CINXE.COM

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> <head><script type="text/javascript" src="/_static/js/bundle-playback.js?v=HxkREWBo" charset="utf-8"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/_static/js/wombat.js?v=txqj7nKC" charset="utf-8"></script> <script>window.RufflePlayer=window.RufflePlayer||{};window.RufflePlayer.config={"autoplay":"on","unmuteOverlay":"hidden"};</script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/_static/js/ruffle/ruffle.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> __wm.init("https://web.archive.org/web"); __wm.wombat("http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php","20120117030150","https://web.archive.org/","web","/_static/", "1326769310"); </script> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/_static/css/banner-styles.css?v=S1zqJCYt" /> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/_static/css/iconochive.css?v=3PDvdIFv" />  <script type="text/javascript">var _sf_startpt=(new Date()).getTime()</script> <title>January 2012 Open Thread : Deltoid</title> <meta name="description" content=""> <meta name="keywords" content=""/> <meta name="DESCRIPTION" content="Science and politics"/> <meta name="KEYWORDS" content="science global warming gun control ddt environment statistics"/> <meta name="AUTHOR" content="Tim Lambert"/> <meta name="Copyright" content="Tim Lambert"/> <meta name="DC.rights" scheme="DCTERMS.URI" content="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en-au"/> <meta name="Rating" content="General"/> <meta name="doc-class" content="Living Document"/> <style media="print" type="text/css"> @import url(/web/20120117030150cs_/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/styles-print.css);</style> <link rel="EditURI" type="application/rsd+xml" title="RSD" href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/rsd.xml"/> <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="RSS 2.0" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/index.xml"/> <style type="text/css"> /* Prefix all your new classes with div.blogMain to prevent clobbering the global styles; for example: div.blogMain p {font-size: 14px;} */ </style> <style type="text/css"> @import url(/web/20120117030150cs_/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/deltoid.css);</style>  <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150js_/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/mt-site.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> window.onload = individualArchivesOnLoad(commenter_name); </script> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/> <meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en-us"/> <meta name="robots" content="NOODP"/> <meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="true"/> <meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="false"/> <link rel="stylesheet" href="/web/20120117030150cs_/http://scienceblogs.com/-/css/screen/main.css" type="text/css" media="screen, projection"/>    <link rel="stylesheet" href="/web/20120117030150cs_/http://scienceblogs.com/-/css/print/main.css" type="text/css" media="print"/> <script type="text/javascript" src="/web/20120117030150js_/http://scienceblogs.com/-/js/global.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/web/20120117030150js_/http://scienceblogs.com/-/js/jquery.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/web/20120117030150js_/http://scienceblogs.com/-/js/jquery-functions.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> /* RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR FOR DART */ var axel = Math.random() + ""; var ord = axel * 1000000000000000000; </script>   </head> <body id="blog"> <div class="seedBanner"> <p class="left">Now on ScienceBlogs: <a class="title" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2012/01/dr_kings_legacy_and_environmen.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link">Dr. King's legacy and environmental justice</a> </p>  </div> <div id="sbMainContainer"> <div id="topPromoContainer"> <div id="leaderboard">   <script language="JavaScript1.1"> var bust; if (typeof bust == 'undefined') { bust = Math.floor(1000000*Math.random()); } if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mozilla/2.') >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV")>= 0) { document.write('<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/ng.scienceblogs/misc;sz=728x90;tile=1;ord='+bust+'">'); document.write('<img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/ng.scienceblogs/misc;sz=728x90;tile=1;ord='+bust+'" border="0" height="90" width="728"></a>'); } else { document.write('<scr' + 'ipt language="JavaScript1.1" SRC="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/ng.scienceblogs/misc;dcopt=ist;sz=728x90;tile=1;ord='+bust+'">'); document.write('<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/ng.scienceblogs/misc;sz=728x90;tile=1;ord='+bust+'">'); document.write('<img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/ng.scienceblogs/misc;sz=728x90;tile=1;ord='+bust+'" border="0" height="90" width="728"></a>'); document.write('</scr' + 'ipt>'); } </script> <noscript> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/ng.scienceblogs/misc;sz=728x90;tile=1;ord=20021017123955"> <img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/ng.scienceblogs/misc;sz=728x90;tile=1;ord=20021017123955" border="0" height="90" width="728"></a> </noscript>  </div> <div id="topPromo"> <a class="singleImage" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/bookclub/inside_the_outbreaks/"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/promos/bkclb_outbreaks_222x90.gif" alt="ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks"/></a> </div>  </div> <div class="globalNav"> <ul id="mainNav"> <li id="hoursNav"><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/24-hours/?utm_source=globalChannel&utm_medium=link">Last 24 Hrs</a></li> <li id="lifeNav"><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-science/?utm_source=globalChannel&utm_medium=link">Life Science</a></li> <li id="physicalNav"><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/physical-science/?utm_source=globalChannel&utm_medium=link">Physical Science</a></li> <li id="environmentNav"><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/environment/?utm_source=globalChannel&utm_medium=link">Environment</a></li> <li id="humanitiesNav"><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/humanities/?utm_source=globalChannel&utm_medium=link">Humanities</a></li> <li id="educationNav"><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/education/?utm_source=globalChannel&utm_medium=link">Education</a></li> <li id="politicsNav"><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/politics/?utm_source=globalChannel&utm_medium=link">Politics</a></li> <li id="medicineNav"><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/medicine/?utm_source=globalChannel&utm_medium=link">Medicine</a></li> <li id="brainNav"><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/brain-and-behavior/?utm_source=globalChannel&utm_medium=link">Brain & Behavior</a></li> <li id="technologyNav"><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/technology/?utm_source=globalChannel&utm_medium=link">Technology</a></li> <li id="informationNav"><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/information-science/?utm_source=globalChannel&utm_medium=link">Information Science</a></li> <li id="jobsNav"><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/jobs/?utm_source=globalChannel&utm_medium=link">Jobs</a></li> </ul></div> <div class="blogContainer"> <div class="mainCol"> <div class="blogTop"> <div class="masthead makeClickable" style="background: url(/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/deltoid.png) 0 0 no-repeat;"> <h1><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/" accesskey="1">Deltoid</a></h1> <p>January 2012 Open Thread</p> <p></p> </div> <div class="nav"> <ul> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/">Latest Posts</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/archives.php">Archives</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/about.php">About</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/rss.php">RSS</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/contact.php">Contact</a></li> </ul> </div> </div> <div class="blogLeft">  <h3><span>Search</span></h3> <form action="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.google.com/cse" onsubmit="document.getElementById('qbox').value=document.getElementById('qbox').value + ' site:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/';" id="searchbox_017254414699180528062:uyrcvn__yd0" class="blogSearch"> <p><input type="hidden" name="cx" value="017254414699180528062:uyrcvn__yd0"/> <input type="text" name="q" id="qbox"/> <input type="submit" name="sa" value="Search"/></p> </form> <h3><span>Profile</span></h3> <p class="profile"><img alt="Tim Lambert" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/img/tim41px.jpg" width="41" height="55"/> Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales. </p><p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://feeds.feedburner.com/scienceblogs/deltoid"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://feeds.feedburner.com/~fc/scienceblogs/deltoid?bg=8DC63F&fg=000000&anim=0" height="26" width="88" style="border:0" alt=""/></a></p> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.wikio.com/blogs/top/sciences"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://external.wikio.com/blogs/top/getrank?url=http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid&cat=sciences" style="border: none;" alt="Wikio - Top Blogs - Sciences"/></a> <div id="fb-root"></div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;} js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script> <div class="fb-like-box" data-href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Deltoid/140377509394975" data-width="200" data-show-faces="false" data-stream="false" data-header="false"></div>  <h3><span>Recent Posts</span><br class="clear"/></h3> <ul class="linkList"> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/more_fraud_from_pat_michaels.php">More fraud from Pat Michaels</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/the_australians_war_on_science_79.php">The Australian's War on Science 76: Dad Jokes</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php">January 2012 Open Thread</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/better_late_than_never_at_the.php">Better late than never at The Australian</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/merry_christmas_1.php">Merry Christmas</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/keith_kloors_thinking_on_clima.php">Keith Kloor's thinking on climate change</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/wegman_one_of_the_scientists_t.php">Wegman one of <em>The Scientist</em>'s top five science scandals</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/the_australians_war_on_science_78.php">The Australian's War on Science 75: Plimer vs Plimer</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/plimer_suffers_from_crank_magn.php">Plimer suffers from crank magnetism</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/monckton_debunks_monckton.php">Monckton debunks Monckton</a></li> </ul>  <h3><span>Recent Comments</span></h3> <ul class="linkList altLinks"> <li>MikeH on <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#c6212845">January 2012 Open Thread</a></li> <li>Bernard J. on <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#c6212837">January 2012 Open Thread</a></li> <li>Bernard J. on <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#c6212829">January 2012 Open Thread</a></li> <li>Bernard J. on <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#c6212823">January 2012 Open Thread</a></li> <li>bill on <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#c6212822">January 2012 Open Thread</a></li> <li>Chris O'Neill on <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#c6212821">January 2012 Open Thread</a></li> <li>Bernard J. on <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#c6212819">January 2012 Open Thread</a></li> <li><a title="http://www.skepticalscience.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.skepticalscience.com/" rel="nofollow">dana1981</a> on <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/more_fraud_from_pat_michaels.php#c6212814">More fraud from Pat Michaels</a></li> <li>Richard Simons on <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#c6212812">January 2012 Open Thread</a></li> <li>Trent1492 on <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/more_fraud_from_pat_michaels.php#c6212809">More fraud from Pat Michaels</a></li> </ul>  <h3><span>Categories</span></h3> <ul class="linkList"> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ask_a_scienceblogger/" title="">Ask a ScienceBlogger</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/brignell/" title="">Brignell</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/cfcs_and_ozone/" title="">CFCs and ozone</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ddt/" title="">DDT</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/fumento/" title="">Fumento</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/" title="">Global Warming</a> <ul class="linkList"> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/kininmonth/" title="">Kininmonth</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/leakegate/" title="">Leakegate</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/lindzen/" title="">Lindzen</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/marohasy/" title="">Marohasy</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/mcintyre/" title="">McIntyre</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/mckitrick/" title="">McKitrick</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/monckton/" title="">Monckton</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/pearcegate/" title="">Pearcegate</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/plimer/" title="">Plimer</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/roger_pielke_jr/" title="">Roger Pielke Jr</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/rosegate_1/" title="">Rosegate</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/singer/" title="">Singer</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/wegman/" title="">Wegman</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/bobcarter/" title="">bobcarter</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/patmichaels/" title="">patmichaels</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/timball/" title="">timball</a> </li> </ul> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/gregg_easterbrook_is_an_idiot/" title="">Gregg Easterbrook is an idiot</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/iraq/" title="">Iraq</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lancetiraq/" title="The Lancet study that found roughly 100,000 excess deaths in Iraq after the coualition invaded.">LancetIraq</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/" title="">Lott</a> <ul class="linkList"> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/appalachian/" title="">Appalachian</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/baghdad/" title="">Baghdad</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/levitt/" title="">Levitt</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/maryrosh/" title="">MaryRosh</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/merced/" title="">Merced</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/more_guns_less_crime/" title="">More Guns Less Crime</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/askjohnlott/" title="">askjohnlott</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/cherry-picking/" title="">cherry picking</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/files/" title="">files</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/how_many_guns/" title="">how many guns</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/links/" title="">links</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/misc/" title="">misc</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/safestorage/" title="">safe-storage</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/safest-means/" title="">safest-means</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott/survey/" title="">survey</a> </li> </ul> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/milloy/" title="">Milloy</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/open_thread/" title="">Open Thread</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/roy_spencer/" title="">Roy Spencer</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/skeptics_circle/" title="">Skeptics Circle</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/the_war_on_science/" title="">The War on Science</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/academia/" title="">academia</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/astroturf/" title="">astroturf</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/bingo/" title="">bingo</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/computers/" title="">computers</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/creationism/" title="">creationism</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/criminology/" title="">criminology</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/economics/" title="">economics</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/free_speech/" title="">free speech</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/funny/" title="">funny</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/" title="">guns</a> <ul class="linkList"> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/australia/" title="">Australia</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/bellesiles/" title="">Bellesiles</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/kellermann/" title="">Kellermann</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/kennesaw/" title="">Kennesaw</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/nsw/" title="">NSW</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/orlando/" title="">Orlando</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/publichealth/" title="">Public Health</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/uk/" title="">UK</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/usa/" title="">USA</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/washington/" title="">Washington DC</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/burglary/" title="">burglary</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/canada/" title="">canada</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/dgu/" title="">dgu</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/handguns/" title="">handguns</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/international/" title="">international</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/japan/" title="">japan</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/kates/" title="">kates</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/knives/" title="">knives</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/silly/" title="">silly</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/guns/suicide/" title="">suicide</a> </li> </ul> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/maths/" title="">maths</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/meet_up/" title="">meet up</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/meta/" title="">meta</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/personal/" title="">personal</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/politics/" title="">politics</a> <ul