying it
Sorry, Not Buying it
Mar 4, 2017 11:58 PM
Reply to  falcemartello

“The Climate change debate has been manipulated by and for the anglo-zionist oligarchs. Look at their proposals CARBON TAX and floating it on the stock exchange.” By this exact same logic, climate denial is manipulated by and for the “Anglo-Zionist oligarchs” (use the proper term, please: capitalists), since the fossil fuel industry has invested heavily in spreading denialist claims. It should be clear that whether or not a phenomenon is taking place is entirely independent of how capitalists interests take advantage of a debate. Capitalist interests are investing in solar energy; they’re also investing in fossil fuels. Furthermore, capitalist states… Read more »

Sorry, Not Buying it
Sorry, Not Buying it
Mar 4, 2017 8:57 PM
Reply to  Catte

“I appreciate the argument, but – going with this 5% risk for the moment – don’t we need to discuss how much the world should do to avoid something that has a 95% chance of not happening? Should we at least understand what the risk/benefit ratio is before signing off on this? Aren’t you worried these “precautions” could become just another avenue of exploitation by the 1%?” Yes, I am. That’s why I advocate for revolution, not just reform of the exploitative capitalist dictatorship. As long as capitalism is maintained, the “1%” will find avenues for exploitation regardless of whether… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 2:23 AM

Good God, Moriarty-you are a moron, or deliberately appealing to ignorant morons. The argument that CO2 is ‘only’ 400 ppm and therefore unimportant, is cretinous. Anyone awake during high school science lessons knows how stupid this canard is.

GM
GM
Mar 1, 2017 1:28 AM

Response to your questions: 1) Yes and yes 2) Yes. You need to read the climate modelling literature. Admittedly that is not an easy task as it spans hundred of highly technical papers published over many decades. But it exists 3) The error of the models so far has all been mostly on the side of being too conservative and the newly discovered components of the system have mostly made things worse. For example, nobody predicted such drastic warming of the Arctic and such a rapid collapse of sea ice in the Northern hemisphere. As another example, ice sheet dynamics… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Mar 1, 2017 2:29 AM
Reply to  GM

My responses to GM’s replies… 1) Yes and yes So, “yes you believe we know enough about how climate works to positively exclude all other sources of warming beside carbon-forcing? And yes, you believe we know what caused the Medieval Warm Period, or the numerous Ice Ages?” That’s very interesting. Can you tell me where you found this information? And – most importantly – what did cause the MWP and the ice age? The last I talked to my climatologist friends there were still nothing but competing theories about that. If it’s finally been solved they’d love to know. So… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 2:26 AM

Moriarty, your ‘…my climatologist friends’ is pure, unadulterated, confabulation. Only the really lowest denialist pretend that they know ‘climate scientists’ who blow the whistle on the Great Climate Change Conspiracy. What a vile creature you are.

A.M. Wooster
A.M. Wooster
Mar 1, 2017 8:46 PM

I am not a climate scientist but I have some understanding of science. I cannot answer all of your questions but I have some observations that I would like to make. Is it possible that the medieval warming was caused by the rapid industrial development of both China and India that took place at that time and the massive clearing of forests to make rice paddies that also took place at the same time? The Chinese were certainly producing enormous quatities of porcelain that must have taken really massive quantities of wood to provide the very high temperatures required while… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Mar 3, 2017 3:27 AM
Reply to  A.M. Wooster

Is it possible that the medieval warming was caused by the rapid industrial development of both China and India that took place at that time and the massive clearing of forests to make rice paddies that also took place at the same time? Well since we have almost no data for what caused the MWP it has to be possible it was somehow caused by human activity. But that’s the point – there’s no data to substantiate whether the current warming is due to human activity either. We an see from observation that the earth’s climate is in constant flux,… Read more »

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 3, 2017 2:19 PM

Fair and balanced response to MLS which suggests you have a methodical approach to information. It’s a shame that more scientists don’t follow your example.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 2:30 AM
Reply to  mohandeer

Mohander, your boot-licking groveling to Moriarty is nauseating. That you prefer his truly ignorant lies and distortions to the science of climate destabilisation, elicited by real scientists and peer-reviewed in real journals, shows you to be an ignorant idiot.

