Closed Thread

« Twits and ASS at the Daily Dreck

Blinded, but not by science »

Closed Thread

January 8, 2009 by greenfyre

Up to a point. Let’s try and keep it to climate science, more or less.

Posted in Administrative | 158 Comments

158 Responses

on January 8, 2009 at 11:41 am | Reply Freegrom

I’m the voice of education for many of my denier friends, displaying the science to them, walking them through climatology and helping to show them that AGW is a reality.

I’ve read your site and I’m rather surprised. What do you hope to accomplish by simply mocking deniers? They need to be educated, not derided.
No matter how tempting it may be, we have to resist the urge to scorn the deniers: It simply incenses them and makes them more stubborn.

It’s hard not to make an argument personal. I have to watch my words carefully every time I speak with deniers. We have to not only refute their positions, but convince them that we are right. The moment we cross the line into mocking, they are no longer listening to us.
on January 9, 2009 at 3:28 am | Reply frankbi

Yeah, Freegrom, I think we’ve heard all that before… where? Ah yes.

But I never really get what Matt [Nisbet] has concluded should be done, only what shouldn’t be done, unless he refers to a book he is writing or a talk he will be giving somewhere. Whether it has to do with atheists talking about science, or using terms like “deniers” he seems to be mostly about telling people to shut up and let him do the talking.

He’s a professional at it, you know.

Since you claim that your “voice of education” methods are so
great and good, perhaps you can impart them to us? We aren’t really asking for anything much — perhaps you can just share with us a detailed story of how you were able to convince a hardline climate inactivist (say, James Inhofe?) to See the Light.
on January 9, 2009 at 9:54 pm | Reply Martha

frankbi

Most of the time, no one here is interacting with Inhofe.

So why not ask yourself your own question, but make it relevant: can you impart a few stories of how the methods of extreme sarcasm, belittlement, and putdowns, have convinced a visitor to this site to See the Light?

It is a noteworthy doublestandard that the activists who use these ‘methods’ seem quick to call similar behaviour ‘abusive’, ‘juvenile’ and ‘namecalling’, when used by a denier.

Please, give examples of how this is working for you.
on January 10, 2009 at 1:14 pm | Reply frankbi

Martha:

Why, yes I can. You know, there was once when I mercilessly mocked global warming inactivism as the conspiracy-laden pile of junk it is, and a net.lurker started going

lolz

which really pissed off a resident inactivist:

You [lurker] really opened up a can of worms with this thread. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself?

Best moment ever.
on January 10, 2009 at 6:49 pm | Reply S2

Maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t see anything wrong with Freegrom’s comment.

I have a lot of respect for frankbi, his blog is highly entertaining, informative, and well worth reading.

But in the absence of any other evidence his attack on Freegrom seems unjustified – I’m inclined to side with Martha on this one.
on January 10, 2009 at 11:31 pm | Reply frankbi

S2:

OK, just to be clear, I’m not saying we should simply mock all global warming skeptics — I’ve actually met someone who’s probably a real skeptic, and I was trying to explain to him why AGW is real.

But there are people who make it a point to lie, misrepresent, dodge, and distract, in order to ‘prove’ that AGW isn’t a problem. What’s the way to deal with those?
on January 10, 2009 at 11:42 pm | Reply frankbi

By the way, if that was what Freegrom meant, then my apologies.
on January 16, 2009 at 7:55 pm | Reply S2

At the last meeting of our local astronomy club, I presented a talk called “Climate and Cosmology” (I stole the title from a book by James Croll, who is a bit of a local hero – for a while he was a tea merchant in the town where I work).

I covered the stuff you’d expect – orbital variations (borrowing graphs from Open Mind), solar variability, “Space Dust”, bolide impacts, and even cosmic rays (as postulated by Svensmark & Shaviv).

Throughout, I emphasised the role that greenhouse gasses have played (as a feedback and as a forcing) throughout history. I ended by taking a quick look at the vast range of sciences that have an interest in climate change, and pointing out that for at least the last half century the dominant driver has been atmospheric chemistry (i.e. us).

I finished with a quote from Wally Broeker:
“The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks.”

This was my first major public talk, and I was expecting (and had prepared for) some denialist questions/arguments. I know (from previous meetings) that we have a few sceptics in the club, and some of them believe in conspiracies.

However, all the questions were rational. 🙂

The closest to a denialist question was “If we end up in a new grand solar minimum, will this negate global warming?”

I’d covered this in the talk, but the answer is no – all it might do is buy us a little time. [1]

The fiercest comments came from a retired Physics teacher, who complained that I hadn’t used the graphs that he’d expected and that I’d belittled <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Walter_Maunder"<Edward Maunder.

35% of my presentation was graphical, but I ended up discarding a lot of the graphs I’d discovered while I was preparing for the talk – I had to pare my presentation down to the allotted time.
And I’ve no disrespect for Edward Maunder – he was a fine scientist, but had little to say about the “Maunder Minimum” – that was named by Spencer Weart’s Interview with Jack Eddy, who liked the alliterative ring.

In short, I was pleasantly surprised. In a (very small and statistically insignificant) sample of the population, there doesn’t appear to be any denialism. [2]
—-

[1] You are familiar with this one? What if the sun got stuck?

[2] I am less surprised, ie how likely are they to come to a talk on climate given that they can’t just give their rant and leave without staying for the talk?

Good on ya though – keep on doing 🙂

I trust you noticed Tyndall this time? entirely thanks to you Sir 😉
Mike
on January 17, 2009 at 5:14 am | Reply S2

I trust you noticed Tyndall this time?

I did indeed, and thank you. 🙂

Sorry about the broken Maunder link.
on January 19, 2009 at 7:03 am | Reply Paul

Martha said:

So why not ask yourself your own question, but make it relevant: can you impart a few stories of how the methods of extreme sarcasm, belittlement, and putdowns, have convinced a visitor to this site to See the Light?

Education is fine. But the fact is there will always be people that refuse to be educated and will have an ‘opinion’ or a ‘belief’ instead.

eg. despite the collapse of apartheid in South Africa
despite the defeat of the Nazis
despite Darwins theory of evolution

There will always be people out there promoting racism, facism, religion etc. purely for the reason that they ‘believe’ in something and because they were educated by others that believe in it from a young age. Combine that with the fact that genes influence a persons education, then basically although education does work, the task of education and climate change will be forever and it will never be totally successful.

The fact is being sarcastic etc. is human nature.
Also having experienced posting messages on ‘skeptic’ web sites, I can tell you that they go for direct abuse and insults rather than sarcasm, belittlement etc.
Generally speaking i have found green/environmental sites to be more reasonable and generally the comments are more intelligently aggressive.
on January 19, 2009 at 7:06 am | Reply Paul

Sorry my last post was meant to have had quoted Martha and it all merged into one.

My words in the post start with:

“Education is fine…”

I got the method of quoting wrong.
on January 21, 2009 at 8:22 pm | Reply Martha

Hi, Paul

Extreme sarcasm is a blatant expression of domination and aggression; it is far from a universal form of humour; and it has nothing to do with intelligence.

Sadly, it is rampant on the Internet, where no one has to deal with the consequences of relating to others in this way i.e., in real life.

I was suggesting that it is not an effective form of communicating anything — other than one’s desire to engage in a power struggle, and to win by abusing.

Perhaps those of us who are working for change can figure out something better, at some point.

Cheers. 🙂
on January 21, 2009 at 11:18 pm | Reply frankbi

Martha:

You see, sometimes it’s not the hardline racists, fascists, fundamentalists, etc. you’re debating that you should try to ‘convert’. Sometimes the target is the group of onlookers, the lurkers, who are just observing the debate.
—-

Always. When dealing with fundamentalists it is always theatre – your lines are for the audience.
Mike
on January 26, 2009 at 10:24 pm | Reply codehead

Mike, DavidONE said, “all the climate scientists on the planet”. You supplied a link in which 75 of 77 climate scientists answered “yes” to “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” Neither are 75 climate scientists “all… on the planet”, nor did they specify “dangerously”. [1]

My original post and Mike’s reply follow (moved from https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/understanding-why-climate-change-means-global-famine/ ):

DavidONE said:
>1. all the climate scientists on the planet are correct – increasing carbon emissions are dangerously warming the planet

[codehead said:]
You are living in a dream world if you believe that all climate scientists have this opinion.
—-

To which Mike replied:

1) He isn’t as is easily documented [ http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php ]

2) Move this discussion to the Open Thread as per comment policy – last warning, next post in the wrong thread will be deleted as per policy (and I am selecting those who begin the inappropriate discussions for now).
Mike
—-

[1] As the reference I a gave you admitted, they deliberately included Spencer and Lindzen rather than do true randomness. Had they done it properly there is a good chance they would not have been included at all (given that they are 2 out of thousands), or if they had the % would have been much smaller.

Consensus will never be 100% as discussed here.

[2] The consensus is real, the science is clear … it is up to you to provide credible evidence to the contrary, not to insists on 100% consensus or quibble nits.

In the meantime ponder this “Climate change “largely irreversible for 1000 years,” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe” ie every new piece of evidence confirms what was known 20, 30, 40 years ago, but the Deniers have been singing the same ridiculous song the whole time.
Mike
on January 27, 2009 at 2:09 am | Reply codehead

Mike said:
>As the reference I a gave you admitted, they deliberately included Spencer and Lindzen rather than do true randomness.

75 out of 77. It doesn’t matter that they purposely included two known skeptics to legitimize it.

But ok, let’s pretend 75 climate scientists are the bulk of those on our planet (DavidONE said “all the climate scientists on the planet”). Well, ok, that’s absurd, so let’s say that the those that chose to respond voted as would have all other climate scientists. It doesn’t change the fact that the question was, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

So, DavidONE says:

[who:] “all the climate scientists on the planet”
[think that:] “increasing carbon emissions are dangerously warming the planet”

What the poll–which you say backs DavidONE’s assertion–says:

[who:] 75 of 77 responding climate scientists
[think that:] “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”

So, we have all climate scientists on the planet versus the reality of 75. And we have “carbon emissions” “dangerously warming the planet” versus the reality of “human activity” being “a significant contributing factor in changing “global temperatures”. The reality is that the 75 aren’t agreeing to “dangerous” (they aren’t necessarily agreeing to “carbon emissions” or “warming”, although that’s the most likely case so I’ll give you that).

I’ve already seen the press release you provided, but I’m not going to get off on a tangent. The fact is that DavidONE made a ridiculous statement, and you backed it up with something that doesn’t come close to supporting it.
on January 27, 2009 at 4:03 am | Reply frankbi

Hey codehead, you said

I’ll bow out now.

and then later you said

I’m going to bow out.

So how long more do you need to “bow out”? And by “now”, do you mean “in 10,000 years’ time”?

So, we have all climate scientists on the planet versus the reality of 75.

Well, OK, you win on that count. Not exactly “all the climate scientists on the planet” said that global warming is man-made and dangerous.

But so what? Skeptics often said that consensus isn’t science. But what is science?

Can you obtain experimental results by calling Hansen a “bureaucrat”?

Can you tell whether icecaps are melting by screaming AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM?

Can you obtain temperature readings by whining incessantly about “censorship”?

Where’s the science in all these?
on January 27, 2009 at 9:47 am | Reply codehead

>So how long more do you need to “bow out”?

Never said I wouldn’t be back–I meant of the current back ‘n’ forth banter, though the second time I was getting tired of you guys till DavidONE, never short on opportunities to call me a “liar and coward”, among other things, said, “Without calling people like codehead out, he would be here for weeks”. So, couldn’t let you folks think that you can drive folks of another opinion away by being insulting. Besides, I’m missed you, frank 😉

I think the remaining question you had are rhetorical, so have a good day…
on January 27, 2009 at 2:45 pm | Reply frankbi

codehead said

I’ll bow out now.

and later said

I’m going to bow out.

And I asked

So how long more do you need to “bow out”?

codehead replies,

Never said I wouldn’t be back–I meant of the current back ‘n’ forth banter,

Since we’re apparently in the midst of the “current back ‘n’ forth banter”, what exactly did you mean?

Here’s a little alert for lurkers out there watching this discussion: If codehead can lie, waffle, and dissemble about such things, why should anyone trust that he’s not lying, waffling, and dissembling about other things? Such as climate science, for example.
on January 27, 2009 at 4:35 pm | Reply lenny

“If codehead can lie, waffle, and dissemble about such things, why should anyone trust that he’s not lying, waffling, and dissembling about other things?”

It looks like codehead likes to post at yahoo finance message boards. Let’s have a look and see if there’s anything else codehead might be lying about.
On the previous thread here he said:

“Skeptics are not skeptical that co2 is a greenhouse gas. They are skeptical that it is a significant problem. They are skeptical that combatting this problem, with the possibility of mass suffering and starvation as a side effect, is a good idea. Again, don’t come back with a tangential argument that AGW will cause more suffering and starvation–I respect your feelings on that too. My point is that you are misrepresenting the skeptical view by saying that we deny fundamental science (water boils at 100C, co2 heats the planet). You are posing a straw man argument.”

So David was posing a strawman because Codehead would never suggest that co2 doesn’t cause warming.
But here’s Codehead on Yahoo:

“I’d be more inclined to agree if the the case for co2-based manmade global warming had a shred of credibility. It’s an incredibly weak proposal that requires ignoring known facts, and instead extrapolating the data that is convenient in a way that is questionable.”

Here’s codehead again on the previous thread:

““Serial exaggerator” is my opinion–maybe I could have used kinder words. It’s not like I called him a “liar”, “fool”, or “big fat dodo”, though.”
“And… they happened before I called Hansen a bureaucrat, which he is, and serial exaggerator. The former is a simple fact, that latter I probably would have chosen more diplomatic wording, but the tone of this board was already set.”

Codehead would have us believe that he wouldn’t usually use such intemperate language to describe Hansen, but was prompted to do so by the tone of this board. So let’s see what else codehead has to say about Hansen:

He’s lost his mind

He’s a lunatic with delusions of grandeur

He even accusing Hansen of committing scientific fraud. He’s cooked the books.
on January 27, 2009 at 6:11 pm | Reply codehead

>I’d be more inclined to agree if the the case for co2-based manmade global warming had a shred of credibility.

The “case” I was talking about is the dangerous, run-away, we’re-all-gonna die scenarios you guys like to foist. I’m not at all opposed to the idea co2 makes a small, possibly measurable (by that I mean it’s hard to separate its contribution from the larger noise of nature’s contribution) increase in temperature.

The yahoo board is not a scientific board–if I’m responding to a thread that calls for Nuremberg-type trials for skeptics or oil company execs, I think I have the latitude to call the perps “kooks” or whatever my opinion is. But please, enjoy reading, you might learn something–lol. Meanwhile, you have a board right here that calls 75 climate scientist “all… on the planet”. Pretty scientific, huh?

Good luck with your agenda, folks 😉
on January 27, 2009 at 6:17 pm | Reply codehead

>Since we’re apparently in the midst of the “current back ‘n’ forth banter”, what exactly did you mean?

Well, on the first one, I broke the chain, but you managed to drag me back in because you won’t let go of a petty issue. Why don’t you answer this question, since I answered your: How many posts are you going to issue regarding of my bowing out, then coming back?

>If codehead can lie, waffle, and dissemble about such things,
>why should anyone trust that he’s not lying, waffling, and
>dissembling about other things? Such as climate science, for example.