class="linkList"> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/politics/bolt/" title="">Bolt</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/politics/steyn/" title="">Steyn</a> </li> </ul> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/quackery/" title="">quackery</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/random/" title="">random</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/reviews/" title="">reviews</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/statistics/" title="">statistics</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/stupidity/" title="">stupidity</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/surveys/" title="">surveys</a> </li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/world/" title="">world</a> </li> </ul> <h3><span>Archives</span></h3> <ul class="linkList"> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/" target="_main">January 2012</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/" target="_main">December 2011</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/" target="_main">November 2011</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/10/" target="_main">October 2011</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/" target="_main">September 2011</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/" target="_main">August 2011</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/" target="_main">July 2011</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/" target="_main">June 2011</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/05/" target="_main">May 2011</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/04/" target="_main">April 2011</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/" target="_main">March 2011</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/" target="_main">February 2011</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/" target="_main">January 2011</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/12/" target="_main">December 2010</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/" target="_main">November 2010</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/" target="_main">October 2010</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/" target="_main">September 2010</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/" target="_main">August 2010</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/" target="_main">July 2010</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/" target="_main">June 2010</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/" target="_main">May 2010</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/" target="_main">April 2010</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/" target="_main">March 2010</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/" target="_main">February 2010</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/" target="_main">January 2010</a></li> </ul> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/archives.php">Full archives</a> <h3><span>Links</span></h3> <ul class="linkList"> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://news.google.com/">Google News</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.memeorandum.com/">Memeorandum</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://slashdot.org/" title="News for nerds">Slashdot</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.snopes.com/info/whatsnew.asp" title="Latest Urban Legends">Snopes</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.smh.com.au/">Sydney Morning Herald</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://xkcd.com/" title="Stick-figure strip featuring humour about technology, science, mathematics and relationships, by Randall Munroe.">xkcd</a></li> </ul> <h3><span>Blogroll</span></h3> <ul class="linkList"> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://angrybear.blogspot.com/" title="Slightly left of center comments on news, politics, and economics from an economist.">Angry Bear</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://atmoz.org/blog">Atmoz</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/">Backseat driving</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://barista.media2.org/" title="Interesting links and comments on most every topic">Barista</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climatecrocks.com/" title="Peter Sinclair's videos">Climate denial crock</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/" title="Economics and politics">Brad Delong</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://bravenewclimate.com/" title="Getting to grips with the brave new world of future climate">Brave New Climate</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://membracid.wordpress.com/" title="Entomology. Gardening. Ranting. Nerdery.">Bug Girls' Blog</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/" title="Chris Colose">Climate Change</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/" title="Nature Reports blog on Climate Change">Climate Feedback</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climateprogress.org/" title="Joe Romm">Climate Progress</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.climateshifts.org/" title="Ove Hoegh-Guldberg on climate change and coral reefs">Climate Shifts</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climatesight.org/" title="Kate's just a student, but she's a clear thinker">Climate Sight</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/" title="Ken Parish et al on Australian politics">Club Troppo</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.crookedtimber.org/" title="Group blog covering sociology, economics, politics ...">Crooked Timber</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/">David Friedman</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://deepclimate.org/">Deep Climate</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://atrios.blogspot.com/" title="News and politics from a left-leaning point of view.">Eschaton</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://fafblog.blogspot.com/" title="Very very very funny">Fafblog</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/" title="Mmm... statistics">FiveThirtyEight</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.freakonomics.com/blog">Freakonomics blog</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/" title="Mike Kaulbars on climate change">Greenfyre's</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://gristmill.grist.org/">Gristmill</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.groklaw.net/index.php" title="SCO is suing everyone connected with Open Source and PJ is covering the case">Groklaw</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://hot-topic.co.nz/">Hot Topic</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/">Hit and Run</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://inactivism.tk/" title="Frank Bi on AGW">International Journal of Inactivism</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/">James' Empty Blog</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://johnquiggin.com/" title="Commentary on Australian & world events from a social-democratic perspective.">John Quiggin</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://jonswift.blogspot.com/">Jon Swift</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/">Kevin Drum</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/">Larvatus Prodeo</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://logicalscience.blogspot.com/" title="Defending mainstream science">Logical Science</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/" title="Language, fraud, folly, truth, knitting, and growing luminous by eating light.">Making Light</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/" title="History, social studies, accuracy and education ">Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/">More Grumbine Science</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/index.html" title="Not the UFO magazine">Nexus 6</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.juliansanchez.com/" title="Libertarian journalist from Reason magazine.">Notes from the Lounge</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.oliverwillis.com/" title="Like Kryptonite to stupid">Oliver Willis</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/" title="Michael Tobis">Only In It For The Gold</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://tamino.wordpress.com/" title="Tamino on global warming">Open Mind</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/" title="Just another Nobel winning blogger">Paul Krugman</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/" title="Steve Benen on politics">Political Animal</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://davidappell.blogspot.com/" title="David Appell on science">Quark Soup</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://rabett.blogspot.com/">Rabett Run</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.realclimate.org/" title="A blog on climate science by working climate scientists.">RealClimate</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.sadlyno.com/" title="Using facts like a meat ax">Sadly, No!</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/" title="A daily dose of snark">TBogg</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/" title="Karl Zimmer on science">The Loom</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.pandasthumb.org/" title="Group blog debunking Creationism">The Panda's Thumb</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://thepoorman.net/" title="Kittens and incisive political commentry">The Poor Man</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.samefacts.com/" title="Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.">The Reality-based Community</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://volokh.com/" title="Group blog on law and politics from a centre-right perspective">The Volokh Conspiracy</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://thinkprogress.org/">Think Progress</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.tpmcafe.com/" title="Group blog on politics, culture and public life in the United States.">TPM Cafe</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.highclearing.com/" title="Jim Henley is a small-government libertarian.">Unqualified Offerings</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/">Watching the Deniers</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.amk.ca/diary/">AMK's Journal</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://andrewnorton.info/blog/">Andrew Norton</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/">Antony Loewenstein</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.archpundit.com/">ArchPundit</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://rufnkiddingme.blogspot.com/">are you effin' kidding me?</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://pmbryant.typepad.com/">B and B</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.aintnobaddude.com/">Brian Linse</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://carnabyfudge.blogspot.com/">Carnaby Fudge</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.desmogblog.com/">DeSmogBlog</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://detachedobserver.blogspot.com/">Detached Observer</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.eriposte.com/">eRiposte</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://explananda.com/">Explananda</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://flopearedmule.net/">Flop Eared Mule</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://landownunder.blogspot.com/">From a LAN Downunder</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://viv.id.au/blog/"> Hoyden About Town</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/">Infothought</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/">John Fleck</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://thehardsell.wordpress.com/">The Hard Sell</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.harryrclarke.com/" title="One of the rare right wingers not in denial about global warming">Harry Clarke</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.knownunknowns.blogspot.com/">Known Unknowns</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.matthewturner.co.uk/Blog/">Matt T</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.malariafreefuture.org/blog/index.php">Malaria Matters</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/">Mobjectivist</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://williamtozier.com/slurry">Notional Slurry</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://opiniondominion.blogspot.com/" title="One of the rare right wingers not in denial about global warming">Opinion Dominion</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://penguinunearthed.wordpress.com/">Penguin Unearthed</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://probonostats.wordpress.com/">Pro Bono Statistics</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://kriswager.blogspot.com/" title="Kristjan Wager">Pro-science</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/" title="Stephen Soldz">Psyche, Science, and Society</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://rantsnrants.blogspot.com/">Rants and Raves</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://saysuncle.com/">Say Uncle</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://section15.blogspot.com/">Section 15</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://willbradyjournal.blogspot.com/">short notes: will brady's ruminations</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://skepticscircle.blogspot.com/">Skeptics' Circle</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://xnerg.blogspot.com/">skippy the bush kangaroo</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/">Some are Boojums</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.speedkill.org/">Speedkill</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.manthatcooks.com/">spiceblog</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://stevegloor.typepad.com/">Stephen Gloor</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://stoush.net/">stoush.net</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.andrewbartlett.com/blog/">The Bartlett Diaries</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://ethicalwerewolf.blogspot.com/">The Ethical Werewolf</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/">The Huffington Post</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://myron-ebell.blogspot.com/">The Myron Ebell Climate</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.postnormaltimes.net/">The Post-Normal Times</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://virtualstoa.net/">The Virtual Stoa</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://weblog.pell.portland.or.us/%7Eorc">This Space For Rent</a></li> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://cloggie.org/wissewords2/">Wis[s]e Words</a></li> </ul> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/img/unswcse150.png" width="150" height="150" alt="1st for computer science"/></a> </div> <div class="blogMain"> <p class="contentNav"> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/better_late_than_never_at_the.php">« Better late than never at The Australian</a> | <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/">Main</a> | <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/the_australians_war_on_science_79.php">The Australian's War on Science 76: Dad Jokes »</a> </p> <h2><a id="a181356" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php">January 2012 Open Thread</a></h2> <p class="categories"> Category: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/open_thread/">Open Thread</a><br/> Posted on: January 2, 2012 8:51 PM, by <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/">Tim Lambert</a> </p> <div class="entry" id="entry-181356"> <div id="more"> </div> </div> <style>.pm_tools_small .pm_tool {display:block;float:left;height:20px;margin:0 0.5em 8px;}</style> <div class="pm_tools" style="margin-bottom:40px"> <div class="pm_tools_expanded"> <div class="pm_tools_large"> <iframe src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150if_/http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php&layout=standard&show_faces=false&width=516&action=like&colorscheme=light&height=35" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:516px; height:35px;" allowtransparency="true"></iframe> </div> </div> <div class="pm_tools_small" style="margin:0 2px 0 -4px;float:left;width:100%;"> <div class="pm_tool twitter"> <iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" role="presentation" scrolling="no" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150if_/http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.html?url=http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php&count=horizontal&text=January 2012 Open Thread&via=scienceblogs" style="width: 100px; height: 20px;"></iframe> </div> <div class="pm_tool digg"> <script type="text/javascript"> (function() { var s = document.createElement('SCRIPT'), s1 = document.getElementsByTagName('SCRIPT')[0]; s.type = 'text/javascript'; s.async = true; s.src = 'https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://widgets.digg.com/buttons.js'; s1.parentNode.insertBefore(s, s1); })(); </script> <a class="DiggThisButton DiggIcon"></a> </div> <div class="pm_tool reddit"> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php&January 2012 Open Thread=January 2012 Open Thread" onclick="window.open(this.href,'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436');return false;" target="_new"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/-/img/icon_reddit.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" january 2012 open thread="Share on Facebook"/></a> </div> <div class="pm_tool stumbleupon"> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php&January 2012 Open Thread=January 2012 Open Thread" onclick="window.open(this.href,'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436');return false;" target="_new"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/-/img/icon_stumbleupon.gif" alt="Share on StumbleUpon" january 2012 open thread="Share on StumbleUpon"/></a> </div> <div class="pm_tool fbshare"> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php&t=January 2012 Open Thread" onclick="window.open(this.href,'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436');return false;" target="_new"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/-/img/icon_facebook.gif" alt="Share on Facebook" january 2012 open thread="Share on Facebook"/></a> </div> </div> </div>  <div id="comments" class="comments"> <div class="comments-content"> <h3 class="metaHeader">Comments</h3> <a id="c6205688"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6205688"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">1</span> <p>Anyone know about a study i heard (from Cornell I think) about aerosols maybe a month ago. It was a woman on NPR talking about their research that shows aerosols not only block some radiation, but that they can also have a decade effect mitigating CO2 by biological processes as a precipitate after coming out of the atmosphere. This is the type of thing I have always thought if there were mitigating factors that biological ones might be more likely. But I have read nothing about it since</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Tony Duncan | <a href="#comment-6205688">January 2, 2012 11:39 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6205735"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6205735"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">2</span> <p>Tony, is this the story: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.npr.org/2011/11/11/142218650/air-pollution-bad-for-health-but-good-for-planet" rel="nofollow">Air Pollution: Bad For Health, But Good For Planet?</a></p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://www.npr.org/2011/11/11/142218650/air-pollution-bad-for-health-but-good-for-planet" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.npr.org/2011/11/11/142218650/air-pollution-bad-for-health-but-good-for-planet" rel="nofollow">Scribe</a> | <a href="#comment-6205735">January 3, 2012 12:59 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6205938"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6205938"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">3</span> <p>First of all Happy New Year to you all and I can only hope fervently that your prognostications for global warming hurry up and manifest themselves - I can't stand yet another dim, drear, wet, chilly Summer.