Burn them! (but capture the Carbon, okay?)

[EternalOptimist]

It is noticeable that the usual suspects are generally lacking in brainpower: DP, BB, EO, Zeitghost.
I don't expect any of them were near top of class.
All rather likeable ne-er-do-wells, but not bright enough to understand why they don't understand what they don't understand.
Meanwhile they prove to be useful idiots for the Zionist/Oil industry/Vested interests whose generally extremely well-funded propaganda is designed to maintain an interest in the Middle East/Oil industry.
Gor forbid that we stop using fossil fuels and find more maintainable energy sources: a lack of interest in Israel and the Middle East would follow as a logical consequence.

Where's the money coming from? Why aren't they as transparent as they claim climate scientists should be?
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."

Does this sort of stuff not ring a bell with the useful idiots? Apparently not.

HTH

I am interested in good health for me and my family as well. But if someone tried to sell me snake-oil and told me everyone in the street was buying it, doctors and scientists endorsed it, and even the great SasGoru swallowed it by the bucketful, he would still get my size nine proxy boot up his bum

[EternalOptimist]

The only reason I can think of for dead links is that your link reference library needs updating!

or the rebuttal site for newbies is down

[sasguru]

Just creating a pretend issue with CO2, false science, etc, idiotic IPCC predictions, manipulating data, spreading lies really gets my goat.

Scenario 1:

All the world's scientists, science academies and scientific societies have generated a conspiracy using false data that shows man-made C02 is raising the earth's temp.

Scenario 2:

The data indicates that man-made C02 is raising the earth's temp. This causes alarm in special interest groups who fear the consequences, particularly in Israel. So shadowy "foundations" with vast amounts of cash are set up to promote the opposite view.

If you think Scenario 1 is more likely than Scenario 2 you are indeed a useful idiot.

[Doggy Styles]

Have AGW believers ever broached the issue of population growth?

Which negates all of their proposed per capita cuts in CO2 production?

After all, that particular hockey stick is actually established fact, no jiggery pokery required.

But I don't suppose there are any juicy grants in that line.

[BlasterBates]

Life really is too short to try and dam the torrent of BS flowing along this thread, but here are a few facts:

>> Some tree ring proxies in some regions, all in the Northern Hemisphere, do diverge from instrumental temperatures since about 1960. This was known as the ‘divergence problem’ and of course the nefarious ‘Team’ did their absolute utmost to ensure nobody found out about it. They did this by er, publishing widely on the subject in the academic literature (as opposed to the Daily Mail.) and the IPCC reports, and of course only a select few elite and trusted scientists have access to wikipedia or the internet.

>> There are of course, other proxies, and here is the abstract from the most recent comprehensive reconstruction, published in 2008



Tabloid Translation: we know about the problems, thanks, but the Hockey Stick lives with or without Tree Rings.

The latest research on the paleoclimate record and in particular the medieval warming period was presented at a conference in Lisbon last year amongst others by Phil Jones and Michael Mann.

According to Professor Judith Curry, a highly respected climate scientist, as far as I'm aware not a journalist at the Daily Mail, it was a heap of Bull Sh1t

Hiding the Decline | Climate Etc.

There was another Workshop in Lisbon this past year (Sept 2010), on the Medieval Warm Period. The abstracts for the presentations are found here. No surprises, many of the usual people doing the usual things.

and she laments:

I view paleoclimate as a really important subject in the context of understanding climate change. I have no interest in warmest year or warmest decade; rather we need to understand the magnitude and characteristics and causes of natural climate variability over the current interglacial, particularly the last 2000 years. I’m more interested in the handle than the blade of the hockey stick. I also view understanding regional climate variations as much more important than trying to use some statistical model to create global average anomalies (which I personally regard as pointless, given the sampling issue).

[BlasterBates]

What they were saying in 1922:

1922: 'Extraordinary warmth in the Arctic during the last few years' -- Polar ice sheet to melt down? | Climate Depot

sound familiar?