I bow out, then I’m back, therefore nothing I say can be the truth. Look up the definition of “ad hominem”. Nice one frank.
on January 27, 2009 at 7:13 pm | Reply lenny

Here’s some more recent codehead, in which he responds with “Note that Arctic sea ice was relatively low in the early 1900’s, when Amundsen navigated the Northwest passage” in his attempt to equate recent arctic ice extent lows with those of 100 years ago.
Before we dismiss his mistake as being due to ignorance of the fact that there was no open deepwater passage when Amundsen made the trip(as there was this past summer), we find here that another yahoo poster had previously corrected him on this fact: “It took 3 years to pass through due to ice conditions, using a route that was 3 feet deep in places.”
Now note the language he uses when he tries the Amundsen argument before he realizes it’s fallacious: here
“significance, just because that’s the only good data we have. We know that there has been a northwest passage before (first navigated by Roald Amundsen, 1903–1906).”
And:
“BTW, ‘On September 14, 2007 the European Space Agency announced that ice loss had opened up the [northwest] passage “for the first time since records began in 1978″.’ But let’s get a historical perspective–it was first navigated in 1903-05 by Roald Amundsen.”

And the language he uses in his latest comment after he knows the Amundsen argument has been debunked. He can’t resist using it again, but note how he rephrases it so that he can still imply that Amundsen’s trip is evidence that the arctic had just as little ice 100 years ago as today, while leaving himself room to deny that’s what he’s saying if he’s called on it:

“Note that Arctic sea ice was relatively low in the early 1900’s, when Amundsen navigated the Northwest passage”

First class dissembling.
on January 27, 2009 at 7:25 pm | Reply lenny

“The “case” I was talking about is the dangerous, run-away, we’re-all-gonna die scenarios you guys like to foist.”

Ok. So let’s substitute “dangerous, run-away, we’re-all-gonna die scenarios” for “case” in your previous statement and see if it makes any sense:

“I’d be more inclined to agree if the (dangerous, run-away, we’re-all-gonna die scenarios) for co2-based manmade global warming had a shred of credibility.”

Nope.

“The yahoo board is not a scientific board–if I’m responding to a thread that calls for Nuremberg-type trials for skeptics or oil company execs, ”

Do you think that defense would help you in court if Hansen were to sue you for libel for your accusation of scientific fraud?
on January 27, 2009 at 7:33 pm | Reply codehead

>Do you think that defense would help you in court if Hansen were to sue you for libel for your accusation of scientific fraud?

OMG, if I could be so lucky in life. LOL–you think that is a threat? It would be a dream come true. If you can do anything to help in that end, please, I’d be grateful.
on January 27, 2009 at 7:46 pm | Reply codehead

Lenny:
>in his attempt to equate recent arctic ice extent lows with those of 100 years ago

I didn’t equate them. I even told you what my point was when I said (wait for it…) “The point is…”

Amundsen made the passage in the early 1900’s–not easy, but then again he didn’t have a modern icebreaker either. There have been many years in between in which is was not passable. The point is as I said in that post, “The point is, the ice extent oscillates over time.” If you want to build a straw man and argue a point I did not make, you have that right–but it doesn’t make you right.

Or should I turn it around? Perhaps in disagreeing with me, you are saying that sea ice levels do not fluctuate naturally? How scientifically unsound of you, Lenny 😉

Please, encourage people to read all my yahoo investment board posts. If I get enough notoriety, perhaps I can start my own blog.
on January 27, 2009 at 7:51 pm | Reply lenny

codehead dissembles:

“OMG LOL a dream come true”

We’d all enjoy watching Hansen sue libelous deniers like yourself, as there’s no doubt he’d win – if the deniers could actually prove that Hansen has committed fraud in his work they’d have done so already.
on January 27, 2009 at 7:55 pm | Reply lenny

“The point is as I said in that post, “The point is, the ice extent oscillates over time.”

Bingo!
Great effort but Amundsen’s trip does nothing to contribute to any “point” about ice extent “oscillating”.
on January 27, 2009 at 8:21 pm | Reply codehead

Lenny, perhaps you’d like to share your gems of wisdom on “climate change” science. I haven’t seen anything from you except nitpicking the posts of other people with whom you disagree.
on January 27, 2009 at 8:46 pm | Reply codehead

Lenny said:
>So let’s see what else codehead has to say about Hansen

Or, let’s see what Roy Spencer said about Hansen today in his blog post:

“One should keep in mind that [Gore’s] main scientific adviser, NASA’s James Hansen, has the most extreme views of any climate researcher when it comes to predicting a global warming induced Armageddon.”

(I’m dying to see what the folks who were horrified at my calling Hansen a “bureaucrat” (which he is) have to say about Spencer.)

Spencer also notes, “The methods used by global warming alarmists to convince you that more carbon dioxide is going to ruin the Earth are increasingly laced with insults and attacks directed toward anyone who might disagree with them.”

Gee, I wonder where he gets that idea…
on January 28, 2009 at 8:21 am | Reply Martha

Hi frankbi

Codehead thinks you should look up the definition of ad hominem argument.

No need.

We laid out codehead’s best argument awhile back. His argument was as follows:
…“Hansen has spoken of his decision to become an advocate, as opposed to a questioning scientist. At this point he’s a bureaucrat. He’s a serial exaggerator. He’s been rewarded well for his position…”

etc
and more etc

It was an ad hominem argument and I tried to explain to codehead why it was weak and irrelevant.

Now it seems that another lesson in logic is needed.

While this form of argumentation is weak, it is not entirely without merit in some cases.

As anyone who understands logic and an ad hominem argument will tell you, the fact that someone is, say, “an idiot” and “dishonest”, does not necessarily mean that they will have a wrong opinion about, say, climate science.

However, there is nothing fallacious in refusing to put too much stock in the opinions of someone who is demonstrably an idiot and dishonest.

In fact, it would be unreasonable to trust someone like this, and refusing to accept the opinion of such a person is what is called a sound probable inference. 😉
on January 28, 2009 at 9:04 am | Reply codehead

Martha said:
>We laid out codehead’s best argument awhile back.

Oh, this becomes my “best argument”, and allows you to discount anything I say thereafter?

>His argument was as follows:
>“Hansen has spoken of his decision to become an advocate, as opposed to a questioning scientist.

He has. He’s been candid about this.

>At this point he’s a bureaucrat.

He _is_ a bureaucrat.

>He’s a serial exaggerator.

My opinion. Roy Spencer’s opinion too, in different words (his are harsher, I believe). It was in response to being pointed to an article where he says the President had four years to avert global disaster; that time frame has no scientific basis–it referred to political/bureaucratic considerations.

>He’s been rewarded well for his position…”

$250k cash prize from the Heinz (Kerry) Foundation. $720k promotional funding from George Soros. (Neither one of these were scientific funding.)

>In fact, it would be unreasonable to trust someone like this, and refusing to accept the opinion of such a person is what is called a sound probable inference.

Amazing. Well, I don’t post to change the minds of the true believers, but it does demonstrate your level of commitment to your beliefs.
on January 28, 2009 at 8:49 pm | Reply Martha

1) The fact that codehead is demonstrably foolish and dishonest does not necessarily mean that he has a wrong opinion about climate science.
2) It is unreasonable to trust the opinions of someone who is foolish and dishonest.
3) So it is fair to reject codehead’s opinions on climate science (sound probable inference)

1) The fact that Hansen is demonstrably competent and sincere does not necessarily mean that he has a correct opinion about climate science.
2) It is reasonable to trust the opinions of someone who is competent and sincere.
3) Hansen is a climate expert (bonus premise)
4) So it is fair to accept Hansen’s opinions on climate science (sound probable inference)

The end. 🙂
on January 28, 2009 at 10:58 pm | Reply codehead

>The fact that codehead is demonstrably foolish and dishonest

Do you folks sleep well at night?

BTW, some words from Hansen’s former supervisor, both about Hansen and (more interestingly) about modeling:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
on January 29, 2009 at 12:02 am | Reply lenny

“BTW, some words from Hansen’s former supervisor, both about Hansen and (more interestingly) about modeling:”

Codehead, you call yourself a “skeptic” do you? I ask because it would be a terrible abuse of the english language to describe anyone who can take that above load open-throated. I think the appropriate term would be “credulous rube”.

““I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,”

Now, I wonder why Watts cut that short? Any idea codehead? I’m sure he’s not as dishonest as you’ve proven to be.
Oh, here’s the rest of that, ” I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation,”

So he wasn’t his “boss” at all. So the entire headline is bullshit. Par for the course with deniers, but let’s carry on.

““Hansen was never muzzled ”
Uh oh, another lie.

So at this point I would think that a “skeptic” would dismiss the whole thing as a load of rubbish. But a credulous rube, well, he might just post it on this board.

Regarding Hansen:

“At this point he’s a bureaucrat”

I presume you feel it appropriate to call Hansen a “bureaucrat” and completely omit the word “scientist” because of his administrative duties, so I’m curious – What do you call Spencer, who, despite his apparent lack of administrative duties can’t manage to publish as much actual science as Hansen?
Spencer, jogger and husband? Spencer, cat lover and creationist kook?
on January 30, 2009 at 5:58 pm | Reply codehead

Lenny said”
>Spencer, cat lover and creationist kook?

LOL–gee, why am I not surprised?
on January 31, 2009 at 1:30 am | Reply lenny

“gee, why am I not surprised?”

Probably because he’s hardly the first dual climate/evolution denier.
on January 31, 2009 at 6:17 am | Reply codehead

>Probably because [Spencer’s] hardly the first dual climate/evolution denier.

So, then, you’re saying Hansen isn’t the first bureaucrat/serial-exaggerator to promote global warming?
on January 31, 2009 at 1:19 pm | Reply codehead

>Spencer, jogger and husband? Spencer, cat lover and creationist kook?

BTW, just curious about some of this–“cat lover”? Not sure what you’re getting at.

>[Spencer] can’t manage to publish as much actual science as Hansen

Not sure why you think quantity is important. Maybe Hansen is more driven to prove some point. Fundamentally, Hansen is a modeler. Here’s what one forecasting expert said recently on the subject:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/
on February 1, 2009 at 12:22 am | Reply lenny

“Bureaucrat/serial-exaggerator is your invention.
Creationist is Spencer’s own self-description.
on February 1, 2009 at 12:27 am | Reply lenny

“a statement prepared for US Senator Inhofe for an analysis of the US EPA’s proposed policies for greenhouse gases. ”

From the same folks who just made a fool of you on the “Hansen’s Boss” story, Mr. “Skeptic”?
I’m sure you’ll let us know when he publishes a paper supporting his assertions.
on February 1, 2009 at 12:47 am | Reply codehead

>Creationist is Spencer’s own self-description.

Yeah, I know. What’s your point? It appeared to be that his views on climate should be met with skepticism because of it. Is your point that climate alarmists do not believe in God, but skeptics do? That doesn’t seem to be the case. Should we have a religious inquisition, in order to separate good science from bad?

Still wondering about the “cat lover” bit.
on February 1, 2009 at 11:16 am | Reply Martha

Hi, lenny

Nice work systematically exposing codehead.

p.s. I’m not concerned about your pussycat comment: you don’t appear to have any principled objections to cats or to jogging. 😉
on February 1, 2009 at 12:23 pm | Reply codehead

>““Hansen was never muzzled ”
>Uh oh, another lie.

James Hansen is one of the top interviewed scientists of all time, all while being on the government payroll (and while accepting huge cash contributions from outside politically-connected sources).
on February 2, 2009 at 12:51 pm | Reply lenny

“Is your point that climate alarmists do not believe in God, but skeptics do?”

I said nothing about God. I referred to Spencer’s rejection of science.

Again, here’s codehead telling us that skeptics don’t deny that co2 heats the planet.

““Skeptics are not skeptical that co2 is a greenhouse gas. They are skeptical that it is a significant problem. They are skeptical that combatting this problem, with the possibility of mass suffering and starvation as a side effect, is a good idea. Again, don’t come back with a tangential argument that AGW will cause more suffering and starvation–I respect your feelings on that too. My point is that you are misrepresenting the skeptical view by saying that we deny fundamental science (water boils at 100C, co2 heats the planet). You are posing a straw man argument.”

Now here’s Tim Ball, who codehead cites approvingly:

“There is no evidence CO2 is causing global warming or climate change but that is the basis for the slur and the proposed actions.”

Read the whole thing. It’s a hoot.
on February 2, 2009 at 1:21 pm | Reply codehead

>Again, here’s codehead telling us that skeptics don’t deny that co2 heats the planet.
>“Skeptics are not skeptical that co2 is a greenhouse gas.”

Saying that there is no evidence that co2 causes global warming is not the same as saying that co2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. Also, there is certainly no evidence that co2 is causing “climate change”. There isn’t even a metric by which you can determine that–climate always changes.

Again Lenny, you’ve shared none of your own beliefs here. Do you believe the IPCC reports, for instance? Of just the worst prediction du jour?
on February 2, 2009 at 2:09 pm | Reply lenny

“Saying that there is no evidence that co2 causes global warming is not the same as saying that co2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.”

So you’re saying that co2 is a greenhouse gas but doesn’t cause any warming?
on February 2, 2009 at 2:38 pm | Reply codehead

>So you’re saying that co2 is a greenhouse gas but doesn’t cause any warming?

It doesn’t matter–it’s not about “any”, or “detectable”. How much should we pay for “any”? You can’t even separate out the contribution of co2 to the current average global temperature, but let’s say *all* of the warming is from co2. Let’s pretend that we would have stayed in the little ice age (and liked it?) for that matter. Let’s say it doesn’t matter that we’re considerably short of where we should be to meet the IPCC’s expected co2 forcing. And let’s forget that we haven’t been warming since 1998, all while co2 goes up, up, up. We both know it’s all about the predictions of future doom. You still haven’t told us what you belief. You seem content with dissecting other peoples’ wording.
on February 2, 2009 at 8:15 pm | Reply lenny

“It doesn’t matter”

Alright then, let’s try and figure out Codehead’s answer from what he’s posted.

“Saying that there is no evidence that co2 causes global warming is not the same as saying that co2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.”

Earlier DavidONE said:

“”co2 heats the planet.”

Codehead responded:

“Skeptics are not skeptical that co2 is a greenhouse gas.”
and
“you are misrepresenting the skeptical view by saying that we deny fundamental science (water boils at 100C, co2 heats the planet).”

To the question:

““Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Codehead: “don’t doubt that it’s a significant contributing factor,” might “answer yes” to the question, and “it’s(co2) a logarithmic effect–we’ve already seen most of the temperature change for a doubling.” And “powerful positive feedbacks” are the part he doubt.

But on another board Codehead said “I’d be more inclined to agree if the the case for co2-based manmade global warming had a shred of credibility. ”

and when reminded of this he said:

“I’m not at all opposed to the idea co2 makes a small, possibly measurable” increase in temperature

And finally when I post a quote from Tim Ball (who you’ve cited as a “skeptic”) saying There is no evidence CO2 is causing global warming or climate change

Codehead comes to his defence with:
“”Saying that there is no evidence that co2 causes global warming is not the same as saying that co2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.”

In summary:

Codehead says that co2 isn’t causing warming, except it warms the planet logarithmically, and he doesn’t doubt that it’s contributed significantly to .6 warming, except it’s contribution is small and only “possibly” measurable. No “skeptics” believe that co2 doesn’t cause warming except some believe that co2 doesn’t cause warming, because saying co2 isn’t causing warming isn’t the same as saying that co2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, unless someone says that deniers don’t believe that co2 causes warming, in which case that’s a strawman and saying that co2 causes warming and is a greenhouse gas is the same thing.