</p> <p>However, I have another reason to enter these august columns today because I wish to bring to your attention some very wise words of warning from Friedrich Hayek, delivered during his acceptance speech for his Nobel Prize in Economics. Referring to the over-use and over-reliance on 'mathematical models', he said this, and I would simply urge you all to substitute the word 'economists' with 'global climate technologists':</p> <p>“<i>It seems to me that this failure of the economists [global climate technologists] to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences – an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error. It is an approach which has come to be described as the “scientistic” attitude – an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, ‘is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed.</i>’”</p> <p>The comments thread to the post is worth reading, too:</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://cafehayek.com/2011/12/hayek-on-scientistic-hubris.html" rel="nofollow">http://cafehayek.com/2011/12/hayek-on-scientistic-hubris.html</a></p> <p>So, there is your new Year's resolution - avoid 'scientistic attitudes'!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/" rel="nofollow">David Duff</a> | <a href="#comment-6205938">January 3, 2012 9:43 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6205948"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6205948"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">4</span> <p>David Duff, thanks for bringing us yet another spirited defence of bullshit. More, please.</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6205948">January 3, 2012 9:55 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6205951"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6205951"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">5</span> <p><em>I can only hope fervently that your prognostications for global warming hurry up and manifest themselves - I can't stand yet another dim, drear, wet, chilly Summer</em></p> <p>The U.K. experienced its second warmest year on record in 2011; same over here in the Netherlands. Spring was the warmest and driest yet recorded in both countries; autumn was also near the warmest and the driest as well. For the first time ever water restrictions almost had to be applied here in late November. The winter has so far seen record warmth: no frosts at all in December, and to my utter shock spring and summer annual plants - crucifers, umbellifers etc - are not only growing well but many are flowering in warm microclimates along south facing ditches and slopes. I spent the Christmas period on the island of Terscehlling and the level of plant growth along roadsides and medaows was something I have never seen at this time of year. Unprecedented. If this goes on it will cause havoc amongst a wide array of late winter-early spring ecological interactions, and further exacebrate phenological asynchronies.</p> <p>Eastern North bAmerica has also had an exceptionally warm winter period: no snow at all in Wisconsin and eastern Minnesota, and a colleague at the University of Toronto told me that lakes in central Ontario that normally freeze in late Novemeber were still open just before Christmas. </p> <p>Duffer: go back to school and learn a little. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Jeff Harvey | <a href="#comment-6205951">January 3, 2012 10:03 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6205956"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6205956"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">6</span> <blockquote>Eastern North bAmerica has also had an exceptionally warm winter period: </blockquote> <p>Not just eastern North America. The Canadian prairies have been well above average, with my part of Manitoba being forecast to be 18C above normal today.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Richard Simons | <a href="#comment-6205956">January 3, 2012 10:17 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206012"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206012"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">7</span> <p>'Yeah, but it's just weather, innit'!</p> <p>Now where have I read those words, or something very like them,before?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/" rel="nofollow">David Duff</a> | <a href="#comment-6206012">January 3, 2012 12:08 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206017"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206017"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">8</span> <p>Yes, Duffster, it's just weather. So why did you need to misrepresent it in the first place?</p> <p>Also, what part of climatology is not part of "brilliantly successful physical sciences"? </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://www.kevland.com/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.kevland.com/" rel="nofollow">Johnny Vector</a> | <a href="#comment-6206017">January 3, 2012 12:13 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206018"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206018"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">9</span> <p>re:3 and Hayek's rejection of scientific models</p> <p>Not surprising since Hayek's ideas are closer to religion than science.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://lendmealookingglass.blogspot.com/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://lendmealookingglass.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Jeffrey Davis</a> | <a href="#comment-6206018">January 3, 2012 12:17 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206022"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206022"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">10</span> <p>The words below <i>are</i> truly wise words, but of course they'll simply fly over David Duff's head:</p> <blockquote> <p>Fairness means "everyone wins" to you? That's your problem then, that's not what fairness means at all. Fairness is when the rules are applied equally to all no matter what someone might think of them.</p> </blockquote> <p>(<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/judge-affirms-appalling-ripoff-reports-communications-decency-act-protection.ars?comments=1" rel="nofollow">Context</a>.)</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6206022">January 3, 2012 12:35 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206045"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206045"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">11</span> <p>Jeff @ 5<blockquote>If this goes on it will cause havoc amongst a wide array of late winter-early spring ecological interactions, and further exacebrate phenological asynchronies.</blockquote></p> <p>Absolutely, I have heard much about such disruption of late but I doubt Duffer can even parse those last three words without reference. Quite beyond his experience.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">Lionel A</a> | <a href="#comment-6206045">January 3, 2012 1:16 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206077"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206077"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">12</span> <p>Of course, Duff's whinging about "it's just weather" has to do with the repeated attempts by denialists to claim that some "anomalously" cold or snowy weather over a very short time scale over a very small land area disproves the reality of climate change (aka "weather affects climate").</p> <p>Whereas what we know of physics, of the atmospheric and oceanic circulatory systems, and weather variability, we would expect to find that the rapid human-induced global warming would result in a 'loading of the dice', so to speak, favouring increased quantity and severity of extreme hot weather events and fewer (though not, indeed never "no") extreme cold weather events (aka "climate affects weather").</p> <p>What do we find when we examine the data? <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1116" rel="nofollow">What a surprise!</a> Climate affects the weather.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://composer99.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://composer99.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Composer99</a> | <a href="#comment-6206077">January 3, 2012 2:22 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206109"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206109"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">13</span> <p><em>'Yeah, but it's just weather, innit'!</em></p> <p>Sure thing Duffo, but isn't it interesting that when the deniers conflate climate and weather its OK, but when their opponents do it the deniers scream foul play! Foul play!</p> <p>Sunspot has honed the technique. He cuts-and-pastes obscure articles about cold weather events some place or other, than when others do the same with many more examples showing record high temperatures, extended heat waves etc., he goes off on a tangent about the evils of 'warmers' and how they just don't understand the importance of scale. </p> <p>Tells me all I need to know about deniers: hypocrites one and all. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Jeff Harvey | <a href="#comment-6206109">January 3, 2012 3:53 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206123"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206123"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">14</span> <p>Duff:</p> <blockquote>I would simply urge you all to substitute the word 'economists' with 'global climate technologists'</blockquote> <p>No-one here gives a flying one for your grubby urgings. Please take them, along with whatever thoughts wander into your head looking for something to connect with, elsewhere. I'd like to think we can have one Open Thread that doesn't devolve into 2500 vacuous, drivelling posts by Duff, but going on previous history...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: SteveC | <a href="#comment-6206123">January 3, 2012 4:35 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206164"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206164"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">15</span> <p>Why does anyone bother to engage with this pompous buffoon? </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Alan | <a href="#comment-6206164">January 3, 2012 5:50 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206178"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206178"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">16</span> <p>DD, your Hayek analogy fails because -</p> <p>IMHO, orthodox economists tend to try and fit reality into their models and theories, disregarding reality when it doesn't do what it should do.</p> <p>Climate scientists tend to try to understand why reality is doing what it is doing, and use models as a tool for understanding. The models get dropped or their structure and interactions refined if they don't correspond to reality.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: KiwiInOz | <a href="#comment-6206178">January 3, 2012 6:30 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206185"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206185"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">17</span> <p>Hey Duff, did actually read that Freidrich Heydeck quote? He said that the problem with the economists is that they have (unsuccessfully) tried to "imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences".</p> <p>Climate science is one of those "brilliantly successful physical sciences". Well done on the home goal!</p> <p>If economists had even a fraction of the success of climate scientists with their predictions, the economies of World would not be in such a mess.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Craig Allen | <a href="#comment-6206185">January 3, 2012 6:53 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206194"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206194"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">18</span> <p>I am skeptical of climate models.</p> <p>Haven't they been underestimating several effects of climate change?</p> <p>Aren't they missing important climate feedbacks?</p> <p>Aren't they lulling policy makers into a false sense of security.</p> <p>One Arctic expert said to me recently "If there's a conflict between reality and models, the modelers stick to their models."</p> <p>Reality seems much more serious than the models have predicted.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">Geoff Beacon</a> | <a href="#comment-6206194">January 3, 2012 7:22 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206209"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206209"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">19</span> <p>Good point Geoff Beacon.</p> <p>Climate models make an important contribution to our understanding of the effects of AGW but I too am concerned that they often exclude data related to Arctic slow feedbacks, particularly retreat of ice sheets, loss of albedo and increase in methane emissions.</p> <p>How can one possibly predict likely movement in sea level rise and average global temperature without taking these matters into consideration?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Mike Pope | <a href="#comment-6206209">January 3, 2012 8:28 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206229"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206229"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">20</span> <p>@3. <blockquote>I can't stand yet another dim, drear, wet, chilly Summer.</blockquote></p> <p>So you either live on the east coast of Australia which has been affected by a La Nina this summer (c'mon Dave, what does a La Nina do to the east coast of Australia?), or you are living on another planet somewhere in a galaxy far, far away.</p> <p>And not 5 milliseconds after making this ludicrous and obvious comment related to local weather and local climate effects, you lambast others for countering with the same.</p> <p>Heck Dave, why don't you just issue a signed declaration that everything to do with global warming is crap, and leave it at that? Then at least we'd save some time and effort here.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Mikem | <a href="#comment-6206229">January 3, 2012 9:23 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206257"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206257"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">21</span> <p>David Duff.</p> <p>We had our warmest January night ever the day before yesterday, so by your previous winter logic global warming is now moving apace.</p> <p>Glad to see that you're finally on board.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6206257">January 3, 2012 10:55 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206321"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206321"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">22</span> <p>@ Bernard (above)</p> <p>The problem is since Duff regularly transposes "weather" and "climate" at will and as it suits his purposes at the time, he will sooner or later quote BoM stats for Sydney in December 2011, which was the coolest since 1960 and the least sunny since 2003, and thus will predictably shriek "climate change is bunk". Like others of his ilk he conveniently dismisses what's going on across the rest of the globe, not to say long term trends.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: SteveC | <a href="#comment-6206321">January 4, 2012 2:21 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206340"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206340"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">23</span> <p>The Duffer said:</p> <blockquote>So, there is your new Year's resolution - avoid 'scientistic attitudes'!</blockquote> <p>That's excellent advice. If the deniers take it to heart, we should have less noice and more signal in discussions on questions of climate. They are forever copying and pasting stuff they don't understand or can't be bothered reading merely so they can sound as if what they propose is scientifically rigorous when their misuse of the content and copy and paste tropes amount to <em>scientistic</em> gaffleflab. Plimer's "questions" to Monbiot (<em>use the flitches, Luke</em>) some years back were an excellent example of this. So too is anything from Monckton. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0120a7ead1d3970b" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0120a7ead1d3970b" rel="nofollow">Fran Barlow</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0120a7ead1d3970b"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6206340">January 4, 2012 3:35 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206352"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206352"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">24</span> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer" rel="nofollow">Ian Plimer</a> in 2009 "debunks" AGW by <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/its-been-freezing-in-perth-and-bucketing-down-says-climate-sceptic-ian-plimer/story-e6frg13u-1225808519655" rel="nofollow">claiming</a> that:</p> <blockquote>"It's been <i><b>freezing</b></i> in Perth and bucketing down ..."</blockquote> <p>Reality intervenes in Plimer's denialist script. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/2011-perths-hottest-ever-year-20120104-1pksh.html" rel="nofollow">2011 was hottest year ever in Perth</a>:</p> <blockquote>It's official - 2011 was Perth's hottest year on record, with the city recording an average temperature of 25.7 degrees. Heatwaves at the start and end of the year and above average temperatures for every month but November pushed the average above last year's 25.3 degrees - which was also a record. The city has now sweltered through <b><i>three out of its four hottest ever years in the past three years alone, and broken the record in successive years</i></b>.</blockquote> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/2011-perths-hottest-ever-year-20120104-1pksh.html" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/2011-perths-hottest-ever-year-20120104-1pksh.html" rel="nofollow">Scribe</a> | <a href="#comment-6206352">January 4, 2012 4:22 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206364"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206364"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">25</span> <p>Well, I'm delighted to tell you that compared to the last two or three winters this one has so far been as mild as May - well, not quite, but you know what I mean. Mind you bitter British experience tells me that we will pay for it in Jan/Feb.</p> <p>However, I have returned to chide you all - you must do better:</p> <p>"UAH Global Temperature Update for Dec. 2011: +0.13 deg. C"</p> <p>The same as November! Come on, chaps, burn a bit more coal!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/" rel="nofollow">David Duff</a> | <a href="#comment-6206364">January 4, 2012 4:58 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206373"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206373"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">26</span> <p>Why must we forever have to put up with the distraction that is short term data? It's like some flat earther claiming that mountain ranges are responsible for all the deviations from horizontal in the planet's surface, not some so-called 'curvature'. Global warming has always been about multidecadal trends and it saddens me that some people parade short periods of year on year data as if they want to advertise their statistical incompetence. The GWPF even made it their logo!