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 4, 2017 5:12 AM

Your cheap and demeaning insults are an offence perpetrated in the belief that you are able to repudiate ALL the deniers claims. The science that Global Warming is man made is something I believe in, but unlike you, I am aware that the current available studies do not prove conclusively that the assumptions adopted are based on absolutes, neither side of the debate can make that claim. It is your kind of insulting ignorance that makes life for those of us promoting man made global warming that much more difficult. Do the planet a favour and go play with the… Read more »

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 1:00 PM
Reply to  mohandeer

Cut the specious verbiage, Mohander. You’re the plainest denialist, denying that he is one, and covering his trail with nonsense. There is no even near equivalence between denialism and the mountain of climate science research and the mounting evidence from reality. ‘Absolutes’ are not required, you fool-just probabilities, and the probability of Near Term Human Extinction caused by anthropogenic climate destabilisation grows by the day, thanks to swine like you.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 2:18 AM

Moriarty, EVERY one of your points has been investigated and explained, more and more completely, since climate science began about 200 years ago with Fourier and Tyndall. If you really are so ignorant as not to know the details of the science, then perhaps you’d be better off at the Daily Mail or some similar dung-heap. If, however, as I suspect, you are just a denialist disinformer, then you are quite a nasty specimen.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Feb 28, 2017 4:27 PM

Here is something that I think anyone who is not a professional in a particular field of scientific research, whatever it may be, and even if one happens to be a professional in a given field of science, should keep in mind, because it places an emphasis on a “fact” that tends to be elided and forgotten but that has enormous implications for the manner in which any scientific consensus, in our capitalist context, becomes THE consensus — I’m quoting in full the epilogue to a study by Peter Duesberg, Claus Koehnlein and David Rasnick, and titled, “The chemical bases… Read more »

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 2, 2017 9:32 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

I don’t know where you find these gems, but this one in particular could either nullify every claim by both sides of the man made climate debate or elevate them to their own perceived lofty heights. Cracking up with this one.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Mar 2, 2017 9:41 PM
Reply to  mohandeer

Indeed, you are quite correct. But the upshot is that Duesberg et al. highlight exactly what is currently the state of the “peer review” vetting process in pretty much the entire field of scientific research, excepting, perhaps, the fields of engineering proper.

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 3, 2017 1:49 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Exactly, so the Peer Review System needs to be overhauled and have rules instituted and show due diligence to apply their judicious responsibility without favor or hindrance – fat chance methinks.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Mar 3, 2017 2:17 AM
Reply to  mohandeer

Fat is good for you. The cholesterol theory is also dead. Finally.

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 3, 2017 3:02 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Does that mean I can stop taking my Statin tablets? Mind you, last time I did that I ended up in Papworths with a heart attack and my first stent(don’t recommend it-either of said). Shame, because I still keep forgetting to take them. Oops.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Mar 3, 2017 3:11 AM
Reply to  mohandeer

Mohandeer, I don’t know that you should be on the Statin’s or not. I’m on an anit-coagulant because, well, without it my clod clots, and twice I’ve been hospitalized for a “major P.E.” There is no underlying genetic marker for what ails me — it is, as they say in the business, idiopathic. But the clotting does happen, I do have a ‘condition,’ so I’ll keep taking the anticoagulant. However, my doctor wanted me to start taking Statin tablets, and after some throrough reseach, some of which is referenced on my blog, I opted not to. I don’t have an… Read more »

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 3, 2017 3:20 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

The consultant who fitted the stent gave me such a ticking off, scared the bejeebers out of me and I don’t want to get on the wrong side of her any time soon. Phew! Strewth, but she should come with a medical warning attached to her!

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Mar 3, 2017 3:29 AM
Reply to  mohandeer

I was lucky. There was nothing they could do for me but send me up to palliative care and wait and see if I’d come through, so I didn’t have to suffer the distemper of any overworked medical personnel, and how they are overworked!
Oddly, I wasn’t at all perturbed by the prospect of possibly dying, but the dyspnea was rather severe and in itself anxiety inducing, as I understand it, an uncontrollable physiological reaction.
(We sound like old people, don’t we, I mean going on about our ailments and all?)