No wonder he answered “it doesn’t matter”. It’s gotta be hard to keep track of what you’ve said when you’re always lying.
on February 3, 2009 at 2:24 am | Reply codehead

Lenny–you can’t really tell us what you believe, can you?

>”co2 heats the planet”

Again, that wasn’t my assertion, that was a direct quote from DavidONE. I was quoting his words. I explained this before. If I was speaking for myself, I would have used my own words, instead of quoting the two phrases *exactly* in DavidONEs words. As usual, you have no grasp of the issue yourself–it’s clear that you can only manipulate what other people say, denounce, them–therefore anything they say is suspect. However, since you say nothing of your own, you risk nothing. I have to assume it’s because you have nothing to say.
on February 3, 2009 at 12:58 pm | Reply lenny

“>”co2 heats the planet”

Again, that wasn’t my assertion, that was a direct quote from DavidONE. ”

And you replied that “co2 heating the planet” was “fundamental science” that skeptics don’t deny:

“My point is that you are misrepresenting the skeptical view by saying that we deny fundamental science (water boils at 100C, co2 heats the planet).”

https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/understanding-why-climate-change-means-global-famine/#comment-1474

You can’t expect anyone to engage you on your terms when you argue in bad faith, dissemble, and repeatedly contradict yourself.
Rather than continuing to dig yourself a deeper hole in a hopeless effort to save face, have you ever considered simply being honest?
on February 3, 2009 at 1:21 pm | Reply codehead

>And you replied that “co2 heating the planet” was “fundamental science” that skeptics don’t deny:

Boy you are dense. Last time:

I said DavidONE was misrepresenting the skeptical view by saying that they deny fundamental science.

I supplied a couple of examples of what ***DaidONE*** implied were fundamental scientific facts–I used his ***exact** words to stress this point.

Not only that, but I had previous said:

>DavidONE said:
>>CO2 heats the planet. Science.
>Well, you know that’s not true.

That’s the last time, Lenny–you’re either dim or dishonest if you can’t get that right.

But Lenny… tell us about science… how much warming have we seen in degrees Celsius, due to co2 alone, since co2 has risen from 280 ppm to 385ppm (feel free to choose a different range–I’m just using the numbers that seem to be generally accepted, since the dawn of the industrial period till now)? Do you believe that the IPCC forcing figures are correct? Do you believe that the IPCC reports, in general, embody our best consensus knowledge on global warming?

An answer to the first question alone would be appreciated, if the others are too tough. Or at least from 1900 to present, if you prefer.
on February 3, 2009 at 1:53 pm | Reply lenny

Who do you think you’re fooling?

“My point is that you are misrepresenting the skeptical view by saying that we deny fundamental science (water boils at 100C, co2 heats the planet).”

Here again in the same post you say:
“But more importantly, I don’t think there is much denial that co2 raises the temperature of the planet. “

Your dishonesty is self-defeating. Why not try a different approach?
on February 3, 2009 at 2:36 pm | Reply codehead

>But more importantly, I don’t think there is much denial that co2 raises the temperature of the planet.

In that it’s a greenhouse gas. There are a lot more factors involved, and obviously it’s not the dominant force the alarmists paint it to be (otherwise they wouldn’t need to make excuses as to why the warming isn’t panning out). Lindzen gives a positive forcing for co2, yet disagrees with the alarmists on global warming, for instance.

But what about you Lenny? Incapable of taking a stand for yourself? How much warming have we seen, due to co2?
on February 4, 2009 at 8:13 am | Reply Martha

Hi lenny

You are demonstrating patience.

Let codehead read all the hyperlinks on this site that respond to questions about the science. They’re here, easily found, and do not need to be repeatedly provided to someone who apparently has no interest in reading them.

Other arguments made by codehead, unrelated to the science, have been discussed and shown to have serious problems with both logic and sincerity.

At this point, he wants to recylce his bogus denialism by demanding you respond to him point by point. It’s part of the mantra and in codehead’s case, seems to also be revelaing a profound narcissism.

I think he needs to go and do some reading. We could encourage it by ignoring him at this point, no? 😉
on February 5, 2009 at 5:25 pm | Reply lenny

“I think he needs to go and do some reading.”

Martha, you might think that codehead has simply become confused by trying to embrace every contra-climate science claim – it’s warming, it’s not, it’s the sun, it’s warming and it’s co2 but man isn’t causing the co2 increase, etc., But, that would be far too generous an assumption. No doubt he does get confused about when and where he’s spat out which one, but I’m guessing he doesn’t really believe any of them. If you start with the premise that AGW is a tool used by socialist to advance some imagined agenda then maybe it doesn’t matter whether the science is valid or not – you must oppose it. If you have to lie or variously use different conflicting counter-science arguments it can be rationalized.
“Better dead than Red,” Martha.
Shaming codehead likely won’t stop him from lying, but then, what will?
Here’scodehead posting the bogus “Hansen’s Boss”(which he may or may not have believed to be true but now knows is not) story on Yahoo. Would you like to take a guess as to whether or not he’s since corrected it?

Anyhow, I’ll update my summary of codehead’s “position” with his latest statement:

Codehead says that co2 isn’t causing warming, except it warms the planet logarithmically, and he doesn’t doubt that it’s contributed significantly to .6 warming, except it’s contribution is small and only “possibly” measurable. No “skeptics” believe that co2 doesn’t cause warming except some believe that co2 doesn’t cause warming, because saying co2 isn’t causing warming isn’t the same as saying that co2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, unless someone says that deniers don’t believe that co2 causes warming, in which case that’s a strawman and saying that co2 causes warming and is a greenhouse gas is the same thing, in that it’s a greenhouse gas, but believing it causes warming is lunacy.
on February 5, 2009 at 5:42 pm | Reply lenny

“I think he needs to go and do some reading.”

Martha, you might think that codehead has simply become confused by trying to embrace every contra-climate science claim – it’s warming, it’s not, it’s the sun, it’s warming and it’s co2 but man isn’t causing the co2 increase, etc., But, that would be far too generous an assumption. No doubt he does get confused about when and where he’s spat out which one, but I’m guessing he doesn’t really believe any of them. If you start with the premise that AGW is a tool used by socialist to advance some imagined agenda then maybe it doesn’t matter whether the science is valid or not – you must oppose it. If you have to lie or variously use different conflicting counter-science arguments it can be rationalized.
“Better dead than Red,” Martha.
So reading won’t help and shaming codehead likely won’t stop him from lying, but then, what will?
Here’scodehead posting the bogus “Hansen’s Boss”(which he may or may not have believed to be true but now knows is not) story on Yahoo. Would you like to take a guess as to whether or not he’s since corrected it?

Anyhow, I’ll update my summary of codehead’s “position” with his latest statement:

Codehead says that co2 isn’t causing warming, except it warms the planet logarithmically, and he doesn’t doubt that it’s contributed significantly to .6 warming, except it’s contribution is small and only “possibly” measurable. No “skeptics” believe that co2 doesn’t cause warming except some believe that co2 doesn’t cause warming, because saying co2 isn’t causing warming isn’t the same as saying that co2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, unless someone says that deniers don’t believe that co2 causes warming, in which case that’s a strawman and saying that co2 causes warming and is a greenhouse gas is the same thing, in that it’s a greenhouse gas, but believing it causes warming is lunacy.
on February 6, 2009 at 7:40 pm | Reply codehead

Still unable to tell us what you believe, Lenny?

Yes, co2 is a greenhouse gas, and has the capacity to warm the planet a small amount. Clearly, it’s dwarfed by other factors, because we haven’t been warming nearly as much as the IPCC forcing estimates would predict (but closer to Lindzen’s estimates). But then, you won’t tell me how much temperature increase we’ve seen due to co2. You quibble about my wording as to whether it’s measurable or not, but the fact is that you can’t quantify it in any manner yourself. And that’s why you remain silent on the subject.

I always assume I’m typing to intelligent human beings. That’s why I don’t write a big disclaimer every time, but once in a while I have to spell it out: I do not believe catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

But let’s get practical. Say the chicken littles are right. Then we need to get started with serious action today. Does it bother you that the head of the IPCC (Pachuri), Nobel Peace Prize winner, says that the huge developing countries. “Of course, the developing countries will be exempted from any such restrictions but the developed countries will certainly have to cut down on emission,” the Economic Times of India reports the well-known vegetarian telling a domestic audience in New Delhi.

That’s why I’m asking you what you believe. If you believe the dire cases, then if you have any handle on the science whatsoever, you know that exempting the developing nations will do nothing towards solving the supposed problem. It would just be an expensive experiment in social engineering with no discernible effect on climate.

I’m especially leery of the folks who accept the most dire predictions of scientists and pronounce it irrefutable, yet call for changes that would be simultaneously expensive and useless for stopping the effects of AGW (disclaimer for Lenny: I don’t believe AGW is a problem, I talking about other people who do).

Now, I’m not pointing fingers at the people here–I expect most warmers here would think that Pachauri’s position is ridiculous, and better suited towards modify world order rather than combatting “climate change”. But unfortunately its the kind of action you can expect, at best–especially considering the expense and the state of world economies. So, I feel a little sorry for the true believers, because at least their hearts might be in the right place (I question the thought process), as there is little chance the the action they call for will ever produce action that would mitigate the problem to any significant degree (again, if it existed).

For Lenny, I know I’ll have to put this in simpler terms:

If you believe in catastrophic consequences tied to the small amount of co2 in the atmosphere that is added by man, you must shoot for getting rid of most of it (it’s a logarithm effect–reducing output by 10%, for instance, effectively does nothing). James Hansen is pretty clear on this point. I don’t know why Pachauri seems to be confused about it–it seems to be a political decision.
on February 6, 2009 at 11:18 pm | Reply lenny

“That’s why I don’t write a big disclaimer every time, but once in a while I have to spell it out: I do not believe catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.”

Nope. You’re quite clearly denying that co2 causes warming here for example.
The only question that you’re fit to discuss is, why do you lie? Is it just because you’ve painted yourself into a corner? Are you afraid of commies?
on February 7, 2009 at 8:35 am | Reply Martha

Hi lenny

Great questions.
By the way, good news! Speaking about the Copenhagen Climate Conference (November 2009), Rajendra Kumar Pachauri comments in the Indian newspaper The Economic Times that he anticipates that at this particular conference, they will likely decide on a strict regulatory regime for developed countries. The urgent priority in addressing the climate change crisis in 2009 is to dramatically reduce emissions, so naturally, the most relevant intervention must focus on the source of the bulk of current emissions. Moreover, the populations that are contributing the least to the problem (or have contributed the least to date) are the most vulnerable and will be affected the most negatively if we do not act.

Meanwhile, Pachauri is mainly known for his activities related to assisting developing countries to create and implement local responses to climate change in preparation for changing course. The plans for developing countries presently have to be more local and adaptive. The Copenhagen conference might exempt them from the strictest emissions regulations for the time being, but not in the future.

Since addressing climate change requires a multi-national, multi-pronged approach that sets both short and longterm priorities, the planning calls for responsibility-taking by all to the best of their abilities.

Nothing very complicated about that, but people do seem to find it confusing. 😉
on February 7, 2009 at 1:15 pm | Reply codehead

>You’re quite clearly denying that co2 causes warming here for example.

Lenny–still incapable of telling us what you think, huh. Is it just a bandwagon for you?

But I’m curious. I read my comments of a year ago at the link you provided. Could you be more specific about what I said that you have fault with in those posts?
on February 7, 2009 at 2:03 pm | Reply codehead

Martha said:
>The urgent priority in addressing the climate change
>crisis in 2009 is to dramatically reduce emissions, so
>naturally, the most relevant intervention must focus
>on the source of the bulk of current emissions.

It seemed, from your post, that you’re OK with not imposing emissions restrictions on developing countries–is that correct? You do understand that China and India are considered developing countries, right? China has surpassed the US in greenhouse gas emissions to rank #1, and are building coal-fired power plants at a very high rate, and scheduled to continue through 2012. India is the fourth largest producer.

Per capita, their output is much lower than the US (which is far from the highest per capita), but of course industrialization means that their per-capita output will rise significantly. It seems inevitable that it won’t be long before the two produce more than half the world’s co2 output.

Developing countries put out nearly half the total greenhouse gas emissions, and will overtake the developed countries within a few years with the higher growth rate. The math here is pretty simple–if you exclude developing countries from restrictions, then any reductions in developed countries only yields half that improvement to the world, and less than that as time progresses. And if China, for example, builds its industrialization on the hundreds of new coal plants it is adding, it’s not likely that they will abandon them in just a few years. They are expected to exceed the overall pollution (not just GHGs, but pollution) of the entire developed *world* in the next couple of decades.

If GHGs are a potentially catastrophic problem, as you appear to believe, how can you exclude developing nations and have any hope of remedying the problem? (Just looking for clarification of your views.)
on February 7, 2009 at 10:33 pm | Reply Martha

lenny

I see codehead is wondering about our math skills – or at least mine.

The relevant equation is this: developed equals relatively rich and developing equals relatively poor. There is no disputing the inequalities between developed and developing countries. Indeed, the wealth of the most developed nations has required the continued impoverishment of the developing world.

It is unlikely that there can be a deal in Copenhagen re. targets for China (or India) until the developed countries are willing to get serious and use their considerable resources to change course.

China and India will be required to change course too, of course, but Rajendra Kumar Pachauri is accurately assessing the dynamics of the situation: the countries who have (to date) caused the bulk of the historical situation and have reaped the benefits of it, need to demonstrate leadership and a clear commitment to reductions. They also need to assist developing countries with new technologies e.g. clean(er) coal plants in China.

The poverty and insecurity of developing countries is a significant consideration for policy development in response to climate change.

The delta regions of Africa, Asia, island countries, and regions of the high North, are especially vulnerable to massive displacement from high sea levels and flooding, and generally speaking these regions do not have the infrastructure to deal with these crises.

Subsistence farmers around the world are facing displacement and crop germination and yields are already being disrupted. This threatens the food supply.

A number of developed countries with water wish to trade in water rather than sign the UN convention making water a universal right. As such, people in the most drought-affected areas will likely die.

People die in large numbers from water-borne illnesses in developing countries and this has worsened in recent years due to floods that mix contaminated floodwater with the supply of drinking water.

It is absurd for the codeheads of the world to expect families in India to live without adequate food or water, never mind basic healthcare or electricity, in order to ensure that families in America will continue to be able to drive around in SUV’s and do their housework using 10 convenience appliances.

The science unequivocally tells us what changes are needed.

How we achieve these changes involves some math skills, alright, in the form of moral math.
on February 8, 2009 at 12:08 am | Reply codehead

Martha said:
>The science unequivocally tells us what changes are needed.

Funny you should say that, after concerning most of your post with what politics and economics dictate.

Anyway, just as I thought–thanks for the clarification.
on February 8, 2009 at 12:00 pm | Reply Martha

Hello codehead

Your thought processes require one final deconstruction.

The science unequivocally tells us what changes are needed: drastic emissions reductions as soon as possible, international plans, individual changes to consumption and energy use, assistance to citizens to adapt, and aid to climate change refugees.

The science provides knowledge about the science.

Public discussion and politics provides the decisions and action on this knowledge.

No one is pretending otherwise.

This climate change education site focuses on the science, and on the problem of denialism. If you really want to discuss policy and action, there are lots of other sites.

The best fit for your beliefs might be a neoconservative site where you could be at home with your political beliefs.

In your most recent series of rants in response to the concerns of Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, you have revealed your view of social problems.