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: JamesA | <a href="#comment-6206373">January 4, 2012 5:45 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206394"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206394"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">27</span> <p>Duff,</p> <blockquote>However, I have returned to chide you all - you must do better: "UAH Global Temperature Update for Dec. 2011: +0.13 deg. C" The same as November! Come on, chaps, burn a bit more coal!</blockquote> <p>You are nothing more than a pitiable wind-up merchant who is best ignored. I have come across many such as you over time, those in the navy often had poor survival prospects on long voyages for they eventually were turned ashore for treatment at Stonehouse and Netley after they grew mum-chance by being ignored.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">Lionel A</a> | <a href="#comment-6206394">January 4, 2012 6:57 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206428"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206428"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">28</span> <blockquote>I would simply urge you all to substitute the word 'economists' with 'global climate technologists'</blockquote> <p>Which further demonstrates that you are dumber than a sack of hammers, as this may be the worst analogy <i>ever</i>. Hayek's statement is about the inapplicability of the models of the <i>physical</i> sciences to the <i>social</i> sciences, the problem being that people and human social institutions aren't like molecules. But perhaps, being such a "classical" fellow, you believe in <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.theoi.com/Nymphe/Aurai.html" rel="nofollow">wind nymphs</a>.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6206428">January 4, 2012 8:02 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206459"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206459"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">29</span> <p>Anthony Watts has <a href="backupurl.com/lg21up" rel="nofollow">a post about shark hybridisation</a>, where the media confabulated the scientists' claims with signatures of global warming. </p> <p>See if you can count how many cherries he picked for this one.</p> <p>And he has the hide to winge about the <i>media's</i> twisting of the facts...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6206459">January 4, 2012 9:17 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206618"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206618"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">30</span> <p>Scribe @ 24</p> <p>Amazingly, or perhaps not so, The Australian's Graham Lloyd forgets to tell us about Perth in his summation of the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/drought-breaking-la-nina-made-the-continent-cooler/story-e6frg8y6-1226236841072" rel="nofollow">2011 Australian climate</a>.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Acacia | <a href="#comment-6206618">January 4, 2012 3:20 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206705"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206705"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">31</span> <p>Wow! Graham Lloyd manages to write an article about climate/weather issues without distortions or quoting any lies from contrarian non-experts.</p> <p>Wonders will never cease. Maybe the family Christmas lunch saw him set straight by his wiser relatives?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | <a href="#comment-6206705">January 4, 2012 6:18 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206781"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206781"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">32</span> <p>Also of note at Anthony Watts's blog is this "Unified Theory of Climate" by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller ( <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate</a> ). This "theory" is taking in not just the usual suspects who believe the greenhouse effect is fictitious but even some "AGW skeptics" who were previously smart enough to reject that nonsense in favor of their lesser nonsense (such as David M Hoffer, tallbloke, ...)</p> <p>It is really a train wreck of historic proportions over there, with the usual bluster about new paradigms and Copernicus (apparently the paradigm of Conservation of Energy having outlived its usefulness)...Read it and weep!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Joel Shore | <a href="#comment-6206781">January 4, 2012 9:48 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206811"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206811"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">33</span> <p>I'd like to echo the call to be done with David Duff. I see little point to his posting here or to others responding. I stop by fairly regularly to get information on what's happening in climate circles, but I find the posts between Mr. Duff and others largely noise. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Charles | <a href="#comment-6206811">January 4, 2012 11:14 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206835"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206835"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">34</span> <p>Joel Shore @ 32,</p> <p>Oh dear, it'a the old "Ideal Gas Law" argument again. PV = nRT.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Andy S | <a href="#comment-6206835">January 5, 2012 1:52 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206863"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206863"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">35</span> <p>From Nikolov and Zeller:</p> <blockquote> <p>Pressure by itself is not a source of energy! Instead, it enhances (amplifies) the energy supplied by an external source such as the Sun through density-dependent rates of molecular collision. This relative enhancement only manifests as an actual energy in the presence of external heating.</p> <p>[...]</p> <p>Hence, the atmosphere does not act as a ‘blanket’ reducing the surface infrared cooling to space as maintained by the current GH theory, but is in and of itself a source of extra energy through pressure. This makes the GH effect a thermodynamic phenomenon, not a radiative one as presently assumed!</p> </blockquote> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Andy S | <a href="#comment-6206863">January 5, 2012 3:25 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206881"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206881"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">36</span> <p>Bernhard my friend, I agree. Watts put it all down in a nutshell. When asked directly the CAGW-manhandled researcher says the following (on the link between climate change and shark hybridization):</p> <p>"I have now stated numerous times that it is extremely unlikely that climate change caused the hybridization event"</p> <p>And this is the future fellas. When sociologists, anthropologists, theologist, historians, etc, start scrutinizing the "robust proofs" of CAGW, they will conclude that most of it was a hypothesis kidnapped from the "lab" ending up as insubstantial buzz-wordings often reinforced by media and blogs like Deltoid.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://realclimate.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://realclimate.com/" rel="nofollow">Olaus Petri</a> | <a href="#comment-6206881">January 5, 2012 4:47 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206882"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206882"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">37</span> <p>Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller also feel they can make up new values for established figures like the mean surface temperature of the Moon, which they put at 154K, not the standard 250K. This enables them to claim their calculations show perfect agreement with observation. The Dunning-Kruger Effect at its best. </p> <p>As a funny aside, a denier at a different forum had made a claim a few weeks ago that the IPCC doesn't consider water vapor a GHG, so I showed a direct quote from the last report saying it was the most important GHG responsible for a majority of the GHE. He ignored my post and made the same claim to someone else a day later. Now, he's pushing this Unified Climate Theory crap, which actually <em>does</em> relegate water vapor to insignificance for the GHE. Like most deniers, he never even noticed the inconsistency. Anything But CO2! </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Robert Murphy | <a href="#comment-6206882">January 5, 2012 4:50 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206906"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206906"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">38</span> <p><em>[Stupidity removed. Take it to the Jonas thread.</em>]</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pentaxZ | <a href="#comment-6206906">January 5, 2012 6:33 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206907"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206907"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">39</span> <p>Maybe the trolls should be contained in their own thread. Don't feed them.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Andy S | <a href="#comment-6206907">January 5, 2012 6:36 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206909"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206909"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">40</span> <p>AndyS,</p> <p>Agreed. Send PentaxZ back to one of the sites where his kind of overt stupidity is appreciated. It isn't here. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Jeff Harvey | <a href="#comment-6206909">January 5, 2012 6:49 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206916"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6206916"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">41</span> <p>Seen elsewhere: <i>Back in <b>1990 </b>Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman wrote "Good Omens The nice and accurate prophesies of Agnes Nutter, Witch"</i></p> <p><i>A few quotes from a scene: "Been letting ourselves go a bit with the old hydrocarbons, perhaps?" "I'm sorry?" "Could you tell me your planet's albedo, sir?"... "Er. no." "Well, I'm sorry to have to tell you sir, that your polar ice caps are below regulation size for a planet of this category."</i></p> <p>...</p> <p><i>"CO2 level up point five percent"..."You do know you could find yourself charged with being a dominent species while under the influence of impulse-driven consumerism, don't you?"</i></p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Turboblocke | <a href="#comment-6206916">January 5, 2012 7:23 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6206981"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6206981"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">42</span> <p>Tamino's running <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/what-is-epsilon/" rel="nofollow">a little survey of people's estimations of values for a little number</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>What’s the chance that if we continue with business-as-usual, man-made global warming will lead to disastrous climate change? It isn’t zero. It isn’t one. What is epsilon?</b></p> </blockquote> <p>I'd encourage readers here to visit if they've not already done so. There are a few issues with definitions, which is why I disagree with Tamino's comment that "[i]t isn't one", but nevertheless the thread is really quite interesting.</p> <p>It's actually something that I'd like to see more formally conducted, just to get an idea of what folk different fields and degrees of expertise think...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6206981">January 5, 2012 9:28 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207033"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207033"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">43</span> <p>Hey Tim, Thought you might be interested in a post over at Skepticblog. Shermer posted a review of a presentation by John Lott (more guns = less crime hypothesis). I linked to an old post of yours which I thought was a good critique. Lott shows up in the comments at #29. He doesn't seem to care for you much. If you have time you may want to join the discussion. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/01/03/more-god-less-crime-or-more-guns-less-crime/#comments" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/01/03/more-god-less-crime-or-more-guns-less-crime/#comments</a></p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: CrookedTimber | <a href="#comment-6207033">January 5, 2012 10:37 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207055"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207055"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">44</span> <p><em>Hahaha...of course, in Climate Scientology any Inconvenient Data must be terminated. Hillarious. :-)</em></p> <p>No, only the opinions of idiots. You qualify big time. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Jeff Harvey | <a href="#comment-6207055">January 5, 2012 11:14 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207096"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207096"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">45</span> <p>Ned Nikolav has now decided that it wasn't enough to compare himself with Copernicus:</p> <p>"I suppose you also have a problem with the Theory of Relativity, since it was proposed by a low-level clerk working for a Swiss Patent Office … :-)" <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/#comment-854111" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/#comment-854111</a></p> <p>The Newton analogy can't be too far away. lol</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Robert Murphy | <a href="#comment-6207096">January 5, 2012 12:14 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207114"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207114"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">46</span> <p>This one will make your head explode (more Nikolav/Einstein):</p> <p>"Large climatic shifts evident in the paleo-record such as the 16C directional cooling of the Globe during the past 51 million years (Hansen et al. 2008; Fig. 8) can now be explained via changes in atmospheric mass and surface pressure caused by geologic variations in Earth’s tectonic activity. Thus, we hypothesize that the observed mega-cooling of Earth since the early Eocene was due to a 53% net loss of atmosphere to Space brought about by a reduction in mantle degasing as a result of a slowdown in continental drifts and ocean floor spreading."</p> <p>The Earth lost 53% of it's atmosphere in the last 50 million years. Yep. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Robert Murphy | <a href="#comment-6207114">January 5, 2012 12:39 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207115"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207115"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">47</span> <p>Bernard, the shark hybridization is even worse than we thought:</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqGQyMF5a_0" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqGQyMF5a_0</a></p> <p>:-)</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://realclimate.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://realclimate.com/" rel="nofollow">Olaus Petri</a> | <a href="#comment-6207115">January 5, 2012 12:39 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207136"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207136"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">48</span> <p>I would have gone with <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ88I1V_v5k" rel="nofollow">frickin' sharks with frickin' lasers attached to their heads</a> myself.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://composer99.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://composer99.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Composer99</a> | <a href="#comment-6207136">January 5, 2012 1:10 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207143"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207143"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">49</span> <p>Composer99, don't bring unrealistic shark scenarios into the picture. Hate to brake it to you but your sharks are Scifi. Mine are real though. ;-)</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://realclimate.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://realclimate.com/" rel="nofollow">Olaus Petri</a> | <a href="#comment-6207143">January 5, 2012 1:25 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207227"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207227"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">50</span> <p>Davy Boy,</p> <p>Sorry to come upon this late in the day....</p> <blockquote> <p>ome very wise words of warning from Friedrich Hayek, delivered during his acceptance speech for his Nobel Prize in Economics</p> </blockquote> <p>The problem is that there isn't a Nobel prize for economics and there never has been. What you are referring to is, I think, called, 'The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, founder of the Nobel Prize' but it has nothing to do with the Nobel Institute, instead it is given by a bunch of bankers. I could be wrong but I believe they also pony up a considerable sum of money each year so the guy or gal who is decided upon by the bunch of bankers gets to sit at the same dinner table as people who win a Nobel prize.</p> <p>The funny thing is have you ever heard an economist correcting ignorant journalists who insist on calling it a Noble prize.</p> <p>So Davy boy why don't you go and ask the Australian receipient of a real Noble prize for their assessment of the science done to understand AGW.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Jeremy C | <a href="#comment-6207227">January 5, 2012 4:50 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207234"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207234"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">51</span> <p>Trolls out of their enclosure alert! Back to the Jonas thread please, boys.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: bill | <a href="#comment-6207234">January 5, 2012 5:02 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207242"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207242"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">52</span> <p>Sorry if this is a bit off-topic -- nothing to do with Climate Change -- but as this is in Bernard's broad area, perhaps he (or others who know) could respond.</p> <p>I heard an item on ABC this morning about duck hunting. As someone who has, in concert with wildlife protection organisations, participated in wildlife rescue over the years, and most especially during "duck hunting" seasons, I need to declare my own predisposition on the matter. That said ...</p> <p>It was claimed by a farmer-type that duck numbers are in plague proportions. Is this true?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0120a7ead1d3970b" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0120a7ead1d3970b" rel="nofollow">Fran Barlow</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0120a7ead1d3970b"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6207242">January 5, 2012 5:18 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207261"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207261"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">53</span> <p>Fran,</p> <p>Would another question be, what numbers are plague proportions for ducks?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Jeremy C | <a href="#comment-6207261">January 5, 2012 5:41 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207262"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207262"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">54</span> <p>Fran @54 The claim you refer to is one commonly expressed for a number of different creatures by those with a perceived interest in their removal (such as, in my experience ducks,swans,seals.)