[EternalOptimist]

I think what curry means by sample size, is that location and numbers are equally important.

for example, putting the thermostat for your front room central heating in the garage would be a bad mistake, because the temperatures vary , even over a short distance.

It is statistical complexities like this that SasGoru has difficulties understanding, so I have designed this little model for him

garage (cold) <> living room (urban heat island)

[pjclarke]

Bullsh1t? Actually, it is more that she is concerned about the overstatement of certainty in certain studies, which would be fair enough if she confined herself to an opinion, after all Professor Curry is indeed a distinguished climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. One would hope her opinion counted as an informed one. However climatology is a broad discipline and her specialist expertise is in atmospheric science and tropical storms. As she herself concedes at the start of the thread:

paleoproxies are outside the arena of my personal research expertise, and I find my eyes glaze over when I start reading about bristlecones, etc.

So it is interesting that she considers herself qualified to pass judgement on the work of people who have studied such matters as their life's work, and further to tacitly accuse them of dishonesty. She is on a bit of a one-woman crusade to build bridges between the 'sceptics' and mainstream science. Unfortunately she has taken some of the sceptics at face value and repeated some of their talking points without checking if they were well-founded, which if you are relying on Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) is only going to lead to trouble and indeed the good Professor has learned the hard way that not everything you read on the internet, or in the Bishop's uniquely 'inventive' book, is true.

Gavin Schmidt of NASA is unimpressed, to put it mildly, with this latest 'contribution' to the debate ....

You have gone significantly over the line with this post. Accusations of dishonesty are way beyond a difference of opinion on how a graph should be displayed.

If you thought that a single, smoothed graph of estimates of paleo-temperature told the whole story of paleo-climate reconstructions is far more a failing at your end than it is the authors involved. How can a single graph say everything that can possibly be said?

Summary graphs are by their very nature, summaries. The graphs you pick out were summaries of various estimates of what paleo-temperature estimates from the literature were. It is therefore not surprising that they show only the reconstructions where the authors had confidence that the reconstructions were actually of the temperatures. [...]

Problems with modern divergence – which only applies to the Briffa et al curve in any case – are issues to be dealt with in the technical literature, as they still are. Try actually reading the papers on the subject, and perhaps you would be less confused. Start with briffa et al (1998): Briffa et al (2001): or D’Arrigo et al (2007):

But if you think that the divergence problem makes Briffa et al (2001)’s reconstruction unreliable for whatever reason, go ahead and ignore it. It doesn’t affect Moberg et al, Ljundqvist 2010, Mann et al 2008 or Osborn and Briffa (2006). And it doesn’t make Briffa dishonest.

[EternalOptimist]

ok pj, we have all heard the negative stuff. Now say something positive about somebody


maybe, even, possibly say something positive about somebodies ideas

[pjclarke]

Briefly, cos I am tired, and I empathise with Dawkins' history teacher , and nobody actually, y'know, gives a sh1t....

The full global warming solution: How the world can stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm

And in answer to the population growth question being addressed by environmentalists, George Monbiot points out that, in terms of environmental damage and pollution, economic growth (historically coupled with emissions rising), the holy grail of most politicians, is a lot worse than more (mostly poor) people.

if we accept the UN’s projection, the global population will grow by roughly 50% and then stop. This means it will become 50% harder to stop runaway climate change, 50% harder to feed the world, 50% harder to prevent the overuse of resources. But compare this rate of increase to the rate of economic growth. Many economists predict that, occasional recessions notwithstanding, the global economy will grow by about 3% a year this century. Governments will do all they can to prove them right. A steady growth rate of 3% means a doubling of economic activity every 23 years. By 2100, in other words, global consumption will increase by roughly 1600%. [...] So economic growth this century could be 32 times as big an environmental issue as population growth. And, if governments, banks and businesses have their way, it never stops. By 2115, the cumulative total rises to 3200%, by 2138 to 6400%. As resources are finite, this is of course impossible, but it is not hard to see that rising economic activity – not human numbers – is the immediate and overwhelming threat.

See also The Population Myth | George Monbiot

I will now be accused of being anti-progress and anti-prosperity.