Pehaps the best case scenario is that you would like to ensure that citizens of the world have access to food and water — but nothing more.

Clearly, you do not want governments to get in the way of what you consider ‘natural’ or to correct or mitigate people’s suffering.

You are unable to consider the environmental and structural sources of social problems and instead see the citizens of the developing world e.g. Indian people, as the source of their own troubles.

You reveal yourself as someone who needs to see climate change as a myth in order to justify your racism.

Those of us who collectively care about the planet and all its people can therefore agree that this is not the site for you.
on February 8, 2009 at 12:57 pm | Reply codehead

>You reveal yourself as someone who needs to see
>climate change as a myth in order to justify your racism.

I asked before, “Do you folks sleep well at night?”
on March 31, 2009 at 10:19 pm | Reply Richard Mercer

codehead, and others of like mind

I recommend reading the new book, “The Carbon Age” by Eric Roston

You will learn that what we are doing with the short term carbon cycle is probably unprecedented in the history of the planet, or at least in the history of life on the planet. It is not a natural cycle, not even close.

It took 60 million years for coal to develop in the earth, by precipitating out of the short term carbon cycle, and being locked away in coal deposits and into the long term carbon cycle. Now we are releasing this 60 million year accumulation of carbon back into the atmosphere and thus, back into the short term carbon cycle, in 150-200 years, or a geological nanosecond. Common sense and basic science is enough to see the problem with that.
Life as we know it has survived within a fairly narrow band in the carbon cycle for tens, if not hundreds, of millions of years.

Similar story for oil.

And the acidification of the oceans has the potential to disrupt one of the biggest carbon sinks on earth, the tiny shelled algae called cocolithophores, which remove carbon from the short term cycle when they die and their shells fall to the deep sea floor, essentially locking it out of the short term carbon cycle. They may not be able to form their shells in a lower pH ocean. Same for shellfish in general and the coral reefs which 25% of sea life depends on.

China is making some good moves toward cleaner energy. They have set emissions goals, and are developing wind and solar. China built over 6 GW of wind energy last year, surpassed only by the 8.3 GW of new wind energy in the U.S. last year. This week China announced a $30 billion subsidy for solar installations in China.
While not a perfect situation, it’s a big improvement.

“So, I feel a little sorry for the true believers,”

It is you who are a “believer”, the others have science behind what they say. A recent poll of scientists found that 80% in general agree with the AGW theory, and more importantly, 97% of active climate scientists agree with it. I believe the percentage is even higher than 97%.

Every major scientific organization in the world agrees with the IPCC. But I suppose you know better. Sounds like you got religion to me.

Unfortunately, about half of the American public has been duped by the massive propaganda campaign funded by fossil fuel companies. They don’t need to win the argument, just keep the idea going that the science is not certain. They have exploited the small sliver of doubt about the science, in the minds of the public, and levered it into a chasm with their PR effort. It’s easy to use skilled public speakers who know how to sound scientific and make it sound like the real thing.

Deniers are quick to believe absurd conspiracy theories about communist plots, one world domination, plots to raise taxes, take away your SUV, etc, but don’t seem to get that the biggest economic enterprise in the history of the world, with the most to lose in a transition to clean energy might have motivation to confuse the public.
And they call the scientists alarmists!

As Obama’s new White House science advisor John Holdren says, they give the venerable tradition of scientific skepticism a bad name.
—-

Thank you for the effort, but I fear it is wasted on the likes of codehead
Mike
on March 31, 2009 at 11:56 pm | Reply codehead

>You will learn that what we are doing with the short term carbon cycle is probably unprecedented in the history of the planet

I already know to not both reading the book then–that notion is ridiculous. The author started out writing college baseball, was a business reporter, and moved to health and environmental issues. please learn from someone who knows something. Please read actual science, not science as told by a reported with a master’s degree in Russian thought and Slavic linguistics, and a BA in European history. I’m sure he’s a smart guy, but I’ll read the research papers instead, thanks.

>They may not be able to form their shells in a lower pH ocean.

Coral, shellfish, etc., evolved in a much higher ph ocean. Why would they lose that capability now?

>China is making some good moves toward cleaner energy.

They are the biggest polluters on the planet. And they’re been building, what, one or two coal plants a week, for the next few years? You’ve got to be kidding.

> A recent poll of scientists found that 80% in general agree with the AGW theory, and more importantly, 97% of active climate scientists agree with it.

Wake up. The 97% is 75 of 77 respondent. Interestingly, they pointed out that they made sure to invite two well-known skeptics. Naturally, they would have been laughed at if they had come out with “100% of climate scientists agree…” (it’s like the “4 out of 5 dentists recommend”–you can’t say 5 out of 5 or you look like a liar).

Also, about “80% in general agree with the AGW theory–you didn’t read the research paper. The question was whether “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.” Even vocal skeptics Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels say man has. Of course, they feel it’s not a threatening amount, and is overshadowed by nature.

Click to access 012009_Doran_final.pdf

>I believe the percentage is even higher than 97%.

I think the key there is “I believe”. You are a true believer. The threat is all in the models.
on April 1, 2009 at 12:40 am | Reply Richard Mercer

I obviously failed to read all the messages, as I see the poll of scientists was already discussed. Where am I getting the idea that more than 97% of climate scientists agree with AGW? From the lists of supposed sketpic scientists like the Oregon Petition, which apparently is up to 31,000 now. On closer inspection, it’s been shown to contain maybe 150-200 climate scientists. 200 is 0.4% of the 50,000 members of the AGU. Even if there were a thousand, it would only be 2%.

Senator Inhofe’s list of 650 is equally lacking in climate scientists, but is heavy on TV weathermen.
I’ll be fair and give it 3-4% of the number of members of the AGU.

Heartland Institutes list of “experts” is laughable, with lots of petroleum engineers, public policy people, economists, etc. They couldn’t sign up a single climate scientist in Texas and that’s a big oil state.

So the poll sounds about right. Isn’t a poll of 3,100 scientists a fairly large sampling? If I’m not mistaken, pollsters poll about that many people as a sampling of very large demographic groups, like all Democrats or whatever.
on April 1, 2009 at 1:23 am | Reply codehead

>From the lists of supposed sketpic scientists…

OK, you gave your numbers and estimates for skeptical scientists–what about the AGW side? A small number of the IPCC’s “2,500” (I believe that’s what they touted for the AR4) have had any connection with climate science–many are social scientists. William Schlesinger, at a global warming debate with John Christy, admitted that “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” And that “some dealing.”

From my point of view, many skeptics would be unlikely to take a vocal stand against AGW, and not have any room to get some of the $4B annual grant money for researching it (we’ve seen a few that retired, then came out of the closet with skepticism). But I’m willing to set that aside and just say that there is no accounting for which side climate scientists are on. You fault the number on the skeptics side, but I haven’t even seen a per scientist accounting of any kind on the AGW side. I’m just saying, again, that there is no reliable accounting of this–you say you believe more that 97%, but you have no basis. You can’t back it up, and I can’t refute it. We don’t know.

I would love to see a true accounting of the warming scientists, but I’m pretty sure that side doesn’t want a head count–it’s far safer for them to let people maintain the notion of overwhelming consensus.

However, I believe it doesn’t matter. Science isn’t voted upon. The consensus has been wrong in science over and over throughout history.
—-

Start here
Then here

Then have the simple courtesy to do a little internet research before posting comments that are obvious nonsense – it is what decent people do.
Mike
on April 1, 2009 at 1:22 pm | Reply Vernon

I have a question that I do not know the answer to, so wanted to ask if anyone knows of a study, etc. The question is:

If most of CO2 is produced in the Northern Hemisphere (based on fossile fuel energy production) then why is there no difference between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere?

I figured I was ask first here. I cannot find anything anywhere that addresses this issue. Yes, I saw this at a denier site and started looking up the research it was based on but I cannot find where it is addressed.

I did find a listing of the studies that show that CO2 takes from .9 to 1.2 years to move from the Northern to Southern Hemisphere, which was very different then what that site claimed. (That was why I did not ask on that site, they were putting out bad info.) What I cannot find is anything that explains why CO2 is homogenous despite the production being mainly in the North.

So anyone aware of any studies that explain this?
on April 1, 2009 at 2:22 pm | Reply frankbi

Vernon:

Sounds like an interesting question. Which studies are you referring to?

— bi
on April 1, 2009 at 2:46 pm | Reply Vernon

Frank, I found the studies that show how long it takes for CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere to get into the Southern. The main work was done during the open air nuclear testing.

Turbulent diffusion in environmental pollution proceedings of a symposium held at Charlottesville, Virginia, April 8-14, 1973
By François N. Frenkiel, H. E. Landsberg, R. E. Munn, International Union of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Published by Academic Press, 1974

Page 59 has a list of time to diffuse between North and South. Now I do not understand why bomb produced C14 takes varies from 1 – 4.4 years but the CO2 varies between .9 and 1.2.

If it takes .9-1.2 years for CO2 to move from North to South then why is there not a difference between North and South?

http://geology.com/nasa/carbon-dioxide-map/

Carbon Dioxide Mapping NASA Maps Shed Light on Carbon Dioxide’s Global Nature NASA news release from October 9, 2008

Show that North and South are the same.

So what I am looking for is a paper that explains why the North and South are the same if CO2 is being produced in the North more so than in the South. I cannot find one.
on April 1, 2009 at 3:10 pm | Reply Vernon

Or if you want the data from the individual stations, it is at:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.html
on April 4, 2009 at 4:41 pm | Reply codehead

>Start here
>Then here
>Then have the simple courtesy

Have the simple courtesy to tell me what parts of my post you disagree with, instead of giving your usual links to what you feel passes for education.
—-

If you looked at them you’d have a clue.
on April 5, 2009 at 3:13 pm | Reply Martha

1) What is on p. 59 of the above reference and how is it relevant?

I don’t see what he sees. An online p. 59 of this collection of symposium papers appears to display a bibliography for the paper submitted by the late (died 1986) Stanley Corrsin, who was an engineering professor at Johns Hopkins. He studied turbulence. At the university site I see that his contributions to his field may have assisted in the development of computer models in the earth sciences.

Zooming to 2006, modern engineering research papers related to earth sciences clearly accept the fact of climate change.

I find the internet so helpful in providing access to both current and past research, to see the history and strength of climate change knowledge.

2) What is his question regarding the NASA map? He seems to want to say that the data is not consistent with the facts of climate change.

False. The map displays results that cohere with current knowledge of the natural carbon cycle and human-caused warming, consistent with information from the most up-to-date atmospheric transport models and C02 concentration data from other sources.

Perhaps he will explain the factual basis of his question.

Or not, given past experience.

Cheers.
on April 5, 2009 at 3:44 pm | Reply codehead

>If you looked at them you’d have a clue

I see. So, you’re unable to tell me what I said that was wrong, and you’re hoping I waste my time desperately searching for what I said wrong. Interesting debate tactic.
—-

Providing credible sources that address your issue is valid … you would prefer I cut and paste the content into this thread to save you a mouse click? Should I come over and read it for you too?

Refusing to look at the evidence provided does not change the fact that your point has been addressed. The mature thing to do is admit your error.
Mike
on April 5, 2009 at 7:52 pm | Reply Vernon

Martha,

If you did not understand the question or inference from the data, you could have just asked in a civilized manner. Instead you seem to feel the need to talk down to me and make snide comments about me. Further, I believe that you do not understand the question, nor do you know of any studies that could explain the discrepancy.

That is too bad because I would really like to know that answer. That you do not understand the basis for the question strikes me as odd but let me explain it again. The problem and the question are:

1. What is important is page 59? Well, page 59 of the book had a list studies and results for the diffusion and distribution of gases between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. That is, the time it takes for an injection of a gas in the Northern Hemisphere to travel to the Southern Hemisphere. CO2 was one of the gases studies.

2. It is a well documented fact that most CO2 produced by man takes place within the Northern Hemisphere, by most, I mean 80 percent or more of fossil fuels are burned in the Northern Hemisphere.

3. I have in the past only looked at the global average for CO2. However, when I saw the NASA graphic, I was surprised. I expected to see more CO2 in the north and a lesser amount in the south, but they looked almost the same. That led me to look at the individual station data for CO2 measurements and they do not differ by much. I got a rough estimate of less than a 1 percent difference.

The question is simply, does anyone know why the hemispheres are the same when they should be different and if so, could they direct me to the study?

I do not know the answer to this which is why I posted asking if anyone did. I do not think there is a moral or philosophical issue here so I really do not expect you to answer this. You could surprise me, but I cannot remember when you have addressed science.
on April 6, 2009 at 7:06 am | Reply Martha

Vernon, p. 59 is a bibliography. I’m not sure what minutiae you are pursuing, but I feel quite sure you have not read the paper(s), never mind the extensive bibliography which includes unpublished papers and papers that are not available outside academic archives. Regardless, knowledge in this area has advanced since 1974 (and if you read the abstract, you would also see it says much of the information is from the previous decade).

Come on.

Moreover, you cannot have read (or perhaps you have, but apparently you have not understood) your own link to geography.com and you seem to interpret the significance of the map quite differently from scientists: it show C02 concentrations and the mechanisms of inter-hemispheric transport of C02. If you take the time to read and understand, you would not be asking your question.

You are up to your usual disingenuous discussion. Please consider reading what scientists can explain to you on credible sites (including this one) rather than being such an obviously frequent visitor at Heartland, Watts, etc. — where your ‘question’ is presently getting airplay.

I admit I am concerned about your poor reasoning process in addition to your weak knowledge of the science.

Cheers!
on April 6, 2009 at 1:29 pm | Reply Vernon

Martha,

Even though I expect nothing from you other than a snarky post, since you did not go to the right document here is the link right to the page for the correct document.

http://books.google.com/books?id=90mrkBcqfd0C&dq=Turbulent+diffusion+in+environmental+pollution+proceedings+of+a+symposium+held+at+Charlottesville,+Virginia,+April+8-14,+1973&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=PwS6NKLUdP&sig=nrQ_JzV2wtd-NitGd_hTqkSOL-w&hl=en&ei=bSPaSfrnE8rflQeYo6TDDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA59,M1

Since I have never seen you actually address a scientific issue, I will be truly surprised if you do now. It does make me chuckle to hear you question anyone on their understanding of the science.
on April 7, 2009 at 6:44 am | Reply Paul

Vernon. The issue is far more complicated than CO2 from fossil fuels moving from North to South.
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are a result of numerous processes, that is they are the remainder of ongoing processes, not the result of purely adding CO2 by burning fossil fuels.

Our contributions are nudging the global concentrations up because of failing CO2 sinks and feedback effects.
on April 7, 2009 at 7:09 am | Reply Vernon

Paul,

Please point to a study that shows that. What you just said was that CO2 from fossil fuels is not the issue, if it is not, then what is?
on April 7, 2009 at 10:36 am | Reply codehead

>Should I come over and read it for you too?
>The mature thing to do is admit your error.

Should I remind you that you have not yet told me what point in my post you believe to be incorrect? I posted several paragraphs stating something, you reply was “start here. then here. Then have the simple courtesy to do a little internet research before posting comments that are obvious nonsense…”

You have not told me what part of it was nonsense. For instance, I posted some facts about the “97% of climate scientists” survey–are you disputing those facts? Or do you intend to be vague so I can remain “wrong” (about what, yet to be determined)?
on April 7, 2009 at 12:02 pm | Reply Paul

“Please point to a study that shows that. What you just said was that CO2 from fossil fuels is not the issue, if it is not, then what is?”

Well you will read whatever you want!
That doesn’t surprise me.