</p> <p>With respect to ducks, they are, indeed opportunistic breeders, and the numbers breeding successfully will vary in response to the availability of suitable breeding and feeding sites. Thus, after a prolonged wet period, waterbird populations will rapidly increase.</p> <p>I regard the term "plague proportions" with more than a little scepticism myself,particularly when it is applied to native species. However, the term seems quite appropriate when applied to such creatures as goats, rabbits and mice.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pterosaur | <a href="#comment-6207262">January 5, 2012 5:53 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207284"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207284"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">55</span> <p>Climate Progress have an article on carbon tax reporting in Oz.</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/05/398594/murdoch-press-carbon-price-negative-campaigned-against-it/" rel="nofollow">http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/05/398594/murdoch-press-carbon-price-negative-campaigned-against-it/</a></p> <p>While the Murdoch press predictably occupy the top 6 spots for negative campaigning against the carbon tax, the SMH and West Australian are not far behind.</p> <p>What is striking about the analysis (from Australian Center for Independent Journalism) is how the fossil fuel industry lobbyists have shaped the reporting.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6207284">January 5, 2012 6:39 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207287"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207287"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">56</span> <blockquote>"The hottest year on record bla bla bla". Yeah right. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/Gisp-ice-10000-r..png" rel="nofollow">http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/Gisp-ice-10000-r..png</a></blockquote> <p>Er .. you do realise that the graph you reference has "present" at 1855?</p> <p>Here's the same data updated with more recent temps: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210klarge.png" rel="nofollow">http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210klarge.png</a></p> <p>Is u a confused little twoll now? Here's help from skepticalscience.com: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm" rel="nofollow">Myth: Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer</a></p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Scribe | <a href="#comment-6207287">January 5, 2012 6:43 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207309"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207309"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">57</span> <p>@5 and on the general topic of unseasonable weather, particularly relating to unusually cold weather in Europe and-or North America, NOAA ClimateWatch Magazine has a piece on the effect of the Arctic Oscillation - variation in a jet stream which can cause average winter temperatures in parts of the northern hemisphere to vary as much as plus or minus 7 degrees from long term averages, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/image/2011/so-far-arctic-oscillation-favoring-mild-winter-for-eastern-u-s" rel="nofollow">http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/image/2011/so-far-arctic-oscillation-favoring-mild-winter-for-eastern-u-s</a></p> <p>New Scientist had an article last December 16, "Snowmageddon: What's behind extreme winter weather" <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228432.900-snowmageddon-whats-behind-extreme-winter-weather.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228432.900-snowmageddon-whats-behind-extreme-winter-weather.html</a> (paywalled). It began:</p> <p>"LAST winter, Florida got so cold that torpid iguanas fell from trees, pythons froze to death, crops were damaged and corals in the seas around the Florida Keys died in greater numbers than ever recorded before. Further north, heavy snowstorms caused chaos across much of the US.</p> <p>"Across the pond in the UK, it got pretty nippy too - and it stayed cold for much longer than usual. The average temperature of the country in December 2010 was -1 °C, well below the long-term December average of 4.2 °C. It was the second coldest December in central England since records began back in 1659. Here too, heavy snowfalls brought cars, trains and planes to a standstill..."</p> <p>It goes on to note though that the northern hemisphere as a whole was actually warmer than the long term average - and in arctic regiions, very much warmer. The article concludes that "the jury is still out" as to whether changes due to global warming are implicated in such extreme winter weather events, but says this is suggested by "a growing number of studies".</p> <p>We are reminded yet again that the connection between climate and weather is far more complex that "if the climate is warming the weather should be warmer".</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeM | <a href="#comment-6207309">January 5, 2012 7:39 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207316"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207316"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">58</span> <p>52 Jeremy,</p> <p>Not so fast </p> <blockquote> Like the Nobel Laureates in Chemistry and Physics, Laureates in Economics are selected by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and a Prize Committee similar to the Nobel Committees is used.[11][12] </blockquote> <p>(From Wikipedia)</p> <p>So, it's not a "Nobel Prize" per se, but is as good as. Would you equally disparage the actual Nobel Prizes because of their origin? </p> <p>Of course, there is no Nobel Prize for Mathematics or Biology either. Did this reflect expert opinion at the time, or Nobel's own views on what could confer the "greatest benefit on mankind"? </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: TrueSceptic | <a href="#comment-6207316">January 5, 2012 7:47 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207438"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207438"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">59</span> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6207242" rel="nofollow">Fran</a>.</p> <p>As <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6207262" rel="nofollow">pterosaur noted</a> many duck species exhibit boom-and-bust type breeding behaviour, in the vein of an r-strategist organism.</p> <p>Certainly, if one is going to point a gun at ducks, the current season would be the time when doing so has the least effect on overall numbers.</p> <p>Having said that, whether ducks are "in plague proportions" is another matter. Again, as pterosaur notes, native species rarely demonstrate ecological impacts, as we usually perceive them, that are attributable to "plague species" such as mice. Sometimes we might be inclined to use the term when we plant an agricultural crop on the old habitats or near the extant habitats of natives (think cockatoos), or do something else similarly stupid in terms of inevitable consequence, but this is usually an economic value judgement rather than an ecological one.</p> <p>And this leads me to expand on <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6207261" rel="nofollow">Jeremy C's</a> point about the absolute numbers. What vested interests might term as "plague proportions" is often a fraction of what is an equilibrium size of the population in a non human-impacted context.</p> <p>Take minke whales for example. Japan justifies their hunting in part by claiming that they are in "plague proportions". Erm, hardly. </p> <p>Or, to hark back to the waterfowl subject of your question, I once spoke with an old fisherman who worked the Kooragang wetlands and the lower the Hunter River back in the early 20th century. He, and his father before him, used to shoot ducks in flocks that he said darkened the sky from one horizon to the other. He could bring down three or four birds with one shot, and other old-timers I spoke to told of similar bird numbers. From the details they gave, I estimate that <i>at least</i> three or four bird species that used to use the Hunter estuary did so in numbers in the order of millions of individuals of each species. Compare that to today, where one would be fortunate indeed to see a flock of any species that actually reaches into the tens of thousands, let alone more.</p> <p>Interestingly the fisherman said that their gizzards were sometimes full of rice, apparently from a direct flight from Indonesia: Australia was not growing rice at that time. If this is the case then the numbers and patterns of waterbird migration along the east coast of Australia have been greatly altered indeed over the last century or so.</p> <p>The bottom line - context is all. One man's "plague proportions" are another man's recovering tattered remnants. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6207438">January 5, 2012 11:42 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207488"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207488"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">60</span> <p>Just recovering from the shock that the shark hybridization wasn't a sign of AGW I got blown away by some more possible good news. Could this be true fellas?</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/05/even-with-a-busy-tornado-year-still-no-upward-trend-in-tornadoes/#more-54303" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/05/even-with-a-busy-tornado-year-still-no-upward-trend-in-tornadoes/#more-54303</a></p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://realclimate.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://realclimate.com/" rel="nofollow">Olaus Petri</a> | <a href="#comment-6207488">January 6, 2012 1:41 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207504"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207504"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">61</span> <p>[<em>Pentaxz -- from now on you can only post to the Jonas thread</em>]</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pentaxZ | <a href="#comment-6207504">January 6, 2012 2:24 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207516"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207516"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">62</span> <p>You know, its a sad thing that Olaus and PentaxZ are now contaminating this thread with their brand of wilful ignorance gleaned from right wing blogs and never - repeat that never - from the primary literature. Where are the peer-reviewed studies, boys?</p> <p>Note how PentaxZ then reverts to completely unscientific ramblings - that AGW ís a big fat lie'(no supporting references), that 'facts are facts' (no supporting references) and then complaining that the majority of us who hold opposing views want to 'silence the infidell [sic]', meaning him. </p> <p>No, you clown, we would like you to support your vacuous rants with a discussion of views from the empirical literature. WUWT and Joanne Nova do not make the cut. They are heavily biased ínterpreters of interpretations' and neither has published anything relevant in the scientific literature. As for the present day warming being a 'normal event', of course this is patently absurd, given the rate of warming in higher latitudes against the background of a largerly deterministic system that operates over decacadel and even longer temporal scales (as JamesA correctly pointed out earlier). The problem is that deniers like PentaxZ and Olaus don't have a clue about the importance of scale in the scheme of climate maintenance or the regulation of functioning in communities and ecosystems. Their brand of unscientific posturing would be shot down in any academic arena, so they instead insist on contiminating the blogosphere. </p> <p>With respect to 'ducks being in plague proportions', I agree with Bernard. This is certainly nonsense if we use North America and Europe as proxies. It must be rememberered that very large numbers of wetlands have been drained and filled in over the past century, and that dabbling duck populations at least have suffered as a result. Waders and sandpipers have fared even worse, as many of these species are transcontinetal migrants and require strings of intact wetalnds on their migratory routes in order to 'refuel' en route. </p> <p>We now know that some migratory waterfowl are also adjusting their seasonal migration patterns in response to shifts in the rapid upper latitiudinal warming, and that some species are either arriving on their wintering grounds up to a month later than normal or else they are altering their wintering distributions. Certainly their are innumerable biotic indicators of a rapidly changing climate, but, as in just about everything, there will be spome winners (e.g. habitat generalists) and a much greater number of losers (e.g. habitat specialists or species with narrowly define ranges). </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Jeff Harvey | <a href="#comment-6207516">January 6, 2012 3:46 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207527"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207527"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">63</span> <p>Thanks for that background info on Kooragang, Bernard. I may have talked to the same gent at one stage. While the numbers of waterbirds around the Kooragang area aren't what they were, the number of species commonly sighted is on the improve* and with the openning of the floodgates at Hexham a couple of years ago numbers hopefully should improve further (and isn't it the aim of all threatened species programs that they are so successful the target animal becomes a pest itself?).</p> <p>*Saw a Jabiru on the saltmarsh there about 6 years ago and apparently they're regularly spotted these days.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: spottedquoll | <a href="#comment-6207527">January 6, 2012 4:08 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207528"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207528"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">64</span> <p>Dear Jeffie, regarding the shark issue I quoted the researcher herself which, in my book, is the way to go. More "primary" is hard to come by (if my citation is correct). Do you have any objections or do you find the media angle on par with her research?</p> <p>Regarding tornados and WUWT, I posted a Q. I was hoping a deltoid could narrow it down to me, but I see that you, instead, prefer to hide in the comfort zone yours – the cursing and name-calling fetal position.</p> <p>Way to go Jeff. Keep fantasizing about the right wing illuminati.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://Realclimate.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://realclimate.com/" rel="nofollow">Olaus Petri</a> | <a href="#comment-6207528">January 6, 2012 4:10 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207533"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207533"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">65</span> <p><em>[Stupidity filter applied]</em> </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pentaxZ | <a href="#comment-6207533">January 6, 2012 4:32 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207582"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207582"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">66</span> <p>Sometimes people ask me why I bother to visit here so often. The answer is simple - the commenters here are so witty. Take this for example:</p> <p><i>Climate science is one of those "brilliantly successful physical sciences".</i></p> <p>Honestly, what a side-splitter - it's the way you tell 'em!</p> <p>And, Charles @33, the best thing I can suggest is that as you read this open thread stick your fingers in your ears and keep shouting 'la-la-la-la-la'!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/" rel="nofollow">David Duff</a> | <a href="#comment-6207582">January 6, 2012 7:09 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207584"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207584"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">67</span> <p>Tim,</p> <p>Thanks for sending Pentax where he belongs. I think that you should do the same thing with Olaus.</p> <p>Re: Olaus, you are clutching at straws. Essentially, all that you do is surf a few anti-environmental climate change denial blogs and rehash their nonsense elsewhere. How much of the primary literature do you read? That's a fairly easy question, because I have not yet seen you discuss the findings of a single peer-reviewed study. Instead, you simply cut-and-past gibberish from WUWT and then expect people here to engage in rational discourse with you.</p> <p>As many have said, the issue of climate change-related effects covers an immense amount of literature showing biotic and abiotic effects. What does Watt's think he will get out of data showing that the number of F3-F5 tornadoes has not icnreased significantly since the 1970s? That there is no warming? Even the most die-hard denialists generally acknowlege that the biosphere is warming at present, and there are thousands of biotic indicators to prove it. I can be certain that, since you apparently cannot tell a mole cricket from a giraffe, your understanding of range shifts, pehnological changes, altitudinal shifts, and changes in life-history patterns along with a suite of other biotic responses to warming will be poor or non-existant. That's why my advice for you is to keep your head firmly ticked up your a@#* and stick with the semi-literate brigades over at the denial sites who tell you what you want to hear.</p> <p>Finally, its no use throwing staw man arguments such as fantasies about the 'rigth wing illuminati' at me. Its pretty well established by now that those most bitterly opposed to the science of climate change and any means of dealing with warming come from the wacky end of the political right. That you deny this tells me more about you than just about anything else. Since you clearly have a very poor grasp of environmental science, along with the Joe Barton's and James Inhofe's of this world, what else is there to conclude? That you motives and opinions are driven by a deep-rooted heart-wrenching search for the truth? Get real. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Jeff Harvey | <a href="#comment-6207584">January 6, 2012 7:11 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207592"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207592"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">68</span> <p>Hey Jeff, here is something for the deniers in here to ponder.</p> <p>Australian Bureau of Meteorology Outlook predictions for max and min temperature</p> <p>( <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1234" rel="nofollow">http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1234</a> )</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: chrisp | <a href="#comment-6207592">January 6, 2012 7:34 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207595"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207595"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">69</span> <blockquote> <p>Sometimes people ask me why I bother to visit here so often. The answer is simple - the commenters here are so witty.</p> </blockquote> <p>I agree. What this website needs is more hilariously original cracks about Obama using teleprompters and black lesbian mother-in-laws. Har har har har!</p> <p>Nice to see you crawling back in here Duff. How many times have you posted since you said you'd never post again?</p> <p>And any closer to telling me just how you can believe Morner's predictions when his observations are so wrong? Or what alleged projections Prof. Mann has made? </p> <p>Or are you just going to keep making tepid ad hom attacks to hide the fact your scientific method is opinion first, evidence second?