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 3, 2017 2:16 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

I am old(before my time)physically dysfunctional but not quite senile. I too while being rushed in an ambulance having been told I was having a heart attack was curiously indifferent except for my dogs at home(I was genuinely worried what would happen to them and that Gracie would be found a good home. The heart attack helped me put my own mortality into perspective and rather relieved me of the fear of dying, my sympathy is for the living, because for many, that is the real battle – one day at a time and often losing that battle simply because… Read more »

Deborah Harris
Deborah Harris
Feb 28, 2017 1:24 PM

Would you site the “peer reviewed articles”, please.

Deborah Harris
Deborah Harris
Feb 28, 2017 1:17 PM

The above article is not well researched at all. My issues with this article are; The Daily Mail as a source for anything. The Daily Mail also known as The Crazy Mail, & Daily Heil is not a good source of news or any information let alone science, it’s a trash newspaper along the lines of your Murdoch rags. https://www.skepticalscience.com/this-is-why-daily-mail-unreliable.html Dr Bates https://www.skepticalscience.com/bates-knew-people-would-misuse-accusations-to-attack-climate-science.html Climategate https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm Over 30,000 scientists Maybe the reason that the figure is not often quoted or almost never is because it is misleading. http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ Lord Christopher Monckton If the author had bothered to do proper research they… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Feb 28, 2017 4:40 PM
Reply to  Deborah Harris

Oh dear. Scientists refute data not people. A fact is a fact regardless of who supplies it and a lie is a lie even if our best friend tells it to us.
There are numerous peer-reviewed articles available that question all or part of the CAGW hypothesis. I agree with some of them, not with others. Beyond the rather oversimplified science of popular media there are all kinds of nuanced opinions on this matter. Because that’s how real science works.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 2:33 AM

Moriarty, a truly villainous denialist like you talking of ‘real science’ is vicious nonsense. You are a disinformer, pure and unalloyed, nothing more.

StAug
StAug
Mar 4, 2017 5:49 AM

Mulga, you need better programming. Your algorithm is unintentionally comedic. I’m starting to read your comments to myself with a “Borat” accent.

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 4, 2017 6:22 AM
Reply to  StAug

I imagined him to be an unkempt bearded loser living in a squat with nothing else to do except take his anger out at the rest of the world for his own failings by name calling and generally being a total prat with extreme nuisance value.

StAug
StAug
Mar 4, 2017 6:38 AM
Reply to  mohandeer

The Bearded Bellicose Borat Bot! If that’s an actual person I imagine him/her wearing a preposterous hat, for some reason

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 1:05 PM
Reply to  StAug

Denialist liars in what the Yanks call a ‘circle jerk’, all ‘pissing in each others pockets’ with admiration at what arrogant, duplicitous, clever little swine they are. This garbage discredits this whole site-it’s like the worst of the Murdoch denialist sewer.

StAug
StAug
Mar 4, 2017 1:17 PM

What a wonderfully persuasive argument, Borat! Your many facts + ice cold logic = a chastening experience. I’ll just watch in awe as you save the world with spit and vituperation. Thanks!

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 4, 2017 5:47 PM
Reply to  StAug

I loved you response to grumble mumble or whatever pseudonym he has taken and couldn’t stop laughing. Made my day – thanks.
M.

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 4, 2017 5:53 PM
Reply to  StAug

Well a hat would keep his brain cell warm.
Knitted with holes in it to ensure everyone knows his “creds” or a “rasta man” type with the accompanying dreadlocks?

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Feb 28, 2017 4:50 PM
Reply to  Deborah Harris

By the way I am certainly not a “denier.” I don’t deny the climate has warmed. I don’t deny it may be due to the increase in carbon in the atmosphere, since carbon is known to be a greenhouse gas. I don’t deny that if the worst case scenario of positive feedback man-made warming is true we might be in a lot of trouble. I am just scientifically literate enough to know what can be ascertained through science and what is simply guess or conjecture or – sometimes – snake oil. I am aware we don’t have enough knowledge of… Read more »

paulcarline
paulcarline
Mar 2, 2017 10:08 AM

Just start with one simple fact: there has been no warming for the past 19 or so years. Therefore the fundamental claim of the scaremongers is false. From that it should be obvious that CO2 has a minuscule effect on temperature. There have been times in the past when CO2 levels appear to have been 200 times as high as at present – but the planet did not overheat. The graphs show that CO2 levels always rise AFTER a temperature rise, not before – so there is no causal link between CO2 and temperature. That’s all the science you need to know.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 2:38 AM
Reply to  paulcarline

Paul, you’re an example of the truly deranged denialist fanatic. The last three years have successively been the hottest ever recorded, yet you have the psychotic impudence to say the world has NOT warmed for 19 years. You show yourself to be the vilest of the vile.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 2:35 AM

Moriarty, you deny being a denialist, then spew a string of denialist canards. Despicable.