What i was implying was that our contributions are adding to the total CO2 being added to the atmosphere and then the sinks are failing to remove all of the extra we are adding.
The point being is that the increase is the result of those complex processes, the result is an increase of CO2 because the sinks are not capable of handling the extra CO2.

The problem isn’t with the idea that we are adding CO2, the problem is your simplistic idea of what you think should be happening.

You ‘expect’ to see what you want to see.
on April 7, 2009 at 12:09 pm | Reply Paul

Codehead said:

(China)”They are the biggest polluters on the planet. And they’re been building, what, one or two coal plants a week, for the next few years? You’ve got to be kidding.”

1. Some 30% of Chinas emissions are due to exported industry from Europe and the US, the products of which are largely re-imported back.

2. The carbon footprint per capita is still small compared to the US and Europe.

3. They are just copying American economic ideas. Who is to blame for that?
on April 7, 2009 at 12:19 pm | Reply Paul

Codehead said:

“I would love to see a true accounting of the warming scientists, but I’m pretty sure that side doesn’t want a head count–it’s far safer for them to let people maintain the notion of overwhelming consensus.”

paul:

Science isn’t about ‘positive discrimination’. If more scientists are saying that AGW is correct, i suggest that it is because it holds up to analysis by the scientific community.
Just because someone has an alternative explanation doesn’t mean it is worth funding. Science also isn’t about getting answers people are happy with, although some people think it should be.

If you want happy answers that mean that you can just carry on ‘business as usual’ then take a ‘happy pill’!
on April 7, 2009 at 4:38 pm | Reply codehead

Paul: None of your post really addressed what I said in the bit you quoted–not sure if you understood what I was saying. You seem to be putting words in my mouth.
on April 7, 2009 at 4:54 pm | Reply codehead

Paul:

Interesting rationalizations, but China is the biggest polluter on the planet. They are building coal plants at a high rate, and they are scheduled for years. If you believe what Hansen says about coal, and the viewpoint of this website, you can’t excuse China just because “they are just copying American economic ideas”, etc. You must realize that if you buy the view that AGW is a dire threat, the US and European output could go to zero (impossible, of course, since even if we all committed mass suicide, our rotten corpses would still emit), the planet would not be saved if China doesn’t do something.

And of course, I’m only talking about co2 here–not real pollution, which they contribute mightily.

I’m not saying this to drum up anti-Chinese sentiment. But it does separate the wheat from the chaff. Those who believe in the (supposed) dire world situation with AGW, yet defend China and India’s right to pump out co2 at a high rate, either don’t understand the science they point to, or have other motives.
on April 7, 2009 at 7:33 pm | Reply Vernon

Actually, I was looking at the data at the CO2 sources sinks in America and 46 percent of fossil fuel use could be done away with fairly easily.
on April 8, 2009 at 3:12 am | Reply Paul

Codehead:

“Interesting rationalizations, but China is the biggest polluter on the planet.”

Paul:

They aren’t rationalisations, they are known facts. Per capita emissions are a true indicator of energy/resource use and waste. American per capita emissions are one of the highest, although not as high as many middle east nations such as UAE, Saudi etc. UK emissions per capita are about half that of the US.

Codehead:

“They are building coal plants at a high rate, and they are scheduled for years.”

Paul:

Each nation has to cut their emissions drastically, blaming someone else when your own emissions are worse isn’t the way to get change. We have a responsibility to cut our own emissions and not find scape goats elsewhere.
China is probably far more aware of environmental issues now because of the mistakes made, they also have a massive project to increase renewables.

Codehead:

“If you believe what Hansen says about coal, and the viewpoint of this website, you can’t excuse China just because “they are just copying American economic ideas”, etc. ”

Paul:

The problem isn’t that China should be excused. The problem is that you think you can excuse yourself because China appears to excuse itself. That is normally called apathy.

Codehead:

“I’m not saying this to drum up anti-Chinese sentiment. But it does separate the wheat from the chaff. Those who believe in the (supposed) dire world situation with AGW, yet defend China and India’s right to pump out co2 at a high rate, either don’t understand the science they point to, or have other motives.”

Paul:

Incorrect!
China and India are not excused. It is you and others that believe that. Both China and India have their own growing environmental groups who campaign in their own countries. Like us, they aren’t interested in nationalistic politics, they believe a job needs to be done and want their own governments to cut emissions. Environmental issues, including emissions have to be integrated into politics and economics.
What i and others do is defend China and India because they are used as excuses for not taking action, but i also am critical of a China and India.
on April 8, 2009 at 7:50 am | Reply Martha

Vernon,

Thank you for the link to the p. 59 in question. That is helpful.

I have read it and additional pages for more information and context.

What would you say is the purpose of the research? What would you say are the assumptions? What conclusions were drawn?

I see nothing inconsistent with today’s facts about human-caused warming. Nothing at all.

I do see that deniers have influenced your interpretation of this old data and that you are impressed with Tom Quirk’s article, where you are getting your nonsense.

Note to self: Dr. Tom Quirk, of Inhofe list fame, former mining consultant.

Have you read anything at all on this site, or do you just visit because there are no laws against posting stupid opinion wherever you can?

Quirk’s article (you very clearly know the one — why not cite it as your source?) denies that the burning of fossil fuels is a key cause of climate change and assumes an equatorial source i.e., natural source. The nuclear-era research paper you choose to cite does not support this. Although there is mention of the question of equatorial sources, that is not the context within which the question the raised.

You completely and deliberately distort the purpose of the scientific research you cite.

You use it to fabricate a false conclusion.

You completely overlook the real importance of this early research on transport models.

And finally, you ignore the rest of the current research – including a host of information apart from the models, all of which clearly demonstrate the fact of climate change.

This is despicable.

Please get some research literacy skills and some integrity.

“My heart is moved by all that should be.”
on April 8, 2009 at 9:56 am | Reply codehead

OK, Paul, I think I understand you point of view. However, I don’t agree “per capita” is the important issue here. China has a huge population–we wouldn’t become “better” if we produced more offspring to drop our per capita output. The math is simple, and it’s the bottom line: if co2 is causing (or will cause) dire consequences for our planet, you can’t let China and India grow in that regard–regardless of your notion of fairness. I was called a racist when I pointed out the the head of the IPCC told India that developing countries would be excluded from limitations, and asked how people felt about it.

Frankly, if a person wants to let them expand while forcing US and Europe to contract (and they believe the AGW dire consequences), they either don’t understand the science behind their convictions, or they are using it as a platform for another agenda.

I don’t subscribe to the theory of co2 as a threat. I think India and China need to develop, give their people a higher standard of living, and quickly get onto the business of cleaning up the mess they make on the way there. Like I said, this is simply a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff for me. Those who believe India and China should be exempt are misguided in one way or another. Those who recognize it’s a serious problem to let China build coal plants at a high rate at least stand behind their convictions, even though they are different than mine.
on April 8, 2009 at 10:27 am | Reply Vernon

Martha,

So I will ask WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH MY QUESTION?

You completely and deliberately distort the purpose of the scientific research you cite.

You use it to fabricate a false conclusion.

You completely overlook the real importance of this early research on transport models.

I distored that purpose of the research? Can you please tell me what the purpose of the research was, either the studies on the transport of gases between the hemispheres or the recording of CO2 levels that I distored and where I distored them?

Since I have not reached a conclusion and was simply asking if anyone knew of a study that explained CO2 distribution, how did I fabricate anything false?

Just what was the real importance of this early research on transport models that I missed. Please explain this.

Guess I was right, you don’t know any science and you could not point to a study that addresses the issue.
on April 8, 2009 at 12:39 pm | Reply gmo

Vernon,

Do you really expect greater CO2 amounts in the NH than the SH? If so, why? Assuming that I am guessing you just do not understand some basic points that I believe some web searching on terms like global carbon budget and carbon cycle could answer. Perhaps that source you cite is somehow misleading your thinking.

CO2 is a well-mixed greenhouse gas because its average residence time in the atmosphere is on the order of a decade. That is long enough for concentrations to become mostly homogeneous, horizontally and vertically, in the atmosphere. Something like sulfate aerosols with residence times more on the order of days with have much greater spatial variance in concentration (more nearer source areas and less far from them) as there is not enough time for them to become well-mixed before coming out of the atmosphere.

Human-caused emissions are actually only a small percentage (~5% I believe) of the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere for any given timeframe. But that small amount beyond the natural amounts entering the atmosphere causing CO2 concentrations to rise as the amount naturally leaving the atmosphere is unable to keep up with the combined total of the amount entering naturally and through human activities.

CO2 is constantly entering and leaving the atmosphere all over the planet. Human-caused emissions are a small (but important in pushing the system out of balance) component of total emissions and CO2 has a long enough residence time to allow global mixing. Thus there is little variation in concentration.

This is pretty fundamental stuff. Am I missing something about why you would expect a bigger NH-SH difference?
on April 8, 2009 at 3:15 pm | Reply Vernon

gmo,

Yes, I would expect to see a slight difference between NH and SH. Using your 5 percent number, if 80 percent of fossil fuels are used in the NH, and it takes .9 to 1.2 years for move north to south. It would not be a very large difference, from your 5 percent example, it should be around ~3 percent, there should be a quantifiable difference. The measurements from the stations and from satellite do not show that difference. I am wondering why there is not a difference.
on April 9, 2009 at 11:04 am | Reply Vernon

Looks like we can look at several decades of stalled warming if not out right cooling.

Click to access 2008GL037022_all.pdf

Looks like you need to start putting together something that explains this.
on April 9, 2009 at 1:31 pm | Reply gmo

Vernon,

CO2 concentration is increasing at about 2ppm per year, but human-caused emissions without natural sinks partially compensating would be leading to about a 4ppm/yr increase.

I am not sure why you are saying you would expect a 3% difference between NH & SH. Assuming that ~1yr dispersal time , one might expect ~1yr worth of difference (2-4ppm) in concentration between say Mauna Loa or Baja California Sur in the NH and Baring Head, NZ or the South Pole in the SH. When I look at the station data from your link above, I see something very much like that.

Also, is there any particular reason the work from this one group on this one topic has apparently crystalized a view for you that the next several decades will feature at least not warming? Why do you hold that view when a much, much greater amount of scientific work points to warming on the order of a few degC over the next several decades? Furthermore, even that paper you cite presumes a continuing GHG forcing toward warming and suggests that internal variability which the authors contend could cause the next several decades to not feature warming could on the other hand cause considerable warming. It would seem the prudent approach would be skepticism of new claims outside the norm, be they no warming or doubling of warming, rather than immediately embracing them.
on April 9, 2009 at 2:08 pm | Reply Vernon

gmo,

This study does something that I have not seen any other study do which is explain the multi decade warming and cooling trends that happen on top of the long term warming trend. It explains the cooling between 45 and 76 in the last century and goes a long ways to explaining the last 8 years of non-warming. It may be proven wrong, but if not, then someone better start putting an explanation together in terms that the lay-person will understand.

Since it appears that synchronization can lead to either short term warming or cooling trends on top of the long term trend and the synchronization occurred in 2000-2001, this short term trend is going to be cooling (compared to the long term trend). The authors did not say there was any way to tell which way the short term trend was going to be prior to it happening. The 63 sync up was cooling and remained cooling however, the 1910, 1945, 1976, and 2001 sync’s flipped the short term trend the previous short term trend.

I would think that this actually supports the warming theory. Current long term warming is such that what should be cooling is only stagnation, i.e. the short term trend is cooling but the long term trend is so powerful that all the short term trend can do is keep temperatures from increasing instead of the cooling that has happened in the past.
on April 9, 2009 at 9:09 pm | Reply Martha

Vernon,

“Since I have not reached a conclusion and was simply asking if anyone knew of a study that explained CO2 distribution”.

Actually, your question is: If most of CO2 is produced in the Northern Hemisphere (based on fossile fuel energy production) then why is there no difference between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere? (above, but don’t
take my word for it – read your own words).

Your argument and your conclusion is as I identify, above.

If the Internet is any indication, you float around 24/7 spending all your days in tedious and repetitive exchanges all over the place and imagine you have special powers — er, knowledge — that has entirely escaped the scientists. All those scientists are part of that nasty conspiracy theory by the IPCC, eh?

In many cases, you have cut and paste complete paragraphs of denier columns and pretended these are your comments. (Uhm, those are copyright issues, no matter the stupidity or misinformation. Do you understand? No one with any competence or background in reading research or scholarship would do that, so you out yourself right there. You clearly only ‘understand’ information from denier sites. You don’t read any substantive science and you don’t have a clue about scientific theory, so let’s stop pretending that you do.) No wonder you can’t understand what anyone tells you here, or on numerous other credible science sites.

Where your parroting of pathetic denier beliefs is not word for word, it is pretty darn close.

In all cases, you parrot the same old nonsense.
Let’s see. The following, by Vernon:
“Blaming late 20th century warming on fossil fuel burning was just an opportunity for these religionists to try to impose restrictions on economic activity”.
“The biggest problem I see with the AGW faith is that the high priests, err AGW climatologist present you with their findings to be taken on faith. Read Wegman, read Climate Audit.”

(I’m rolling on the ground laughing at this point. Stop it. Let me wipe a tear from my eye. I’ll try to go on…)

By Vernon:
“I don’t know what actually causes climate change, it may even be CO2, but so far, there is no evidence of that.”
“The changes are worse than the projected problems according to the economists.”
“There is no proof to show that man made CO2 is having any significant impact on climate.”
“The IPCC hides its data. It’s not possible to see it”.

Lord. Where to start, Vernon?

Your latest is to acknowledge there IS warming… i.e., natural warming. Is that in the hopes that no one will notice that this is what you mean, until they have wasted an enormous amount of time in what they imagine is sincere discussion with you?

You are quite nutty.

By Vernon
“I don’t think you understand the science because you refuse to address my points”.

Sure. That’s it, Vernon.
😉
on April 9, 2009 at 9:24 pm | Reply Martha

p.s. And Vernon, you can be found quoting from the sun theory to support your arguments against the facts on climate change. Is that some sort of a joke, or do you actually believe what you say?

Tell me… what’s your take on the tooth fairy?
on April 10, 2009 at 5:28 am | Reply Vernon

Martha,

The only way you can enter a discussion is make up crap that was not said and then rail against what you made up. Once again you ignore the discussion of the science, you cannot even identify the quotes from the studies and the only quotes I have made were from studies. Unlike you, if I see something, I go to the source to see if what I see being quoted is right.

You lie and twist every discussion. I can understand that, if I was stupid and could not understand the science but just had to inject myself into ever discussion, I may have ended up like you. Lucky for me I didn’t.
on April 10, 2009 at 7:40 am | Reply VeraH

I know this is an open thread but the who-said-what-that’s-crap-and-what-not is getting boring. Can’t you guys move on?!
on April 10, 2009 at 1:07 pm | Reply frankbi

VeraH:

Why don’t you start talking about something else then? That may be, you know, a good idea.

— bi
on April 10, 2009 at 1:19 pm | Reply Martha

Hello, Vernon

“The only way you can enter a discussion is make up crap that was not said”

In fact, every discussion identifies your own statements. We don’t make up a thing up.

“Then rail against what you made up.”

If fact, we identify the false information, false assumptions, and abject failures to apply basic conceptual ability and reasoning to the positions you take. It’s helpful to have the basics before you try to take a position of any value, on anything.

“ Once again you ignore the discussion of the science”

We directly address it by explaining why you are not doing a competent job of being a citizen who is interested in the science. Instead, you play at being a real scientist, without taking the time to understand what scientists and commentators have actually said.