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: John | <a href="#comment-6207595">January 6, 2012 7:46 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207601"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207601"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">70</span> <p>As Duff as they come:</p> <blockquote>Sometimes people ask me why I bother to visit here so often.</blockquote> <p>To complain that you're missing out on global warming-induced disasters, e.g.:</p> <blockquote>I can only hope fervently that your prognostications for global warming hurry up and manifest themselves</blockquote> <p>Please Dave, don't let your envy get the better of you. You'll get your disasters soon enough. But if you're so impatient, why don't you buy some property within 1 metre of high tide level? Or buy some property within a flood zone like Bangkok's. Better still, buy some property in Bangla Desh that is both within 2 meters of high tide and within a flood zone. I'm sure you'd get lots of fun for the rest of your life. Or if you don't like the thought of living in Asia, you might be able to tolerate putting up with the colonials in Australia where there's plenty of not yet very but soon to be low-lying and/or flood-prone property in lots of desirable locations. There's more than enough opportunity for people with a psychopathic sense of fun like yours. Don't deprive yourself. Life is too short.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Chris | <a href="#comment-6207601">January 6, 2012 7:58 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207602"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207602"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">71</span> <p>And I long for more of Duff's revolutionary theory on why biology isn't Real Science.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: John | <a href="#comment-6207602">January 6, 2012 7:59 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207657"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207657"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">72</span> <p>I don't usually read WUWT but I was looking around and read "Mercury fingered in Permian-Triassic extinction". It seems that Watts has quoted some newspaper interview or, possibly, a Univ of Calgary press release though the only one I could find was not the same as WUWT's.</p> <p>I must say that I was fascinated by the comments. A more stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, probably, could not be found! Apparently no one has even tried to read the original article. (I tried but could not find it on Nature Geology where it supposedly should be in the current issue.) </p> <p>The opinions and the level of lack of knowledge among most, though certainly not all, commentators was amazing. It was highly amusing in a somewhat sad way. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: jrkrideau | <a href="#comment-6207657">January 6, 2012 9:48 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207673"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207673"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">73</span> <p>John:</p> <p><i>Or are you </i>[David Duff]<i> just going to keep making tepid ad hom attacks to hide the fact your scientific method is opinion first, evidence <s>second</s></i> never?</p> <p>FTFY</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://composer99.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://composer99.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Composer99</a> | <a href="#comment-6207673">January 6, 2012 10:19 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207758"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207758"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">74</span> <p>Dear Jeffie, I can't help you when you are in tourette mode 24/7. That said, I read the shark article and there was nothing deltoidish in it, hence the quota from her was indeed even more primary than the article itself (since it didn't address AGW vs hybridization).</p> <p>If the wattsian claim are true regarding the tornados its just another version of the same deltoid virus that Jess' research was caught with (Or the Himalayan glaciers etc...). Some sectarian unscientific scare mongers make a fire and brimstone conclusion distorting the facts.</p> <p>And, as I said above (and many times before), in retrospect (C)AGW will be looked upon as yet another scientific hypothesis that was abducted from its proper milieu – the lab. And who's guilty? White heterosexual middle aged men in hunt for status an prestige. ;-)</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://realclimate.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://realclimate.com/" rel="nofollow">Olaus Petri</a> | <a href="#comment-6207758">January 6, 2012 12:46 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207774"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207774"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">75</span> <p>Food for thoughts:</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/05/error-cascade/" rel="nofollow">http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/05/error-cascade/</a></p> <p>Curry is a real climate scientist, by the way.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://realclimate.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://realclimate.com/" rel="nofollow">Olaus Petri</a> | <a href="#comment-6207774">January 6, 2012 1:12 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207786"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207786"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">76</span> <p>TrueSceptic@ 60.</p> <p>Point taken that the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is not chosen by a bunch of bankers but only funded by them.</p> <p>However, mathematics has its own prize, the Fields Medal and economics was around when the Nobel Prizes were established. I'm not sure what prizes are around for biology.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Jeremy C | <a href="#comment-6207786">January 6, 2012 1:46 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207788"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207788"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">77</span> <p>Olaus Petri:</p> <blockquote> <p>If the wattsian claim are true</p> </blockquote> <p>If.</p> <blockquote> <p>as I said above (and many times before), in retrospect (C)AGW will be looked upon</p> </blockquote> <p>In other words, your 'predictions' have invariably been shown to be bullshit, and that makes you very proud?</p> <p>Go buy some land in Bangladesh and knock yourself out.</p> <p>  * * *</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://ijish.livejournal.com/43048.html" rel="nofollow">Meanwhile</a>, some good news.</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6207788">January 6, 2012 1:48 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207801"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207801"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">78</span> <p>Dear frank, "if" is vise to add when not all cards are on the table. Any problems with that?</p> <p>I also said "retrospect" which means in a near future, not hundred years from now. But what the heck, we have already reached beyond the point of return, according to you climate scare cultists. :-)</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://realclimate.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://realclimate.com/" rel="nofollow">Olaus Petri</a> | <a href="#comment-6207801">January 6, 2012 2:02 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207806"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207806"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">79</span> <p>Olaus Petri:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>In other words, your 'predictions' have invariably been shown to be bullshit, and that makes you very proud?</p> </blockquote> <p>I [...] said "retrospect" which means in a near future</p> </blockquote> <p>Enough said.</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6207806">January 6, 2012 2:06 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207809"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207809"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">80</span> <p>Yes, I believe so frankie. Take a deep breath and exhale all the hot air that is reckoned as science at Deltoid. :-)</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://realclimate.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://realclimate.com/" rel="nofollow">Olaus Petri</a> | <a href="#comment-6207809">January 6, 2012 2:22 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207812"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207812"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">81</span> <blockquote>Curry is a real climate scientist, by the way.</blockquote> <p>Really? You've found a <b>real</b> climate scientist? Is she the only one, or are there others?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Stu | <a href="#comment-6207812">January 6, 2012 2:26 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207832"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207832"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">82</span> <p>@stu</p> <p>I'm sure there are others stu. In the main, they tend to keep very quiet about it though in an attempt to "fit in".</p> <p>Being 'outed' can be detrimental to your career.</p> <p>;)</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: GSW | <a href="#comment-6207832">January 6, 2012 3:07 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207842"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207842"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">83</span> <p>GSW:</p> <blockquote> <p>In the main, they tend to keep very quiet about it</p> </blockquote> <p>Or maybe it's just your excuse to ignore what someone actually says so that you can put words in his mouth. GSW, you are an idiot.</p> <p>(Hint: when I say 'GSW, you are an idiot' I don't secretly mean 'GSW, you are a genius'. Seriously.)</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6207842">January 6, 2012 3:15 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207913"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207913"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">84</span> <blockquote>by: Olaus Petri</blockquote> <p>I thought Olaus had also been banished to the Jonas thread? All the trolls seem to be testing their chains.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6207913">January 6, 2012 5:31 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207917"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207917"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">85</span> <p>I see that the biggest CO2 emitter in the world, China, has decided to implement a <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/china-carbon-idUSL3E8C5D1220120105" rel="nofollow">carbon tax</a>. Makes for uncomfortable talk around the denier dinner table. "Oh noes, theys are all against us. Imagine if they end up creating a better world & its all for nothing!".</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Phil M | <a href="#comment-6207917">January 6, 2012 5:41 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207925"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207925"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">86</span> <blockquote>Curry is a real climate scientist, by the way.</blockquote> Whether she (still) is or not, she isn't doing climate science in that article. And <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/05/error-cascade/#comment-156015" rel="nofollow">Pekka Pirilä</a> gets it right: <blockquote>Just from logical point of view an error cascade of climate change skepticism makes as much sense than an error cascade of climate science. To me it’s actually obvious that very many specific claims of climate change skeptics are pure error cascade. <p> Blogs like this raise also the question: Are they originating from some deeper understanding and found relevant for the AGW issue, or are they the result of searching for new ways to support own views of AGW. </p></blockquote> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6207925">January 6, 2012 6:08 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207934"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207934"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">87</span> <p>Also in that den of <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/05/error-cascade/#comment-156016" rel="nofollow">ignorant and illogical</a> deniers (none of whom Curry ever corrects, regardless of how blatantly wrong they are), one can find posts by a handful of sensible people, like <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/05/error-cascade/#comment-156293" rel="nofollow">Joshua</a>. His comments are indeed food for thought -- by people able and willing to think, unlike cherry pickers like Olaus for whom the only "real" climate scientists are those who say (or can be misinterpreted to say) what he wants to hear.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6207934">January 6, 2012 6:35 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207941"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207941"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">88</span> <blockquote> Curry is a real climate scientist, by the way. </blockquote> <p>Curry has cut and paste a piece of pop psychology from a scifi fan. </p> <p>And the stupid are lapping it up. Petri, the crank magnet was never going to miss it - being completely devoid of science, it is right up his alley.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6207941">January 6, 2012 7:07 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207956"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207956"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">89</span> <p>I see that dear old Uncle Fred is at it again. He claims that the recent warming is all a big <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/fake_fake_fake_fake.html" rel="nofollow">Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!</a> </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: TrueSceptic | <a href="#comment-6207956">January 6, 2012 7:46 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207957"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207957"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">90</span> <p>Thanks Bernard and others for taking the trouble to respond to my question on duck numbers. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0120a7ead1d3970b" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0120a7ead1d3970b" rel="nofollow">Fran Barlow</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0120a7ead1d3970b"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6207957">January 6, 2012 7:46 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207958"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207958"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">91</span> <blockquote><em>In the main</em>, they tend to keep very quiet about it {my emphasis}</blockquote> <p>OK GSW, if 'in the main' is not the same thing as 'all of them' which are the exceptions the 'real climate scientists'? </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0120a7ead1d3970b" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0120a7ead1d3970b" rel="nofollow">Fran Barlow</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0120a7ead1d3970b"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6207958">January 6, 2012 7:50 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207978"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6207978"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">92</span> <blockquote>I see that the biggest CO2 emitter in the world, China, has decided to implement a carbon tax. </blockquote> <p>Well, we all know those commies are a bunch of libs.</p> <p>(Seriously, it's not just with right wingers that it is difficult to have a nuanced discussion about China's political system and its ramifications ... most people avoid the subject lest their heads explode, preferring the convenient fantasy that Communism died with the fall of the USSR.)</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6207978">January 6, 2012 9:24 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6207991"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6207991"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">93</span> <blockquote>Curry is a real climate scientist, by the way.</blockquote> <p>In the same way that Olaus is a real sceptic.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: SteveC | <a href="#comment-6207991">January 6, 2012 10:43 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208044"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208044"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">94</span> <p>TrueSkeptic @ 91: Old Uncle Fred claims that: </p> <blockquote> <p>But I do claim that the commonly reported and accepted warming between 1978 and 2000 is based only on thermometers from land surface stations and is not supported by any other evidence that I could find. Specifically, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1978/to:2000/trend" rel="nofollow">ocean data</a> (from 71% of the earth's surface) and global atmospheric data (as recorded by <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/to:2000/trend/plot/uah/plot/uah/to:2000/trend" rel="nofollow">satellites</a> and independent balloon-borne radiosondes) do not show such a warming at all.</p> </blockquote> <p>(My links to Wood for Trees).</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Andy S | <a href="#comment-6208044">January 7, 2012 3:24 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208046"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208046"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">95</span> <blockquote>In the same way that Olaus is a real sceptic.</blockquote> <p>Curry, whatever she is doing now, at least has the training and credentials of a climate scientist, whereas Olaus is just a gullible ignoramus who will swallow anything that plays to his preconceptions -- like that piece that Curry lifted from a raving denier blog (the articles before and after that one are "Naming and shaming the AGW fraudsters", which quotes approvingly from <i>James Delingpole</i>, and "The Great Blizzard of 2010", the title of which speaks for itself).</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6208046">January 7, 2012 3:32 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208048"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208048"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">96</span> <p>A typical comment at Singer's (registration required) blog:</p> <blockquote>If Muller of BEST footnotes that the data is basically garbage, why did he publish it? Is it science to say "I performed a crappy experiment, but I'll let you decide what it proves"? Neither is it science for Singer to use the term "greenhouse gas" as if there is no dispute at all to the existence of this effect, a dispute based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics no less. <p> Their formula is simple. Any impact at all, as proven by the mere accusation of some scientist, sanctifies complete government control. They've gone too far with global warming - the effect does not exist at all. We should cut off this retreat of the warmists to the lukewarmist camp, and put an end to this political adventurism.</p></blockquote> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6208048">January 7, 2012 3:44 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208053"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208053"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">97</span> <p>Of possible interest here. Have folks seen this item from the <i>'7.30 Report'</i>? : </p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3396867.htm" rel="nofollow">Robert Purves throws weight behind climate science</a></p> <p>Hope the link works. </p> <p>Missed all but the end of it myself on ABC News24 until online search for it just now. </p> <p>There was also a good interview with Naomi Oreskes & somebody else - a Tasmanian environmentalist on rainforests <i>(if vague memory serves here?)