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 4, 2017 5:19 AM

My goodness but you are the epitome of despicable. Calling someone trying to engage in reasonable debate despicable is very much the pot calling the kettle black whilst throwing stones at anybody and everybody from inside your glass house. Careful you don’t scrape your knuckles on your way home to your cave tonight.

StAug
StAug
Mar 4, 2017 5:43 AM
Reply to  mohandeer

M, there’s something a little off about our new friend “Mulga Mumblebrain”… almost Bot-like. The generic pool of ad hominems deployed in generic sentences… and the awkward insertion of each name of each target for attack… plus the pre-packaged AGW talking points wedged in with the ad hominems… it all seems seems rather formulaic, eh? If that isn’t software, it’s someone who isn’t much more clever than software, doing a very poor job of simulating a passionate opinion.

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 4, 2017 6:09 AM
Reply to  StAug

A bit like the ‘phone bank operators ringing numbers over and over again(as in what I describe as nuisance calls) then reading from a pre-determined script with the hope of a hit in order to boost heir earnings? The lengths some of them will go to when they get a “No thank you” are quite extraordinary and outright dishonest. The bullying, threatening and general insidious way in which they operate? It did occur to me that the performance was just a tad OTT(over the top), so you may be onto something there. Was I as bad as this vicious little… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 4, 2017 6:14 AM
Reply to  mohandeer

No, M, you were/are a Human Being with a Passionate Opinion… big diff. But I think “Mulga” is good to the extent that it he/she/it shows how the OffGuard will tend to attract infiltrators… maybe the standard term “shill” even works. We should all be on our (off)guard(ian)…

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 4, 2017 3:49 PM
Reply to  StAug

Shill is probably a close approximation. If someone wants to persuade others to their point of view, it is rather redundant if in doing so they not only insult and reduce the argument to mud slinging and alienating those you wish to “inform”. Possibly deliberate, in this particular case.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 1:09 PM
Reply to  mohandeer

You’re not ‘trying to engage in debate’, you mendacious pustule. You and you little cabal of really smarmy denialist scum are simply having fun peddling the most moronic denialist canards, and congratulating each other on how clever you are. Considering that human existence is in deep peril, that makes you truly evil swine.

StAug
StAug
Mar 4, 2017 1:19 PM

Borat, is the word “canard” your fave, or what…?

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Mar 4, 2017 2:17 PM
Reply to  StAug

@STAug, I think Mr. Mumbler makes a point: you are a pustule. I guess that settles that. AGW is real and catastrophic and upon us. How else to explain your “pustulence,” StAug? And then there are all those other things that you are if it weren’t for the “fact” of AGW. Your “denial” is the “climactic fact” that proves the disaster. You have been “comeuppanced.” And Mumbler has another point: you don’t ever engage in debate, because you don’t ever agree with everything people who engage with you believe as the Gospel Truth. And that is the Gospel Truth about… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 4, 2017 2:19 PM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Damn! DIRECT HITS! (now excuse me, I really must go emit some Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere… I’m on a rather tight schedule… Manhattan needs to be under water, like, YESTERDAY)

aletho
aletho
Feb 28, 2017 5:21 PM
Reply to  Deborah Harris

Ad hominem attacks fail to address the issues.
No doubt the AGW promoters will find an attack to level at each and every scientist that challenges their hypothesis. But that does not constitute making their case in any way.

Deborah Harris
Deborah Harris
Mar 1, 2017 3:34 AM
Reply to  aletho

Ad hominem attacks. If you’re referring to my comment about ‘Lord’ Christopher Monckton it’s a statement fact he is a fraud & a clown with plenty of evidence to support that fact.