You have been told that you have not understood various aspects of the science and interpretation by hundreds of people, if 10 minutes on the Internet looking at your compulsive activity is any indication. I encourage you to be receptive to honest feedback.

You are as capable as anyone else of being an informed citizen. Why aren’t you? You have clearly not read ANYTHING, here. An understanding of the science matters and affects many. I don’t think your obscene journey to the centre of your ego is of no interest, here. Certainly, it’s of zero interest to me. Shadow box and play with yourself, if you must.

I do appreciate that you do not recognize a discussion of ‘the science’ when it is related to the theory-based nature of knowledge. To be sure, the complexity of e.g. the carbon cycle, and the denseness of theory around many of the issues is difficult to understand. Theory continues to evolve. Since all data is interpreted using sophisticated theory skills, you can’t possibly fully understand the original data: you must use your reasoning skills to assess and evaluate the information that is presented to you by credible and informed people.

“the only quotes I have made were from studies.”

Wrong. But who cares? The point was that you don’t bother with quotes. You just plagiarize entire paragraphs word for word from denier sites and news columns, and pretend these are your thoughts. If you were a student, your studies would be terminated.

“Unlike you, if I see something, I go to the source to see if what I see being quoted is right.”

Wrong. We have yet to see you go to the source with anything other than an attempt to find information that you can use entirely ad hoc to support your pre-conceived notions. This is easily demonstrated, given your activity on the Internet.

Speaking personally, you wouldn’t know what I have or have not read, because I have refused to engage you on your excursions into a study. That is my choice, given what I see you doing. I have prefered instead to address your reasoning process. It’s so bad that getting into the details is pointless. But I can, and do, with individuals who are more sincere, if not more capable.

“You lie and twist every discussion.”

In keeping with my education in philosophy of science, I am trained in the theory work that is taught to scientists before they are allowed to do any science.

Vernon, if you want to play scientist, you need to read and learn. You have been encouraged to do this, time and time again, but you don’t.

It is impossible to escape the conclusion that none of your concerns are actually about the science. None.

Good-bye, Vernon.
on April 10, 2009 at 5:05 pm | Reply Vernon

Ok Vera,

I will quit responding. So what do you think of the new study that seems to explain the mid century cooling?
on April 10, 2009 at 9:37 pm | Reply Martha

Vernon has been asked nicely to stop wasting everyone’s time. GreenFyre’s has already addressed his implied argument in the most recent post and many others, and he and others have responded to Vernon’s related bogus ‘questions’ related to this study.

But he is nothing if not persistent.

Vernon wishes to say that (since) C02 emissions were rising during mid-century global cooling, CO2 is not the main driver behind the current warming trend.

The study does not support such a conclusion.

No climate research study does.

The evidence for human-caused warming — and for C02 as the main driver of the current trend — is overwhelming.

No one with a clue thinks otherwise.

If Vernon thinks he can cite such a study in the current climate science, he should enlighten us. Hopefully, be will be specific, rather than relying on the sort of vague or general references to studies, researcher statements and conclusions that constitute his usual misprepresentations and manipulations. Direct quotes from authors of the research would be most welcome. Please show us.

Or show VeraH. 😉
on April 10, 2009 at 9:57 pm | Reply Vernon

Martha,

what the hell are you talking about? I do not see where I said that at all on this thread.

VeraH,

Yes, I think that the study does explain the med century cooling last century as the authors say, and like the authors of the study I think it explains the lack of warming for the last eight years.

But I also think that since the short term “cooling” trend is unable to actually cause cooling as the authors also said, it means that the long term warming trend is stronger than it was mid period last century.

How you go from that to Martha’s rant, I don’t have a clue.
on April 10, 2009 at 10:45 pm | Reply Martha

Vernon,

Where are those quotes that say what the authors say? Saying ‘the authors said’ is not acceptable. But then, you know that.

“How you go from that to [Martha’s explanation of the reasons I am speaking about this] I don’t have a clue.”

You know that, too. Review your own comments here and on other credible sites where you have spent time on an extensive list of non-issues in the science — including this one.

What was your take on the tooth fairy, again? We may as well talk about that, as any of your opinions on the science.

GreenFyre’s — this denier does not care about the world we live in, he gives new meaning to being stupid, and he is insufferably egotistical. He is a drain on energy, so I’m done. Thanks for indulging me. 🙂
on April 13, 2009 at 9:24 am | Reply Vernon

I was reading the US report on the US carbon cycle and saw some interesting information. At the time of the report the US produced 1.5 Mtons of carbon annually, and .5 Mtons were sequestered via the environment. Of that 1.5 Mtons, 46 percent was produced for energy, or .69 Mtons of carbon. It would seem that if a non-carbon producing energy source was used; the US would change from producing 1 Mtons of carbon to producing 190 Ktons of carbon.

So, instead of doing cap and trade, why not offer tax breaks to companies that switch from fossil to nuclear. The French nuclear model produces almost no waste and is very safe. With enough nuclear plants, it would be possible to switch from fossil fuels to electric for long haul transportation and reduce carbon production even more.
on April 13, 2009 at 1:19 pm | Reply gmo

Regardless of other steps taken a functional carbon cap forces a limit to carbon emissions. Because of the need to lower emissions and the systematic inertia, caps may be the only way in which required decreases can be achieved. It is not clear how one would be credited with using non-fossil-carbon energy sources (unless generating their own power on site) nor whether simple tax incentives at anything close to a reasonable cost would have a significant positive effect without caps.

Click to access sec9.pdf

For 2 decades nuclear has produced about 20% of US electricity. Uranium imports have really jumped during that period, and increasing dependence on foreign uranium sources may be as undesirable as increasing dependence on foreign oil sources has been deemed. Of more immediate concern though is probably the simple cost and spin-up time of new nuclear power.

The US already has about 2/3rds more nuclear generating capacity than France does. Thus the US going just from 1/5th to 1/3rd of electricity from nuclear would mean basically adding another France-worth of nuclear generation. And that is just looking at it instantaneously with consideration of neither increase in demand nor old reactors going offline. Nuclear France was not built in a day.

There are questions about how cost-effective, expandable, and sustainable nuclear is before even getting to the safety and waste issues. Nuclear figures to continue as one portion of electricity generation, however there is much reason to doubt that long-term it can be or is desirable as a dominant or even much greater portion.
on April 13, 2009 at 3:54 pm | Reply Martha

Plus
Nuclear is so expensive that it requires the heaviest subsidies.

It is not ‘waste-free’ — the waste is radioactive.

It is the material used in bombs.

The climate crisis has to be addressed with immediate and significant C02 reductions, emissions controls, renewables, new technologies, aid to climate refugees, an end to runaway consumerism, and assistance to citizens to adapt.

Re. ‘the U.S. report on the U.S. carbon cycle’

In the United States, energy-related C02 emissions are a much higher proportion of total human-caused C02 emissions than this. And the other numbers are all really off, too. Strange.

The sources for data should always be provided so that others may see the relevance and to show that the data is correctly interpreted. 😉
on April 13, 2009 at 7:44 pm | Reply Vernon

gmo,

if CO2 is not an issue then ignoring Nuclear is fine but if it is, but if it is, then Nuclear is the only short term solution available. Wind and solar are intermittent and there is no current solution that overcomes that. 46 percent of carbon is tied to the 71 percent of electrical power production within the US. Replace new coal plants with nuclear and then start replacing old coal plants with nuclear. That is the quickest and greatest impact for the cost.

Spent fuel may be expensive now to process but it is still cheaper than using coal in the long run when the other effects are considered.

Martha, I said carbon not CO2. Who cares what it costs, it is the only short term replacement for coal. Wind and solar cannot replace coal.
on April 14, 2009 at 6:46 am | Reply Martha

“If C02 is not an issue”.

It is the major driver of the current human-caused warming trend. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. Cite a published study in a scientific journal that shows otherwise.

“Nuclear is the onlyshort term solution available.”

Wrong. But the conversation is apparently too complex for you.

“Martha, I said carbon not CO2”.

Yes, I know — you little trickster, you. 😉

As usual, Vernon is up to his disingenuous nonsense.

It disappointing that an engineer who once worked on projects at NASA is such a tiresome ass.

See above. Other threads. And all over the Internet.

What a sad waste of the privilege of age and retirement to be spending one’s last years on the computer 24/7 as a climate change denier — the low level kind who gets all his information from Heartland, ICECAP, Watts, Nova, McIntyre, and etc. whose lies and nonsense have been thoroughly debunked here and on every other credible science site.
on April 14, 2009 at 7:29 am | Reply Vernon

Martha,

You ignorant and I suspect a fool. You do not know who I am, what I do, or where I work. You do not know if I am retired or working, in short, you know nothing about me.

I find you morally bankrupt. You profess that climate change is the largest problem we are facing yet you are unwilling to use the technology that will fill the gap until we find another consistent source of energy.

Wind and solar are intermittent sources of energy. For you I will explain that. They do not work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We do not have a technology that allows us to store the power they produce during non-peak use for reuse later. This ignores the ecological impact of solar panel farms or wind turbines. Basically we do not have the technology. Do not even go with burning bio-fuels, that still produces CO2.

Nuclear power will fill the gap between fossil fuels and new technology. We have enough fuel for Nuclear, with recycling, to last hundreds if not thousands of years.

Martha, what a sad conspiracy theorist you are. I will give you a clue, I have never worked for NASA and I am not retired. In case you have not guessed, not everyone that posts on the internet under the name “Vernon” is the same person. You happy little propagandist.
on April 17, 2009 at 12:01 am | Reply Martha

Vernon,

Right. 😉

Watch out for the real conspiracy, though, where they keep saying the temperatures are going up… in order to trick you into thinking the temperatures are going up.
on April 29, 2009 at 12:46 pm | Reply Vernon

I am putting forth the position that:
a. CO2 is a weak climate driver and;
b. that there is no lag or latent temperature changes due to CO2 increases.

I base this on the long term historical record. The only one that has enough resolution is the ice cores. The last ~480,000 years show that temperatures increased and later, 800-2500 years later, CO2 levels increased. The ice core record also shows that temperatures dropped and later, once again 800-2500 years later, CO2 levels dropped.

Now why can draw the conclusion that CO2 is a weak climate driver? Because the ice core record also goes on to show that the temperature peaked before CO2 peaked. That is important because if CO2 was other than a weak climate driver, then the temperature would peak when CO2 peaked or after. Since it does neither, CO2 must not be a strong climate driver. Further, since the temperature does not peak after CO2 peaks, then there cannot be any latent warming coming from the CO2.

The historical record proves that CO2 is weak and the feedbacks must be less that projected for CO2 not to have more historical impact on temperature.

This does not mean that CO2 does not cause warming, just that it does not cause much.

Anyone want to discuss this?
on April 29, 2009 at 9:53 pm | Reply Martha

No.

Four reasons just off the top of my head:

1) You provide no source i.e., peer-reviewed science, for your ‘position’. 2) You are presently at scienceblogs doing this. 3) You were at realclimate throughout January doing this. 4) You have been all over GreenFyre’s doing this and GreenFyre’s has debunked it.

Start with Mikes’ post ‘Mind Prisms and Prison: C02 Lag and Global Warming’. Then read Mike’s ‘Understanding Why Climate Change Means Global Famine’ where a fellow engineers, Mr. Pangburn, asserts the same ‘position’ as you (funny how it is also Watt’s ‘position’, Nova’s ‘position’, and McIntyre’s ‘position’. Etc.). Then review the response to your related b.s. on Lies, Lies and More Lies. Then review the response to your exact same b.s. on ‘I want to Debate Vaclav Klaus’.

Mike and others have provided links that demonstrate the overwhelming evidence that CO2 is the main driver of the current warming trend.

Mike has already responded to your ‘position’ and suggested you visit RealClimate to address your confusion about lag and feedback: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

I assume you did so and either couldn’t understand it or just refuse to accept it, since you have since continued to argue your ridiculous unsupported ‘position’ and bizarre ideas at this same site on various threads.

Your recent comments that all these posts are not by you is rather theatrical, even for you: you see, all these ‘Vernon’ people make the same word for word statements, and quite frankly, you have a unique pattern of spelling and language errors in between cut and pastes from denier sites.

I don’t care what you do or have done for work. You have stated you are a retired engineer who has worked on NASA projects in the 70’s. Who cares? The only relevant job description to support the above claim would be ‘climate scientist’.

No climate scientist holds your ‘position’.

Please consider letting everyone in on your special knowledge and publish a paper for us to read.
on April 30, 2009 at 1:32 am | Reply codehead

>the overwhelming evidence that CO2 is the main driver of the current warming trend

Gosh, I guess co2 needs to be a little more overwhelming than it has been the current decade, because it’s not heading the right direction:

http://tinyurl.com/decadeTempTrend

This decade’s trend, according to GISS, Hadley, UAH, and RSS.

Could it be that other factors are stronger than the, um, “overwhelming” effect of co2?

>No climate scientist holds your ‘position’.

I think John Christy and some others would disagree.

Vernon: Keep in mind that this is the site in which the host said, “Never a truer word …” to the assertion, “It is impossible to exaggerate the environmental problem facing humanity in the twenty-first century”. So much for science.
on April 30, 2009 at 5:17 am | Reply Vernon

Martha,

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html

Is the source of the data.

Martha you are a dim bulb. Your the one that accused me of being:

I don’t care what you do or have done for work. You have stated you are a retired engineer who has worked on NASA projects in the 70’s. Who cares? The only relevant job description to support the above claim would be ‘climate scientist’.

Please keep track of your own rants.

Since I am not discussing famine, then I do not see where a post on famine matters in this discussion. As for what Mike wrote on lag, I still stand by my position of show a current study, etc. that proves your position. You did not your answer was to call me names, accuse me of saying I worked at NASA (which you did), point to posts by others, but not to address the question.
on April 30, 2009 at 7:22 am | Reply Martha

“I do not see where a post on famine matters in this discussion.” Yes, I understand that you don’t see the connection.

“I still stand by my position.” Yes, that is why you are described as being in denial of climate change.

“prove your position”. It is the position of the worlds’ climate scientists. I suggest you write to them at once with your corrections and objections.

You would have to pay me at this point to take the time to explain the erroneous language of ‘proof’ that you are using. It has been discussed with you dozens of times.

And to think that all these other Vernons are impersonating you. It’s outrageous. You must call the police.

With the intensity of your feelings of self-importance, I understand that you feel your are smarter than everyone else.

Please let us know when you have contacted the world’s scientists or published a paper.
on April 30, 2009 at 8:04 am | Reply Vernon

Martha,

I provide a source, you provide invective. Let me know when you can find some science that proves me wrong. I doubt you can but, hey, stranger things have happened.
on May 1, 2009 at 8:32 pm | Reply Martha

It is a remarkable leap, to claim that this source (are we talking about the NOAA data you link above?) shows that C02 is not the main driver for the current warming trend.

Vernon: “The ice core record also goes on to show that the temperature peaked before CO2 peaked. That is important because if CO2 was other than a weak climate driver, then the temperature would peak when CO2 peaked or after.”

What is your sense of the number of times that others have been through this with you? It is only recently, by the way, that I see you are choosing to be quite vague about where you’re going with all this; however, your denier history repeats itself.

But sure… explain it to me.

On a personal note, I have declined to engage you on the science because frankly your activity makes me think that it would be unfair of me: you are not at all at my level. At the same time, I note that you are sexist, exceptionally arrogant, and persistent in your attempts to mislead people with your lies and frauds. It is worth pursuing.