</i> on another ABC news24 programme seen whilst staying up to see comet Lovejoy a few weeks ago.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: StevoR | <a href="#comment-6208053">January 7, 2012 4:06 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208056"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208056"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">98</span> <p>Thanks for the support guys. I appreciate it. Curry is a real climate scientist because she tries to emancipate herself from religious unscientific dogma. Good, me thinks.</p> <p>Normally I don't like questioning the beliefs of religious groups. People is of course entitled to worship anything they like. But you guys thinks that your faith is science and that makes you free game. On top of it you also engage in missionary work including pointing out sinners, rambling about fire and brimstone and armageddon.</p> <p>And naturally you ascribe conspiracies and evil agendas onto anyone daring to come up with question mark based on reality and pure science.</p> <p>Get used to it being ridiculed. The future is soon here. Repent! ;-)</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://realclimate.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://realclimate.com/" rel="nofollow">Olaus Petri</a> | <a href="#comment-6208056">January 7, 2012 4:26 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208060"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208060"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">99</span> <p>@David Duff | January 3, 2012 9:43 AM</p> <blockquote><i>First of all Happy New Year to you all and I can only hope fervently that your prognostications for global warming hurry up and manifest themselves - I can't stand yet another dim, drear, wet, chilly Summer.</i></blockquote> Well, as the old adage goes, be careful what you wish for - you may get it! ;-) Personally, I'd like another cool summer - much more pleasant when you're working outside than heatwave conditions. Anecdotal natch but last summer here in Adelaide was exceptionally cool but the summer before that we had our hottest ever heatwave on record and the one before that we sweltered through our longest heatwave on record. <i>(Or was it the longest heatwave in 2009-10 and the hottest in 2008-09? Anyhow.)</i> This summer we've just had the hottest start to a new year in about a century. Of course what's happening in Adelaide is not necessarily conclusive for what's happening all around our planet but the trend does seem somewhat suggestive. Records being broken for ever higher temps ever longer in most of the last five years. Hmm.. could that possibly have something to do with Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) as I prefer to call it? <blockquote><i>Referring to the over-use and over-reliance on 'mathematical models', he [Friedrich Hayek] said this, and I would simply urge you all to substitute the word 'economists' with 'global climate technologists': “It seems to me that this failure of the economists [global climate technologists] to guide policy more successfully is closely connected with their propensity to imitate as closely as possible the procedures of the brilliantly successful physical sciences – an attempt which in our field may lead to outright error. It is an approach which has come to be described as the “scientistic” attitude – an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, ‘is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed.’”</i></blockquote> <p>Um, okay. But how is this relevant exactly? Where is Hayeks's supporting evidence here?</p> <p>Also you know HIRGO predictions and understanding is based on an awful lot more than just climate modelling don't you?</p> <blockquote><i>So, there is your new Year's resolution - avoid 'scientistic attitudes'!</i></blockquote> <p>Thanks but I've already made my New Years Resolutions and that one misses the cut. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: StevoR | <a href="#comment-6208060">January 7, 2012 5:05 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208064"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208064"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">100</span> <blockquote>There was also a good interview with Naomi Oreskes & somebody else - a Tasmanian environmentalist on another ABC news24 programme seen whilst staying up to see comet Lovejoy a few weeks ago.</blockquote> <p>Aha! Found it see : </p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/07/12/3266867.htm" rel="nofollow">Women Warriors for the Environment - Big ideas</a> </p> <p>with Naomi Oreskes and award-winning young Australian writer Anna Krien. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: StevoR | <a href="#comment-6208064">January 7, 2012 5:15 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208065"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208065"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">101</span> <p>Olaus writes, <em>Yes, I believe so frankie. Take a deep breath and exhale all the hot air that is reckoned as science at Deltoid. :-)</em></p> <p>A bit rich coming from someone who has never read a published scientific article in his life and who, like his ignoramus sidekick, PentazZ, relies for his world view on the garbage spewed from a few web logs like WUWT and Joanne Nova. </p> <p>As I said before, Olaus and Pentax are completely incapable of reading published studies in the empirical literature and of understanding the science in them. So they instead endlessly surf the internet in search of web sites that spew out the kind of interpretations they like to read. I demolished PentaxZ's claim earlier regarding the effects of warming on polar bear population demographics, and what does the schmuck do here? Rehash the same demolished argument. He was unable to debate the concept of temporal lags, the extinction debt, optimum habitats, critical thresholds, tipping points etc. etc., so he said nothing when I rebutted his comic argument on another infamous thread. No response. Nada. Then he re-pastes the same polar bears are doing fine argument up here that he cut and pasted from another denilalist web site run by a blogger who has no relevant expertise in any field of science.</p> <p>Olaus, Pentaxz, given that both of you nincompoops clearly have never set foot within 100 miles of a science lab, why do you continue to pollute this blog? I will certainly debate you on the concepts above as well as on other ecological concepts and processes related to the current warming, but since your understanding of this is at the level of a child in kindergarten level, do you really think its worth your time to try? </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Jeff Harvey | <a href="#comment-6208065">January 7, 2012 5:30 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208066"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208066"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">102</span> <p>@15 Alan | January 3, 2012 5:50 PM </p> <blockquote>Why does anyone bother to engage with this pompous buffoon? </blockquote> <p>a) Why not? Isn't it better than letting him go unanswered?</p> <p>b) Our own entertainment and debating practice &</p> <p>c) The faint hope of getting through to him and the bigger hope that at least some lurkers or more open minded people reading will be convinced or enlightened by it.</p> <p>@Olaus Petri | January 6, 2012 1:12 PM :</p> <blockquote><i>Curry is a real climate scientist, by the way.</i></blockquote> <p>No, Curry is a genre <i>(is that the right word?)</i> of spicy food associated mainly with Indian and South Asian cuisine. </p> <p>Judith Curry OTOH is <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry" rel="nofollow">this person who has some climatological expertise</a> but would seem to be part of the 2% against accepting the scientific consensus on HIRGO vs the 98% of climate scientists who accept the reality of HIRGO.</p> <p>@72.Chris | January 6, 2012 7:58 AM :</p> <blockquote><i>Please Dave, don't let your envy get the better of you. You'll get your disasters soon enough. But if you're so impatient, why don't you buy some property within 1 metre of high tide level? Or buy some property within a flood zone like Bangkok's. Better still, buy some property in <b>Bangla Desh</b> that is both within 2 meters of high tide and within a flood zone. I'm sure you'd get lots of fun for the rest of your life.</i> Emphasis added.</blockquote> <p>Just curious but is Bangla Desh just a typo for Bangladesh or is it a legitimate variant spelling of the placename or something else? </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: StevoR | <a href="#comment-6208066">January 7, 2012 5:31 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208075"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208075"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">103</span> <p>@69. Jeff Harvey | January 6, 2012 7:11 AM </p> <blockquote>Even the most die-hard denialists generally acknowlege that the biosphere is warming at present, and there are thousands of biotic indicators to prove it. I can be certain that, since you apparently cannot tell a mole cricket from a giraffe, your understanding of range shifts, pehnological changes, altitudinal shifts, and changes in life-history patterns along with a suite of other biotic responses to warming will be poor or non-existant. <b>That's why my advice for you is to keep your head firmly ticked up your a@#* and stick with the semi-literate brigades over at the denial sites</b> who tell you what you want to hear.</blockquote> <p>I would strongly disagree with that advice. </p> <p>Olaus is to be welcome here in my view because he <i>(& those like him)</i> may, just may, eventaully learn something and be exposed to ideas and facts that the denial sites try to keep folks like him unaware of. </p> <p>Its the denier sites that want to keep people misinformed and I think we should be fighting such misinformation and trying to expose as many as possible to the real situation and real science instead of condemning them to ignorance through not wanting to engage them.</p> <p>Of course I'd rather Olaus and folks like him didn't just troll and post garbage constantly but it gets such rot out there where it can be debunked and countered so even that's not the worst thing possible. It'd be nice if the contrarians just lurked and learned here but at least they are <em>here</em> where they might potentially learn something and one day understand how wrong they are.</p> <p>It is tedious and annoying often I'll grant you that much.</p> <p>But climate contrarians can be convinced otherwise. How do I know? Well, to my shame I was one myself for some years -taken in by Plimer - before arguing & researching online gradually convinced me otherwise.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: StevoR | <a href="#comment-6208075">January 7, 2012 5:57 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208078"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208078"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">104</span> <p>SteveoR, you mistakenly believe people like Olaus can be swayed by things like "facts" and "evidence". This is nonsense. Olaus is a political denier. Olaus, like all deniers, has his own, entirely contradictory set of evidence which changes as often as the seasons do. </p> <p>As with creationists, there is no point arguing from facts or logic because they are not basing their scientific opinions on the science. They are basing their scientific opinions on their politics. No matter what you say you will always be wrong because <strike>God created the world</strike> global warming is a scientific scam.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: John | <a href="#comment-6208078">January 7, 2012 6:06 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208083"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208083"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">105</span> <p>Judith Curry is a real climate scientist, not because she set herself a conclusion and is working back from it to the most supportive facts, but because she has gained the necessary qualifications and has published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.^fn1</p> <p>That doesn't make her right, however. Furthermore, what she chooses to say on her blog is not the same as gathering the evidence and publishing it in peer reviewed scientific literature. Curry's current foray into a febrile psychological (self?) examination as to the motives behind what other climate scientists publish, well, it speaks volumes to the examiner, but not in a manner likely to be to her pleasing.</p> <p>Climate science (with regards to AGW, ie anthropogenic global warming) is fast becoming the most re-examined science on the planet, and yet, it consistently passes the testing and re-testing of the evidence. Judith Curry is out on a thin limb, on this one...</p> <p>fn1: Yes, I lapsed into some sarcasm, irony, call it what you will.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Donald Oats | <a href="#comment-6208083">January 7, 2012 6:23 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208089"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208089"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">106</span> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts-foot/" rel="nofollow">Curry may be some type of climate scientist but the important thing is that she's a fool.</a></p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Chris | <a href="#comment-6208089">January 7, 2012 6:44 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208090"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208090"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">107</span> <blockquote>I was one myself for some years ... before arguing & researching online ...</blockquote> <p>Trust us on this: Olaus and PentaxZ aren't like you.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6208090">January 7, 2012 6:44 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208118"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208118"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">108</span> <p>@111. John : You may well be right. But I hope not.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: StevoR | <a href="#comment-6208118">January 7, 2012 8:20 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208127"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208127"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">109</span> <p>SteveoR,</p> <p>Please take a look at the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.google.com/url?q=http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php" rel="nofollow">Jonas Thread</a> and despair.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Andy S | <a href="#comment-6208127">January 7, 2012 8:47 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208129"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208129"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">110</span> <p>That's @ #106 John for clarity. </p> <p>@108. Chris | January 7, 2012 6:44 AM : </p> <p>Thanks for that link. Interesting stuff there. </p> <p>@David Duff | January 3, 2012 9:43 AM</p> <blockquote>First of all Happy New Year to you all and I can only hope fervently that your prognostications for global warming hurry up and manifest themselves.</blockquote> <p>So I guess you haven't seen <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRc_9nNTZg0" rel="nofollow">this video illustrating the decline in arctic sea ice</a> - note especially at the 2 minute 30 seconds to 2 min. 50 secs mark where the graph shows that observed ice levels are far less than any of the 15 climate models. </p> <p>The melting of the Arctic sea ice - changing our planet's albedo and potentially causing all sorts of escalating feedbacks - is <b><em>very</em></b> manifestly real.</p> <p>Human Induced rapid Global Overheating is <b><em>ahead</em></b> of schedule - not behind it. That is something that should concern us because the implications are .. well think and read about them yourself. Not good is an understatement.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: StevoR | <a href="#comment-6208129">January 7, 2012 8:55 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208131"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208131"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">111</span> <p>Can I interest anyone in a second-hand Chevy Volt? Awfully green, you know, and will win you lots of kudos with concerned and caring people in the global warming movement.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/" rel="nofollow">David Duff</a> | <a href="#comment-6208131">January 7, 2012 9:04 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208219"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208219"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">112</span> 32 Joel Shore <p>Nice to see my ramblings are regarded as "lesser nonsense" by one of the purveyors of the "greater nonsense". ;-)</p> <p>I notice you repeat here your nonsense claim that Nikolov and Zeller disregard energy conservation, despite my putting you right on this elsewhere. While it's true they could have better phrased the paragraph which led you to your misapprehension, you have no excuse for continuing to spread your disinformation, so please desist.</p> <p>Nikolov and Zeller raise agin the old controversy (still unresolved) between Boltzmann, Maxwell and Maxwell's old tutor Loschmidt. We are having an interesting discussion on the topic at the moment. The algebra is pretty fiendish, so it could well be that someone cocked up somewhere. Not Maxwell though, he just dismissed Loschmidt by appealing to his second law of thermodynamics, which disregards the gravitational field which impinges through his otherwise isentropic thought experiment.</p> <p>Let the chips fall where they may. </p> <p>Happy New Year to all Deltoids!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://tallbloke.wordpress.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Rog Tallbloke</a> | <a href="#comment-6208219">January 7, 2012 2:50 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208243"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208243"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">113</span> <p>Saith Roger "I am Spartacus" Tattersall:</p> <blockquote> <p>Let the chips fall where they may.</p> </blockquote> <p>Whatever, Spartacus wannabe.</p> <p>And by the way, is Spartacus still planning to punish the policemen guilty of "malfeasance" resulting in an "inappropriate" search warrant? Or is Spartacus just preparing to launch phantom lawsuits against the Internet?</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6208243">January 7, 2012 3:56 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208248"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208248"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">114</span> <p>I strongly suspect that old (and they're <i>always</i> old) 'Spartacus' Tattersall is merely another in the long, long think-tank production line of anything-but-the-IPCC dupes with delusions of grandeur who should've stuck to making T-shirts for deluded old cows.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: chek | <a href="#comment-6208248">January 7, 2012 4:13 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208257"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208257"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">115</span> <blockquote>Nice to see my ramblings are regarded as "lesser nonsense"</blockquote> <p>Joel has misidentified/mischaracterized you, since there seems to be very little nonsense (the grossly incompetent G&T, "[It's a] ridiculous notion [that CO2 is a pollutant because] [i]t is a naturally occurring gas") that you don't purvey. Your comment on the latest drivel from G&T is priceless:</p> <blockquote>This is a technical paper and I don’t understand all the squiggles, but I’m sure the recent addition to the Talkshop of some real atmospheric thermodynamic expertise will make this an interesting thread.