Admin
Admin
Mar 1, 2017 11:15 AM
Reply to  Deborah Harris

Please respond to evidence with counter-evidence. Tell people why you believe the science is so settled there can be no valid criticism of any part of it. This will help a discussion. Ranting about individuals will not.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 1:13 PM
Reply to  Admin

The denialist cabal you are giving space to are NOT producing ‘evidence’- they are regurgitating long discredited lies, in the most arrogant, even snide, manner. You have turned this place into a simulacrum of the Daily Mail or any Murdoch sewer. Why? And don’t give me crap up ‘freedom of opinion’-this issue is far too important to allow malicious disinformers to hide behind that canard.

StAug
StAug
Mar 4, 2017 1:27 PM

That’s right, Borat! No more of this “freedom of opinion” nonsense! Let’s all just snap out of it and jump in line behind you! Your opinion is LAW. To disagree is pure insolence.

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 10, 2017 1:13 PM

So are many of those promoting man made argument. There is no right or wrong when both sides are lying.

BigB
BigB
Feb 28, 2017 7:34 PM
Reply to  Deborah Harris

Sapere aude = dare to know: from Latin.

Deborah Harris
Deborah Harris
Mar 1, 2017 3:27 AM
Reply to  BigB

Yes I know, still sounds like a pseudonym.

Admin
Admin
Mar 1, 2017 11:17 AM
Reply to  Deborah Harris

It is a pseudonym. Many of our writers use them as there can be a real price to pay for saying things deemed unacceptable in our increasingly surveilled age. But please (this is the third time of being asked) critique the article not the author.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 1:15 PM
Reply to  Admin

What crap! What ‘price’ do denialists pay? Much more likely is that they are paid, by the fossil fuel industry. Are you?

Manda
Manda
Feb 28, 2017 8:38 PM
Reply to  Deborah Harris

“Judith Curry is wrong …”
Wow.

Tim Groves
Tim Groves
Feb 28, 2017 11:55 PM
Reply to  Deborah Harris

Deborah Harris, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Deborah Harris
Deborah Harris
Mar 1, 2017 3:25 AM
Reply to  Tim Groves

Stupid comment.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Mulga Mumblebrain
Mar 4, 2017 1:20 PM
Reply to  Deborah Harris

Well done Deborah, to fight these vile hypocrites. I’m interested in their mob tactics. Is this the usual clientele here, or has the Daily Mail got a surplus of Dunning-Krugerites determined to cause human extinction, so just loaned a few to this place? Either way it is truly DESPICABLE to see lies, idiocies, long discredited disinformation etc, all still being regurgitated, with a slimy veneer of a criticism of a ‘carbon industry’ that doesn’t exist, and the usual denialists’ lying denial that they are deniers.

StAug
StAug
Mar 4, 2017 1:30 PM

Erm, you forgot the word “canard”.

Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Mar 5, 2017 4:42 AM
Reply to  StAug

And that’s the only reason I gave him a “down vote.”

StAug
StAug
Mar 5, 2017 6:42 AM
Reply to  Norman Pilon

Seems fair, N

StAug
StAug
Feb 28, 2017 11:09 AM
Reply to  John

“In 1991 the Shell oil company produced a half-hour film, Climate of Concern, for showing in schools and universities, that set out the dangers of climate change, apparently with unnerving accuracy.”
Anyone wondering why Shell Oil would produce a “prescient” half-hour film, for showing in schools and universities, against the practise generating its own profits? One would almost think TPTB are playing the game at a level above most of our heads…

Tim Groves
Tim Groves
Mar 1, 2017 12:13 AM
Reply to  StAug

“In 1991 the Shell oil company produced a half-hour film, Climate of Concern, for showing in schools and universities, that set out the dangers of climate change, apparently with unnerving accuracy.” Only with “unnerving accuracy” if you are a Guardian journalist. As every honest person over 30 should be able to testify, the climate has not changed perceptibly since 1991 beyond its fluctuations over the normal natural 60+ cycle. No countries or regions have changed their Koppen climate classification. Miami’s climate has not migrated to New York, Dr. James Hansen’s 1988 prediction that the Westside Highway in Manhattan would be… Read more »

Paul Carline
Paul Carline
Mar 2, 2017 9:58 AM
Reply to  StAug

Maybe because Shell and the other oil companies would actually stand to gain when governments raised the price of fuel to discourage drivers? I’ve read a suggestion that the Yom Kippur war was engineered to produce a temporary shortage of oil, thus raising the price and making it economic to start exploiting the North Sea oilfields.