So sure… at this point, explain it to me.

You have been repeatedly provided with both general and specific feedback on your exceptionally poor comprehension of climate science (theory and substantive research), by others.

Did you want me to provide the same feedback? Or additional feedback?

Vernon: I am putting forth the position that:
a. CO2 is a weak climate driver and;
b. that there is no lag or latent temperature changes due to CO2 increases.

Vernon, will you be so kind as to clarify what you think of the many responses you have already received that directly engage your ‘position’? I like to get a sense of what someone has already been presented with, and considered.

I need a careful explanation of your thoughs on this. I have read your interactions elsewhere on this site and at RealClimate, but please repeat it here from your own point of view.

And then we will take it from there.

Please be aware that I will raise issues in the science, and issues related to reasoning. I might also raise some clinical issues if I think that helps explain things.

I will likely be showing this to students.

I will be needing your agreement that this will be the last time you raise this issue on this site.

If you agree — go ahead.
on May 10, 2009 at 9:38 am | Reply Martha

Vangel,

Regarding all your comments on ‘Climate Change, Lies, Lies and More Lies’.

Since you clearly have personal political opinons underlying your denial of climate change, I will ask you to move your comments to this thread where these comments can be addressed. The site requests that comments unrelated to a specific post be moved here, along with repetitive denier spamming. You qualify on both counts.

You make two basic claims in all of your comments. The first is that climate change science is based on corruption. Your second is that Northern people should be thankful for warming,

Regarding your first point, if you know the history of the development of modern science and the external interests that can be at play e.g. government and private interests, you will easily recognize that there was a breakdown within the scientific community and a refusal by government to consider the developing crisis when the facts of climate science began to emerge.

In other words, the significance of the facts of climate change were initially resisted within the scientific community and ignored by government(s).

Those of us who take a critical approach to science are aware of the technical interests at play. The debate over fundamental problems in climate science is now related to questions regarding intervention. No one except the denialosphere, with its well-known economic interests, completely denies the facts or reality of the crisis anymore. Some individuals are drawn to the denialosphere due to some shared social or political ideas.

A systematic, critical approach to the interpretation of scientific activity requires more than the application of your personal political opinion. It requires a well-developed social and political analysis. You don’t have one.

Which leads me to your second point.

You claim that the climate crisis (as distinct from natural climate change) is and will be good for Northern people. This might be described as a classically colonialist view (some would say racist) since you are imposing an external interpretation of interests on the people and culture of the region. You don’t even bother to minimally acquaint yourself with current social realities and cultural issues. It is difficult, I would suggest impossible, to reconcile your opinion with the current negative impacts being identified and voiced by communities and by the government of Nunavut – a government which can be considered to represent the interests of the Inuit in the Canadian North.

You have focused on the current dialogue regarding the impact of climate change on the polar bear population, to the exclusion of everything else that Northern people are saying.

There are 8 Arctic countries and you have completely ignored the experience and climate concerns of Alaska, Norway, Greenland, etc. You appear to be a poor observer of social and political realities, in as much as the empirical observations of people in the Arctic countries are consistent with AGW and communities and governments are rightly demanding action on climate change.

People who have not participated in causing the problem are among those being impacted the most negatively. Yet, you make it clear that you think we should do nothing and that you base this on the value of individual liberty (for you).

It is always a pleasure for me to read well-written comments in which criticisms are thoughtfully developed.

Unfortunately, I have yet to read anything like that from you.
on June 3, 2009 at 4:53 pm | Reply Mark

Neat story on BBC on researchers in the Antarctic, they say:

“”There’s been a lot of climate change over the last 14 million years,” Dr Siegert said. “And what we can say about this place in the middle of the Antarctic is that nothing has changed.””

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8079767.stm

Enough said?
on June 26, 2009 at 9:12 pm | Reply Martha

Mark,

Actually, no — at least, you seem to be implying that everything’s fine and that the link supports this. Is that what you’re saying?

It isn’t, and it doesn’t.

Let’s assume some awareness of the rapid melting of the ice sheet in West Antarctica.

The ice sheet in East Antarctica is the topic of the linked commentary by a glaciologist (Siegert), regarding a current project in the region. East Antarctica is considered more stable than West, and it is where the Gamburtsev mountain range described as “unchanged in 14 million years” is located. It is thought to be the area where the original ice formed from glaciers sliding down the mountains. It’s amazing, isn’t it? An ancient terrain of mountains, valleys and lakebeds, all preserved under ice.

It remains the same as it was 14 million years ago, and given its crucial role in the dynamics of the region, it is easy to see that no one could be sitting at his computer denying climate change if it wasn’t.

The reported description of the Gamburtsev subglacial mountains as ‘unchanged in 14 million years’ is followed by “If the whole ice sheet collapsed, sea levels would rise by 60m”.

Why does this glaciologist (Siegert) express this concern? Because the research team is attempting to assess the potential contribution to global sea level change of the speed-up of melting ice now being observed in West Antarctica due to the effects of AGW (as opposed to natural climate change) on the climate dynamics of the region.

Siegert’s comments suggest that there is real concern that a collapse of the whole ice sheet is possible — and that it is potentially catastrophic, both in immediate terms and in 14 million-year-old terms.

Cheers.
on June 26, 2009 at 9:50 pm | Reply codehead

>Siegert: “If the whole ice sheet collapsed, sea levels would rise by 60m”
>Siegert’s comments suggest that there is real concern that a collapse of the whole ice sheet is possible

You’re inferring something that is a physical impossibility. What he said is true, what you inferred is not. It would be like me saying that if all oceans on the planet dried up tomorrow, all life here would die shortly. It’s true, but it doesn’t mean there is any possibility of the oceans disappearing tomorrow. I’m sure he was making a comment to impress on the sheer size of the cap, not that he was worried it would go away.
on June 27, 2009 at 3:15 pm | Reply Vernon

Martha,

That is so much hot air. Antarctic has been cooling the last 30+ years. The Antarctic peninsula, which is largely North of the Antarctic circle has been warming. The truth is that there has been little or no change to the interior of Antarctica in the last 12 million years.
on June 28, 2009 at 10:47 pm | Reply Martha

codehead.
Since Siegert’s work of several years ago identified a much more unstable interior structure to the W. Antarctic ice sheet than previously thought, and because of the rapid melt in E. Antarctic and the warming of both the peninsula and the interior – and because the potential for the W. Antarctic ice shelf to collapse has been discussed for years by many of the world’s climate scientists — the meaning of the comments is not ambiguous.
I ‘inferred’ what anyone familiar with the science and its discussion would correctly infer.
But there is no need to take my word for him.
Contact him at m.j.siegert@ed.ac.uk

vernon,
The warming extends well beyond the peninsula to include the interior, and current research demonstrates this and suggests it is at least in part due to AGW. You have attempted to discuss Steig et al 2009 here at Greenfyre’s (on other threads) and also at other sites e.g. realclimate.

I say ‘attempt’ because, unfortunately, you essentially parrot repetitive misinformation intended to confuse the public, ‘referenced’ from denier industry/pseudo-science sources such as ICECAP, instead of reading and accurately understanding the overall, robust knowledge of this peer-reviewed and significant new scientific study.

The climate dynamics of the region are complex, so I can appreciate why many people find it difficult to read the science. You might therefore consider developing your comprehension vicariously by reading credible, intelligent science commentary sites (hint: you’re here) instead of being a perpetual student of ICECAP and Watts.

The research report:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/edsumm/e090122-01.html
The data:
http://faculty.washington.edu/steig/nature09data/

Steig’s phone number, since your matter is more urgent than codehead’s: 206-685-3715

It would be very helpful indeed, if you would post his responses to your objections and corrections, here on Greenfyre’s. That would be more valuable than any other reponse.
Thanks.
on June 28, 2009 at 11:25 pm | Reply Martha

‘because of the rapid melt in E. Antarctic’
West. 😉
on June 28, 2009 at 11:58 pm | Reply codehead

>I ‘inferred’ what anyone familiar with the science and its discussion would correctly infer.

LOL–OK, I’ll play this game. How many years do you infer–from his statement (“If the whole ice sheet collapsed, sea levels would rise by 60m”)–that it will take for for this collapse and 60m sea level rise? This should be good… Magnitude would be sufficient–millions of years? Thousands? Hundreds? Please give us best shot, as someone who is “familiar with the science and its discussion”.

BTW, the IPCC’s AR4 Summary for Policymakers says, “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.”

Please, get back to us with your timeframe for this 60m sea level rise.

>But there is no need to take my word for him.
>Contact him at m.j.siegert@ed.ac.uk

Martha, if he did really mean what you think, he’s mad, and if he didn’t, why should I embarrass myself by asking? Sorry, your 60m threat is pure fantasy. But I’m willing to discuss “why”, if you’d like, after you give us the timeframe.
on July 5, 2009 at 1:22 pm | Reply Martha

ch

Re. timeframes, I don’t see why it matters whether we see a projected upper limit of two meters by 2100 (Pfeffer et al. 2008) or the full effects in 1,000 years. A one meter rise this century would likely displace millions.

Risk assessments and uncertainties with respect to worst or best-case sea-level rise scenarios are discussed in some of the current research, where there has been progress in understanding the physical processes of these regions and projections for SLR since the period of knowledge that informed the AR4 (2007).

Nonetheless, from the AR4, you quote “Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.” And let’s include the next sentence, which is “However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance.”

What does it mean?

It means that the current warming is effecting an increase in atmospheric moisture which is resulting in more snowfall over the ice sheets, which explains a gain in mass at the center. Climate science research had already demonstrated at the time of the AR4 reporting and forecasting that the ice sheets were, however, losing mass at the edges; and so it is suggested that this (along with other climate impacts and dynamical processes not yet well understood or documented at that time) could lead to an accelerated melt and net loss of ice mass.

Climate scientists are now documenting significantly accelerated glacial outflow with potentially rapid sea level rise related to the current rapid warming i.e. AGW.

Climate science knowledge is increasing quickly. Your quote from the AR4 anticipates this emerging knowledge. The quote is consistent with an evolving understanding that some of the effects of AGW on ice loss may be abrupt, irreversible, or even catastrophic.

You completely misunderstand or misrepresent this quote.
on July 5, 2009 at 2:10 pm | Reply codehead

>Re. timeframes, I don’t see why it matters whether
>we see a projected upper limit of two meters by 2100
>(Pfeffer et al. 2008) or the full effects in 1,000 years.

We were talking about 60m–or at least you were concerned this was a possibility (it isn’t), and Antarctica. Even the IPCC says Antarctica is likely to gain mass over the century.

No, sorry, there have been no revelations since AR4 that would suddenly swing us to the “collapse” of the Antarctic ice sheet. The rest of your message is meaningless meandering–you’d quote a scientific paper if there was such a thing. (BTW, in disagreeing with this point, are you admitting that the climate models were wrong?)

>the ice sheets were, however, losing mass at the edges

Of course–that is what they do. The weight of the ice sheet–a mammoth continent, an ice sheet averaging 2 miles thick, up to 3 miles thick–causing the ice to flow towards the edges. The western Antarctic drops into the sea, where the ice sheet’s bas is below sea level. The ice calves where it meets the seas.

The inner part of the ice sheet is far too cold (and don’t forget it’s at high elevation). The ice sheet doesn’t melt there–it just squeezes the base towards the sea where it can calve.

Yes, warming at the edges makes it break off quicker, but it also lets the air hold more moisture, and the inner ice sheet grows from snow. (Antarctica is about the only place that it truly gets “too cold to snow”.) That is why the models of AR4 expected growth.

The bottom line is that the incredible volume (30 million cubic km!) of ice at Antarctic would take an incredible amount of energy to “melt”; this is coupled with the fact it’s the coldest place on the planet and at high elevation, making it incredibly difficult to direct this energy to the ice.

I asked about timeframes because I wanted to get an idea of the magnitude of your misconception.
on July 8, 2009 at 7:37 am | Reply Martha

You must contact the world’s scientists at once with your objections and corrections because your interpretation is so different from the climate science community’s. Let us know when you get your advanced degrees in a relevant field and publish a paper!

You have a history of reading nothing that is provided to you, and two minutes on google would get you Siegert’s research papers and Pfeffer. I did not suggest we go any further than this, because it would help you evaluate your own comments — if you have also looked at the AR4 and follow current scientific discussion. You show no signs of even getting to the starting line and are all over the place.

Since your multiple misinterpretations come form denier sites, I do not wish to waste my time responding to you or going back and forth with studies that you are not going to read or try to understand. I’m afraid you don’t begin to have enough basic knowledge to have a coherent dialogue with me.

I suggested that you read Pfeffer as an example of a current published study that provides a conservative projection, and that projection is a crisis. I was hoping that would help orient you to real discussion. You deniers fan hysteria — not the scientific community.

Your point was challenging whether Siegert made the comment in question. I gave you the correct context for the comment and encouraged you to read his research. There is nothing hysterical about it and the comment is reasonable in the context of the ongoing evolution of the knowledge of the climate dynamics of the region.

I don’t disagree that you would embarrass yourself if you attempted to contact Siegert. Hilarious. You took it seriously, and that speaks to your other-worldly ego. Bravo for outing yourself.

I recommend that you keep putting the cape on in private, though
on July 8, 2009 at 9:17 am | Reply codehead

>You must contact the world’s scientists at once with your
>objections and corrections because your interpretation is
>so different from the climate science community’s.

Very funny Martha, but no one’s calling for a 60m sea level rise except you. Not the scientists, not the models. Have you read the IPCC reports? I quoted from AR4 SFP, where they said the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold to melt, and will grow. That’s a far cry from a complete collapse.

You’re far, far past being a “true believer” here. I can’t believe you’re invoking “scientists” while making stuff up.

Or maybe you can supply some peer-reviewed science that says otherwise. Uh huh.

Who do you think you are scaring, the stupid? What is this going to get you except for people to view you as a baseless scaremonger and zealot?
on July 11, 2009 at 10:55 am | Reply Martha

Notes to GreenFyre et al
I wonder if I also said that mercury should be put into his drinking water and that wearing a helmet when he takes out his motorcycle will cause his head to explode so he’s safer without one?
Oh, I get it. The only way that codehead can have a conversation with anyone about climate change is by responding to comments with complete nonsense. If he uses an authoritative tone, he thinks no one will notice.

I wonder if he does this in his relationships with family and colleagues, too, or just here?

Codehead, please put your wee wee away.

“no one’s calling for a 60m sea level rise except you”
Let’s see. Mark on this thread linked to a BBC report of ice cap research published in Nature and comments by a participating researcher, Siegert, that “If the whole ice sheet collapsed, sea levels would rise by 60m.” Codehead should read my comments from that point on, above. He responded for Mark. I wonder if he is also Mark?

“Have you read the IPCC reports”
Yes.

“I quoted from AR4 SFP, where they said the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold to melt, and will grow. That’s a far cry from a complete collapse.”
Correction, codehead deliberately misquotes a summary statement from the AR4. The section he refers to is the SPM, not SFP. There is no such citation as ‘SFP’ – except on the Heartland website. He is like so many deniers who speak in an authoritative voice and quote away, without realizing that they can’t even get the name of the report right, never mind the contents.

“maybe you can supply some peer-reviewed science”
I did, of course, as have many others who are generous with links. I prefer people to develop their internet research skills and since GreenFyre’s is loaded with links to the science, on almost all climate-related topics past and present, he simply needs to take the time to read something. And understand it.

“Who do you think you are scaring”
I don’t think fear is a great motivator. I don’t think anyone does. Do they?

So, the only relevant question is, Who does codehead think he is confusing? He clearly has a lot of time for repetitive talking points, lies, research fraud, and general trolling and spamming to advance denier interests. He has tried to dominate numerous discussion threads. He clearly gets his info from well-known industry sites that spend millions promoting long-debunked b.s.

Hmm.
on July 11, 2009 at 2:01 pm | Reply codehead

Martha, you’re embarrassing yourself.
—-

No, actually it is you who are embarrassing yourself. At the moment I am doing some real work, but will return later to address your nonsense.

Until further notice, please refrain from posting anything that a 12 yr old with internet access could have discovered is gibberish , ie most of your comments.

Thank you
Mike
on July 12, 2009 at 4:57 pm | Reply codehead

Mike–please grace us with your estimate of when we will see 60m sea level rise due to the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet. [1]

You guys just get better and better 🙂 [2]
—-

[1] How is “when” relevant to whether there is sufficient water there to raise sea level by that amount? Which is what you were contesting.
“but no one’s calling for a 60m sea level rise except you. ”

Moot point anyway. Climate change severe enough to cause the complete melting of Antarctica will have long since caused human extinction.

[2] Ignorance is bad enough, but to be proud of it?

In future a useful guideline for posting here would be that if a lobotomized chipmunk could not find your claims credible, then they probably don’t belong here.

Thank you

Mike
on July 13, 2009 at 10:21 am | Reply codehead

Mike (I’d like to just email you privately, but don’t know your address, can’t find),

Do you really want to have a dialog with the character attacks? I thought I’ve treated you with respect. I’ve also tried to treat Martha with respect, but I get a little touchy when she attacks, especially after I asked a question regarding India and she called me “racist”. Do you folks really want to “win” by insult? You have the choice on your site, of having dialog, or of driving away anyone with an opposing point of view and preaching to the choir.

I’d be happy to discuss Antarctica, if that’s what you want to do. My point about the timeframe is that it can’t possibly melt on less than a “geological” time scale, which in turn means it can’t be done by man burning fossil fuels (there is only so much of it, and there is only so much energy entering our system from the sun). This paragraph is only a thumbnail of what I’m getting at, not the basis of my argument.

If we want to discuss its likelihood based on peer-reviewed studies, then I’m sure Martha can supply us with one. (I don’t think so.)

I do however, agree with your comment, “Climate change severe enough to cause the complete melting of Antarctica will have long since caused human extinction”–it was one of the points I was going to mentioned to Martha after she supplied me with a timeframe. To worry about coping with the effects of a 60m sea level rise would be silly; if it happened, we’d be long gone.
—-

IF you are able to write an article that makes your case, AND
that article is based on an accurate, honest presentation of current science with proper references to it AND
it does not depend on logical fallacies such as cherry picking etc

THEN I will gladly post it on this site.

and if you are not able to do that, why are you wasting everyone’s time by posting in the comment threads?
on July 16, 2009 at 10:15 pm | Reply Martha

Codehead

Who employs you to do this?

Your facesaving efforts, along with all your spam and disingenuous denier ‘discussions’ on this and numerous other threads and sites, are utterly noncompelling.

You have shown no respect for this site (you have been here repeatedly yet have clearly never read any of GreenFyre’s posts or links to the science), and your arrogant contempt for others is easy to see in your interactions. Your apparent sense of victimhood is therefore surprising to me. At the same time, you are clearly very creative.

I make no apology for connecting your persistence in completely misrepresenting an Indian climate leader‘s comments and activities to racism. After lengthy discussion with you on this thread on that topic in February, I could see no other explanation. I think it is correct to see it as at least part of the explanation for your insistence on that particular distortion and it is you who clearly demonstrates in your ‘arguments’ that it was playing a role in your rejection of the facts of climate change.

I asked you to put your wee wee away because I find your personal conceit unnecessarily florid.

Your repetitively disingenuous and false posts merely amplify the voice of GreenFyre’s and documents the struggle to provide correct information to the public and provide hope and desire for action on climate change.

Perhaps continuing to tolerate you could be seen as a reflection of the honest and collective impulse of this site. To that end, our responses to you can continue to model collective knowledge and the principle of participatory learning – if GreenFyre wishes.

On the other hand, perhaps you are corroding discussion and abusing fellow citizens by choosing to continue to waste our energy on your b.s.
on July 17, 2009 at 12:00 am | Reply codehead

>spam

I don’t post here often, and I don’t spam–people can read this board for themselves.

>I make no apology for connecting your persistence in
>completely misrepresenting an Indian climate leader‘s
>comments and activities to racism

If I misrepresented anything he said, you could tell me what it was. (Because he is Indian and not white, and I question his comments, I’m racist?)

>you have been here repeatedly yet have clearly never read any of GreenFyre’s posts

Of course I have.

>or links to the science

If you mean when he directs me to entire sites, no. I’m not here for a fool’s errand. I will always look at actual science (not editorial) that you have backing up your points. For instance, you could point me to any peer reviewed research (ideally), or at least something scientific from a scientist on the issue of Antarctica melting, but you haven’t.

>Your repetitively disingenuous and false posts

Please cut the generalities and name one thing you want to discuss.

>by choosing to continue to waste our energy on your b.s.

Martha, people can read what I’ve posted for themselves–please cut the ad hominem. If this is a blog having anything to do with science, let’s please discuss some of it.
on July 17, 2009 at 6:57 am | Reply Martha

>>people can read this board for themselves.

Yes. And also your compulsive b.s. at Understanding Why Climate Change Means Global Famine

>>If I misrepresented anything he said, you could tell me what it was.

Done, above, at length and clearly.

>>[GreenFyre’s have not pointed me] to any peer reviewed research … e.g. from a scientist on the issue of Antarctica melting.

It is not possible to make this statement and also be on this site. You are here. Read.

>>please cut the ad hominem.

We corrected you on this point and gave you that lesson in logic and argumentation already, above, and on the other thread, clearly and at adequate length.

Since I think it is an abuse of fellow citizens for individuals such as you to post such deliberately misleading information and waste others’ valuable time, I don’t think it makes sense to respond to you any further. Bye.
on July 17, 2009 at 9:54 am | Reply codehead

What Martha quoted me as saying:

“>>[GreenFyre’s have not pointed me] to any peer reviewed research … e.g. from a scientist on the issue of Antarctica melting.”

What I actually said:

“For instance, you could point me to any peer reviewed research (ideally), or at least something scientific from a scientist on the issue of Antarctica melting, but you haven’t.”

Please, no straw men.

Again, we’re talking about your assertion of the realistic danger of a 60 m sea level rise. Again, I invite you to point me to something tangible.
on July 17, 2009 at 1:22 pm | Reply Vernon

Martha,

Sorry but your wrong. If you measure climate as being 30 years, the last 30 years have been cooling. [1] Stieg et al (2009) cherry picked the start date to be during one of the colder periods in the last century. If you pick the 1935-1945 period, the warmest period in the last century, then there is nothing but cooling for the long term trend.

As a side note, the 1935-1945 period was also the warmest period for the Arctic for the last century.

The fact remains that the last 30 years have produced no cooling in the interior. Even if the 1956-2006 trend of Stieg had last past 1970, yes the actual warming was from 1956-1969 and cooling has been ongoing since then, it would take about 30k years to warm everything up to zero.

If you, not greenfyre, can please provide any supporting studies that show that there has been any warming in the last 30 years in Antarctica, then please do. Otherwise your just producing a baseless assertion by you. [2]
—–

[1] No, it is you who are completely wrong
[2] a) whether or not a particular location, even one as large as Antarctica, has been warming is not evidence for or against climate change
b) “Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss”
Study Busts Antarctica’s Chill On Global Warming
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99681830

Antarctica hit by climate change
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/38541

Final Wilkins Ice-Sheet Breakup Looms
http://climaticidechronicles.org/2008/11/28/further-wilkins-ice-sheet-breakup-looms/

Wilkins Ice Shelf in Danger
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/11/28/wilkins-ice-shelf-in-danger/

Antarctica hit by climate change
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/38541

Antarctic Warming Shows “Human Fingerprints” http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2008/11/14/antarctic-warming-shows-human-fingerprints/

Floods under Antarctic ice speed glaciers into sea: study http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hT_Rgq5gv_BwoorjrHCV3JNlYAEg

Antarctica hit by climate change http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081030/full/news.2008.1195.html

Now STOP spamming my comment threads
on July 17, 2009 at 1:38 pm | Reply Ian Forrester

Vernon, your post is just absolute gibberish. It is impossible to actually know what and where you are referring to.

Are you really that stupid or do you just post rubbish to confuse those who are at the same intellectual level as your self, i.e. at the bottom?
on July 17, 2009 at 2:19 pm | Reply Vernon

Ian,

It must be hard on you to not be able to read english. If you do not understand what is written, I will be glad to brake it to smaller bites so you will have less problems looking up the words in your english to what ever your language is dictionary.

To make it easy for you.

I posted to Martha on June 27, 2009 at 3:15 pm

Martha replied to my post on June 28, 2009 at 10:47 pm

I then replied to that post on July 17, 2009 at 1:22 pm

I replied to Martha’s statements and concluded with asking her to produce any studies that support warming in Antarctica in the last 30 years.

Which part did you not understand?
on July 17, 2009 at 2:21 pm | Reply Vernon

Ian,

I forgot to ask. Do you ever post in a less that insulting manner?
on July 17, 2009 at 3:12 pm | Reply Ian Forrester

If you were to post honestly and coherently then you wouldn’t get the insults you deserve.

Anyone who is as abusive towards science and scientists deserves every thing that is thrown at them.

Grow up, become honest and truthful and read some actual papers and comment on them truthfully (not the misinterpretations you always give) and the worl will be a lot nicer towards you. If you continue on your merry and dishonest ways then keep on ducking.

By the way your previous post (the one I responded to) is incomprehensible and your spelling stinks.
on July 17, 2009 at 3:29 pm | Reply Vernon

Ian,

I try to be polite and not abuse people even if I disagree with them. I will admit that I some times give in and respond in kind to your abuse. I see that you cannot, even if some one else is being polite to you.

On your statement that I need to read some actual papers, I only post actual peer reviewed papers as my sources. Please point out where any paper I have reference has not be part of the peer reviewed science?

You on the other hand attack me. That is the very definition of ad hom.

I am sorry that you think my spelling stinks. Attacking me over my dyslexia is pretty low. I happen to think that spell check is one of the greatest inventions ever, but even so I still misspell words.

Why don’t you act like a mature adult? There is no reason to be abusive to others.
on July 17, 2009 at 3:36 pm | Reply Ian Forrester

You abuse science, and therefore scientists, with everything you post.

You completely misrepresent every paper you discuss. If you were just unsure of the science you were talking about you would get at least a small percentage right. The fact that you get none of them right would suggest to me and others that you are deliberately doing it.

Stop the abuse of science (and the English language).
on July 17, 2009 at 5:13 pm | Reply Vernon

Once again, off the topic you go in a rude manner.

I have never misquoted a single study.

You make the claim that I do so the onus is on you to provide an example.

Thank you for taking my point to heart about not being rude.
on July 17, 2009 at 5:45 pm | Reply Ian Forrester

Vernon said:

I have never misquoted a single study.

Vernon, stop telling lies. you get upset when I call you on your dishonesty then tell whoppers.

Anyone can look through your postings on many threads here, on Deltoid, Coby’s blog and many others where you continually misrepresent papers which you claim to have read.

So stop telling lies or stop posting (as Mike as already suggested). It is very time consuming to have to parse through your posts but I will do so just to prove to anyone who cares to read what you post that you are either dishonest or intellectually bankrupt. Take your pick.
on July 17, 2009 at 9:20 pm | Reply Vernon

Ian,

you can say anything you want but until you can actually point out a single study I have lied about then the only liar I see here is you.

What you are is a text book troll. You have nothing of value to add but you answer every post made with an insult and an ad hom attack. You never back up your lies and get offended when your called on them.

I cannot help that english is not your first language and you have trouble reading it.

So why don’t you either backup your lies and prove me wrong, or shut up until you have something of value to say.
on July 17, 2009 at 10:07 pm | Reply Ian Forrester

You lied about Jones, you lied about Arctic Amplification, you lied about the efficacy of climate models, you lie every time you post. Do you want me to detail every one of your lies? I think that would be too embarrassing even for you.

Are you saying that these are not lies but just your poor ability to accurately interpret the work of scientists? I don’t believe that either.
on July 17, 2009 at 10:32 pm | Reply Vernon

Ian,

Please embarrass me. Use my posts on this blog and show SPECIFIICALLY where I lied. No arm waving as your doing now but actually show where I lied.

I do not believe you have a clue myself. You claim to be a scientist, back it up. What works have you published?
on July 18, 2009 at 12:59 am | Reply frankbi

Shorter Vernon:

By using Common Sense™, I show that the last 30 years have experienced a cooling trend. I don’t need calculations, because my Common Sense™ is Peer Reviewed™ according to an unspecified procedure.

Anyone who disputes this is guilty of ad hominem attacks and doesn’t understand English.

— bi
on July 18, 2009 at 7:18 am | Reply Vernon

frankbi,

Sorry but I present peer reviewed studies as the basis for my arguments. You should try that. It makes for better discussions about the science if you discuss the science rather than just the standard knee jerk reaction to your dogma being threatened.
on July 18, 2009 at 8:10 am | Reply frankbi

Shorter Vernon:

I use peer-reviewed science![1]

[1] A. Anonymous (unknown year). The global cooling trend in the last 30 years. Unnamed Prestigious Science Publication Censored by Warmist Inquisitors, unknown volume(unknown issue):pages unknown–unknown.
on July 18, 2009 at 2:35 pm | Reply Vernon

Gee, I guess your way is more direct than Ian’s you just go straight to lies and stay there.
on July 19, 2009 at 1:22 pm | Reply greenfyre

CLOSED THREAD!

The comments policy has been updated as discussed in “Comments policy – the Sequel”

any comments added to this thread will simply be deleted.

Comments RSS

	Can’t think of… on Myth making by Scientific…
	Ricomparsa del metan… on Richard Muller is a well bad…
	Rigore – L… on Myth making by Scientific…
	Michael Goguen on The media, you get what they p…
	On being ripped off… on That “Denier vs Septic…
	ナイキダウンシフト8 on It’s Twins!: Evolution a…
	Gun Control Means a… on David Bellamy: victim! but of…
	قیمت سنگ پله on It’s Twins!: Evolution a…
	سنگ دیوار ارزان on It’s Twins!: Evolution a…
	“You think I k… on That “Denier vs Septic…

Greenfyre’s

“My heart is moved by all I cannot save”

Closed Thread

158 Responses

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

CO2 Widget

Pages

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Tea Bagger Hate list

Tag Cloud

Feed Me

Technorati

Climate Ark

Climate – ENN

IPS – Inter Press

One World

Archives

RSS

Who links to my website?

Networked Blogs

Climate Blogs Search Engine

Climate Tweets

Climate Source

Blog Stats

Greenfyre’s

“My heart is moved by all I cannot save”

Closed Thread

Share this:

Like this:

Related

158 Responses

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

CO2 Widget

Pages

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Tea Bagger Hate list

Tag Cloud

Feed Me

Technorati

Climate Ark

Climate – ENN

IPS – Inter Press

One World

Archives

RSS

Who links to my website?

Networked Blogs

Climate Blogs Search Engine

Climate Tweets

Climate Source

Blog Stats