StAug
StAug
Mar 2, 2017 10:09 AM
Reply to  Paul Carline

Indeed, quite often, several nefarious goals are achieved with one deception. What the Radicals need to develop, that the Right has been profiting from for quite a while, is the tradition of the Thinktank to come up with these chess moves. The Radical Internet is a vast, disorganized Thinktank, of a kind, but a focused effort (with the Randoms filtered out) would probably work wonders.

joekano76
joekano76
Feb 28, 2017 8:23 AM

Reblogged this on Floating-voter.

StAug
StAug
Feb 28, 2017 7:57 AM

So, to recap: The same “Scientific Consensus” supporting Magic Bullet Theory, and the notion that steel-frame buildings can melt and collapse owing to office fires, and that the essential ingredient in rat poison is perfectly safe (even health-giving) as an added ingredient to a national water supply, and that there’s not enough evidence to justify a large-scale study of the possible link between certain vaccines and Autism… the same “Scientific Consensus” that, not long ago, argued that smoking cigarettes was good for you… is also asserting “Global Warming… erm… Climate Change”… and some of us trust this without a bit… Read more »

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Feb 28, 2017 8:10 AM
Reply to  StAug

You’re saying that the Chinese have been duped (they’ve signaled that they’ll continue to lead the world on climate action, with or without US help) while Trump got it right. Sorry, but do you really believe that?

StAug
StAug
Feb 28, 2017 8:20 AM

I’m not privy to the Machiavellian maneuvers of intra-governmental schemes, so I can’t say any more than you can whether the Chinese are “in on it” in exchange for certain advantages. Which “sides” are the various governments on? We have no way of knowing. But Climate Alarmism would certainly be a good way to scare the world’s Serfs into acquiescing to a New Global Control System (aka a “NWO”). I’m not as settled on one view of the atmospheric realities, or another, as I am fascinated with the mechanism of getting people to believe, passionately, in a theory they can’t… Read more »

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Feb 28, 2017 8:33 AM
Reply to  StAug

So they’re either duped or they’re “in on it”.

StAug
StAug
Feb 28, 2017 8:34 AM

The real point being: neither of us can possibly know. And I’m fascinated with people who Believe without being able to know.

StAug
StAug
Feb 28, 2017 8:36 AM

BTW How’s the home made weather station in your back yard holding up? Data still flowing…? Laugh

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Feb 28, 2017 11:32 PM
Reply to  StAug

“The real point being: neither of us can possibly know. And I’m fascinated with people who Believe without being able to know.”
It’s okay, you’ve made it clear on many occasions: you neither know nor believe anything.

StAug
StAug
Mar 2, 2017 5:39 PM

“It’s okay, you’ve made it clear on many occasions: you neither know nor believe anything.”
Not being a faith-driven zealot, I tend to be honest about the limits of my actual knowledge. It’s probably less fun than clueless self-righteousness (right?) but, oh well! I can live with that.

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Mar 3, 2017 7:19 PM
Reply to  StAug

Being honest about the limits of your knowledge emphatically isn’t the same thing as strategic nihilism and helplessness in the face of concentrated wealth and power. Your individualist, life-stylist “people just have to DECIDE to stop feeding the system” is a dead-end to nowhere and is even less of a threat to the system you rail against (but have no real prescriptions against) than the revolutionaries that you’ve denounced as “paid opposition”.

StAug
StAug
Mar 3, 2017 8:21 PM

“Being honest about the limits of your knowledge emphatically isn’t the same thing as strategic nihilism…”
I’m no version of Nihilist and you’re no version of good at reading, I’m afraid.

StAug
StAug
Mar 3, 2017 8:29 PM

By the way: I’m still curious about the data flowing in to your private weather station(s), the obvious source of your certainty. I may not agree with your interpretation of the info but I can admire your industriousness in the search for the unambiguous truth. Unlike so many Dupes, hypnotized by Mass Media, you’re using primary sources.

Sorry, Not Buying it
Sorry, Not Buying it
Mar 5, 2017 12:56 AM
Reply to  StAug

“I’m no version of Nihilist”
Perhaps “defeatist” would be a better term. I’ll be generous and let you pick.

StAug
StAug
Mar 5, 2017 6:31 AM

You’re a born propagandist, Sorry. A born propagandist! As long as you’re not a professional (are you?) that’s okay, I guess.

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 10, 2017 1:08 PM

That’s not entirely fair. Just because someone does not agree with your point of view, doesn’t mean he is not entitled to that view. You can do better than this. Use your arguments in a constructive way, your judgments will have better authenticity if you remain focused on the argument and article.

Kevin Morris
Kevin Morris
Feb 28, 2017 9:14 AM

‘SO they’re either duped or in on it’ I reckon the comment ignores human nature and the bandwagon effect. SCience isn’t the isolated search for the truth that scientists would have us believe. Scientists must attract funding for their research, much of which comes from commercial bodies which may or may not have political or commercial axes to grind. Scientists know areas that are ‘safe’ and will attract funding and they know too areas of endeavour that might be accused of being ‘unscientific’. A few years ago Luc Montaigner gained a Nobel Prize for his research on the aids virus.… Read more »

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Feb 28, 2017 11:37 PM
Reply to  Kevin Morris

“Scientists must attract funding for their research, much of which comes from commercial bodies which may or may not have political or commercial axes to grind. Scientists know areas that are ‘safe’ and will attract funding and they know too areas of endeavour that might be accused of being ‘unscientific’.” This ignores that scientists who switch to the side that pleases the fossil fuel industry are often much more handsomely rewarded. It’s easy enough to “attract funding” for your research whatever your view on global warming, and those willing to find the naysayers are not at all short on cash.… Read more »

Moriartys Left Sock
Moriartys Left Sock
Feb 28, 2017 11:53 PM

There’s a bit of over-simplifying in the meme that the “fossil fuel industry funds everyone (yes absolutely EVERYONE) who questions the most extreme versions of the CAGW theory. How well does this idea stand up to any form of analysis? For one thing it assumes there is some form of separation between the billionaires who make their money from fossil fuels and the billionaires who don’t. But come on, we know that’s naive and silly. The people who own the fossil fuel industry are also making money out of alternatives (lapping up the grant funds and tax breaks), nuclear, weapons… Read more »

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Mar 1, 2017 1:27 AM

“There’s a bit of over-simplifying in the meme that the “fossil fuel industry funds everyone (yes absolutely EVERYONE) who questions the most extreme versions of the CAGW theory.” There’s no need for them to do this. They only have to fund SOME of the naysayers in order to provide a scientific veneer for their claims, and then they sit back and watch as petit-bourgeois elements in the West act as their ideological shock-troops. Third World peoples living in arid regions where there are serious problems with food and water security, and peoples living in coastal regions and small islands, however,… Read more »

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 3, 2017 2:54 AM

The 1% always hedge their bets and will use every opportunity that presents itself to make money while making monkeys out of the rest of us – no matter which side we’re on. Imagine having subsidiary companies all moving in the direction of where the money is, that affords them a lot of scope while we are all busy looking in a different direction.

Sorry, Not Buying It
Sorry, Not Buying It
Mar 9, 2017 7:10 PM
Reply to  StAug

“he same “Scientific Consensus” supporting Magic Bullet Theory”
Hilarious coming from someone who thinks in terms of technological panaceas.

StAug
StAug
Mar 9, 2017 7:19 PM

“Hilarious coming from someone who thinks in terms of technological panaceas.”
Very efficient, there, Sorry! You managed to make very little sense and be untruthful in one pointless (long-after-the-fact) comment! Top marks!

mohandeer
mohandeer
Mar 10, 2017 12:40 PM
Reply to  StAug

St. Aug. There are people on both sides of this argument who are both dishing out misinformation, lies and information taken out of context. Anyone, but most especially those purporting to be scientists, trying to demolish the arguments of people quoting “facts” by using lies, is as the title of this article suggests, merely supporting their own “meme”. Such people are not just dishonest but a disgrace to their supposed profession. The whole point of this article was to expose the sundry lies being proffered to support one side of the argument over the other. It is not helpful when… Read more »

StAug
StAug
Mar 10, 2017 1:15 PM
Reply to  mohandeer

“I will not entertain argument from those who lie…”
M! Yes, exactly. Some are just normal people locked, for personal reasons, in ATTACK MODE and have no desire to contribute to an actual debate or conversation. Others are Disinformation Bots, here to muddy the threads beyond comprehension. It’s not difficult to see who is what…

Alan
Alan
Feb 28, 2017 12:10 AM

It would appear political science trumps empirical science.