</blockquote> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6208257">January 7, 2012 4:32 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208296"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208296"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">116</span> <p>Best Wishes for the New Year Rog!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: GSW | <a href="#comment-6208296">January 7, 2012 5:34 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208302"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208302"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">117</span> <p>check,</p> <p>Isnt' this</p> <blockquote> I strongly suspect that old (and they're always old) 'Spartacus' Tattersall is merely another in the long, long think-tank production line of anything-but-the-IPCC dupes with delusions of grandeur who should've stuck to making T-shirts for deluded old cows. </blockquote> <p>Of course a few million residents of Pakistan might argue with this, but hey nobody in the US was killed or inconvenienced by the event in Pakistan last year... Being a bit harsh on the brilliant thinking exemplified by this quote:</p> <blockquote> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/07/week-in-review-1711/" rel="nofollow">More rainfall is good news for the Asian monsoon region. This is a good analysis that illustrates the interplay between AGW and natural variability.</a> </blockquote> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Rattus Norvegicus | <a href="#comment-6208302">January 7, 2012 5:52 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208308"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208308"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">118</span> <p>Argh, that last one got pretty well screwed up... Try again:</p> <p>Isn't his:</p> <blockquote> I strongly suspect that old (and they're always old) 'Spartacus' Tattersall is merely another in the long, long think-tank production line of anything-but-the-IPCC dupes with delusions of grandeur who should've stuck to making T-shirts for deluded old cows. </blockquote> <p>A bit harsh on the author of this brilliant piece of thinking:</p> <blockquote> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/07/week-in-review-1711/" rel="nofollow">More rainfall is good news for the Asian monsoon region. This is a good analysis that illustrates the interplay between AGW and natural variability.</a> </blockquote> <p>Of course a few million residents of Pakistan might argue with this, but hey nobody in the US was killed or inconvenienced by the event in Pakistan last year... </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Rattus Norvegicus | <a href="#comment-6208308">January 7, 2012 5:59 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208317"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208317"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">119</span> <p>Thanks for the intervention, RN. Upon reflection, I retrospectively amend my previous statement to: "deluded, old sacred cows".</p> <p><blockquote>but hey nobody in the US was killed or inconvenienced</blockquote></p> <p>A little close to La Curry's previous area of expertise, but similar to "if a hurricane doesn't make landfall in the USA, did it really even happen"?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: chek | <a href="#comment-6208317">January 7, 2012 6:21 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208358"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208358"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">120</span> <p>+1 to John@106</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Olaus is a political denier. Olaus, like all deniers, has his own, entirely contradictory set of evidence which changes as often as the seasons do. </p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>People like Penatax, Duff & Olaus are evidence immune. They are not here to attempt to understand or advance AGW science in any way. They have made up their minds in advance & no amount of evidence will change that.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Phil M | <a href="#comment-6208358">January 7, 2012 8:03 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208379"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208379"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">121</span> <p><b>Canada after Kyoto</b> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://deepclimate.org/2012/01/06/canada-after-kyoto/" rel="nofollow">http://deepclimate.org/2012/01/06/canada-after-kyoto/</a></p> <p>“Canada’s message: The world and its climate be damned”. That headline on Jeffrey Simpson’s scathing commentary on Canada’s pending formal withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol said it all. ...</p> <p>But I want to turn today to an analysis of the Conservative government’s putative alternative to Kyoto, namely the 2009 Copenhagen agreement, as well as the GHG reduction plans put forth in 2008 by Canada and the province Alberta (home to the oil sands and Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper). That analysis confirms the contention of Jeffrey Simpson and others that the government of Canada is “mocking” the 2020 target agreed to only two years ago; the promised 17% reduction in annual GHG emissions (relative to 2005) is already out of reach. A big reason for this is an Alberta target (itself very unlikely to be met) that calls for a rise in GHG emissions until 2020. Not only that, but Alberta’s 2050 target, predicated on massive expansion of oil sands operations, is only 14% below 2005 levels, and sets Canada on a path that can not possibly be reconciled with the Harper government’s own stated long-term target, let alone any reasonable goal compatible with Canada’s responsibilities.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://deepclimate.org" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://deepclimate.org/" rel="nofollow">Deep Climate</a> | <a href="#comment-6208379">January 7, 2012 8:42 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208452"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208452"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">122</span> <p>I've posted the same prediction over at Tamino's, but just to have some fun and stir the pot, I thought that I'd repost here.</p> <p>The annual GISS January-December land-and-sea mean global temperature anomaly for the next WMO-defined El Niño year will be:</p> <p>0.70 ± 0.10 degree celcius.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6208452">January 8, 2012 12:35 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208579"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208579"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">123</span> 113 114 115 <p>Sorry gents, I mistook this for a science blog. As you were.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://tallbloke.wordpress.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Rog Tallbloke</a> | <a href="#comment-6208579">January 8, 2012 9:22 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208583"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208583"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">124</span> <p>94 AndyS,</p> <p>Indeed. Not only does he make obviously false claims, but, like most pseudosceptics he contradicts himself. In 2006 he co-authored a book, 'Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years', in which current global warming is claimed to be entirely natural. </p> <p>Doncha just love their DoubleThink?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: TrueSceptic | <a href="#comment-6208583">January 8, 2012 9:40 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208588"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208588"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">125</span> <p>I asked Roger "I am Spartacus" Tattersall:</p> <blockquote> <p>And by the way, is Spartacus still planning to punish the policemen guilty of "malfeasance" resulting in an "inappropriate" search warrant? Or is Spartacus just preparing to launch phantom lawsuits against the Internet?</p> </blockquote> <p>The answer from our Spartacus wannabe:</p> <blockquote> <p>Sorry gents, I mistook this for a science blog. As you were.</p> </blockquote> <p>Shorter Spartacus wannabe:</p> <blockquote> <p>This questions embarrases me, so here's a lame excuse.</p> </blockquote> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6208588">January 8, 2012 9:51 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208591"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208591"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">126</span> <blockquote> <p>Sorry gents, I mistook this for a science blog.</p> </blockquote> <p>Given the company that you habitually keep, do you in fact know <i>how</i> to recognise a science blog?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6208591">January 8, 2012 10:01 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208601"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208601"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">127</span> <blockquote>Sorry gents, I mistook this for a science blog.</blockquote> <p>Ah, I see your mistake now. You're confusing a 'science blog' for example like Deltoid here or Deep Climate or Tamino's, with 'crank blog' like your own, or Climate etc.. or WTFUWT.</p> <p>Not an easy mistake to make, to be sure. Unless perhaps you're suffering from Spartacled delusions.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: chek | <a href="#comment-6208601">January 8, 2012 10:31 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208615"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208615"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">128</span> <blockquote> <p><b>MichaelEMann</b><br/>Good @Guardian piece on ATI attack on clim. scientist @KHayhoe over Gingrich book chapter. ATI's attack on me noted. <a href="bit.ly/xkGop1" rel="nofollow">bit.ly/xkGop1</a></p> </blockquote> <p>Sheer hilarity. Read the last 2 paragraphs.</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6208615">January 8, 2012 11:09 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208696"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208696"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">129</span> <p>By the way, I thought you guys might be interested in seeing an example of how one of the owners of a "skeptic" blog, tallbloke, censor you if you write correct science that he happens to disagree with, I posted this comment in this thread there <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/g-t-weigh-in-on-adiabatic-atmospheres-and-raise-the-bar/" rel="nofollow">http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/g-t-weigh-in-on-adiabatic-atmospheres-and-raise-the-bar/</a></p> <blockquote> Maurizio Morobito says: “Bryan – yes, there’s no effect of radiative properties in the troposphere. Because whatever effect there might be, it is going to be counteracted by convection (and conduction).” Actually, this is not at all correct. The radiative greenhouse effect would only be counteracted completely by convection if convection could relax the profile of the troposphere all the way to an isothermal profile. It can’t because it only goes as far as relaxing it to an adiabatic lapse rate profile. What is important for the greenhouse effect is that the temperature at which emission escapes to space is colder than the temperature at the surface. (Ray Pierrehumbert’s book is very clear on this point, in fact.) If there were no convection, then the lapse rate in the troposphere would be higher and the radiative greenhouse effect would be greater. Convection reduces the radiative greenhouse effect but it can’t completely counteract it because the lapse rate only relaxes to the adiabatic one. This is why Nikolov and Zeller had to put in convection in such a way that, by their own emission, it drives the temperatures T_a and T_s to be the same (in obvious contradiction to what convection does in the real atmosphere). By adopting an incorrect assumption about how convection operates, they were able to essentially eliminate the radiative greenhouse effect in that simple model. Unfortunately, that is not the way the real world operates.</blockquote> <p>The response I got from the moderator (I presume tallbloke) was:</p> <blockquote> [Reply]Hi Joel, I’m all for informed debate from people on both sides, but you’re not posting here unless and until you apologise to Nikolov and Zeller for spreading misinformation about conservation of energy in their theory all over the blogosphere and failing to correct it. Rog</blockquote> <p>So, apparently I am censored from the site for stating something so obvious that even skeptics like Willis Eschenbach and Roy Spencer agree.</p> <p>Maybe he will yet have a change of heart and decide that censorship isn't the way to go...but it will be interesting to see.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Joel Shore | <a href="#comment-6208696">January 8, 2012 2:55 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208699"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208699"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">130</span> 128 <p>here's the reply I left for Joel on his second unpublished comment, which he can see and save to his hearts content.</p> <p>[Reply]Hi Joel. Show us the maths proving Nikolov and Zeller’s theory breaks energy conservation and you can have a guest post. Appeals to authority don’t cut it with me.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://tallbloke.wordpress.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Rog Tallbloke</a> | <a href="#comment-6208699">January 8, 2012 3:06 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208703"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208703"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">131</span> <p>Hi, tallbloke. It is nice to see that blogs like this truly allow the free exchange of ideas, as opposed to your blog which just gives lip service to the idea! Here is what I posted back to you on your blog:</p> <blockquote> tallbloke: The evidence that they have violated conservation of energy is clear from all of the amusing contortions that people are going through to try to explain to Willis and I how it could possibly not violate conservation of energy. Stephen Wilde has gone so far as to try to get around it by appealing to the gravitational redshift. Unfortunately, it turns out that said effect is 9 orders of magnitude too small, besides which, we already know the solution to the conundrum that the Earth’s surface is emitting ~390 W/m^2 whereas there is only 240 W/m^2 absorbed by the Earth and atmosphere from the sun: It is that as seen from space, the Earth is only emitting 240 W/m^2…The rest of the emissions from the Earth surface are absorbed by the atmosphere. We call this the atmospheric greenhouse effect…and it is what allows the surface to emit more energy than the Earth and its atmosphere receive from the sun. P.S. – So, is Willis banned from posting here too?</blockquote> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Joel Shore | <a href="#comment-6208703">January 8, 2012 3:13 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208722"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208722"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">132</span> <p>Hi Joel. I gave up on you at WUWT because you seem unable to comprehend or address the mathematically, and empirically supported result which resolves the issue you have with Nikolov and Zeller. If I do choose to re-engage with you it will be at WUWT where there is a team of moderators on hand to handle your tendency to noisy ears closed dispute and I won't have to wear two hats at once. </p> <p>Since you have chosen to post parts of our behind the scenes chat here, I'll post our entire exchange for the record and leave comments closed.</p> <p>Cheers.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://tallbloke.wordpress.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Rog Tallbloke</a> | <a href="#comment-6208722">January 8, 2012 4:32 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208744"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208744"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">133</span> <p>Roger "I am Spartacus" Tattersall:</p> <blockquote> <p>Sorry gents, I mistook this for a science blog.</p> </blockquote> <p>Joel Shore:</p> <blockquote> <p>Unfortunately, it turns out that said effect is 9 orders of magnitude too small, besides which, we already know the solution to the conundrum that the Earth's surface is emitting ~390 W/m^2 whereas there is only 240 W/m^2 absorbed by the Earth and atmosphere from the sun: [...] The rest of the emissions from the Earth surface are absorbed by the atmosphere. We call this the atmospheric greenhouse effect...</p> </blockquote> <p>Roger "Spartacus" Tattersall:</p> <blockquote> <p>you seem unable to comprehend</p> </blockquote> <p>Ooh, Spartacus wannabe is looking vewwy vewwy oppwessed at the moment, is he not? But maybe we are just "unable to comprehend" the supreme Spartacus-ness of the great Spartacus wannabe who's feeling so oppressed right now, even as he refuses to answer questions on the phantom lawsuit against policemen guilty of "malfeasance".</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6208744">January 8, 2012 5:37 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208748"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208748"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">134</span> <p><em>at WUWT where there is a team of moderators</em></p> <p>You'd get the idea from this that WUWT is actually important in the context of scientific debate on climate... what with a 'team of moderators' and all. Truth is, it ain't. There's not a real climate scientist amongst them. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Jeff Harvey | <a href="#comment-6208748">January 8, 2012 5:50 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208763"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208763"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">135</span> <p>re: Roger,</p> <p>If I may paraphase the 'skeptics' take on this;</p> <p>'Roger moderates becuase he knows he's lost the argument.'</p> <p>Or it's some vast right-wing conspiracy has made scince corrupt.</p> <p>Take your pick.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Michael | <a href="#comment-6208763">January 8, 2012 6:55 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208764"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208764"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">136</span> <p>Is it my imagination or has there been some kind of group new-years-resolution amongst the 'skeptics' to take nonsense to a new level?</p> <p>This current meme going viral about atmospheric pressure being the cause of warming - yikes.</p> <p>Is it some form of mass delusions of granduer?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Michael | <a href="#comment-6208764">January 8, 2012 7:00 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208768"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208768"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">137</span> <p>Am I understanding this correctly: WUWT and its fans are in fact denying the existence of the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect?</p> <p>I'm getting very confused about the denialist position: one minute they're all saying "Oh, nobody denies <em>that</em>, we're just saying models exxagerated adaptation".</p> <p>So, when the latest review of US temperature stations came out showing there was nothing wrong with them, they started saying "We never denied temperatures are going up, we're just saying the anthropogenic factor is overstated". </p> <p>And yet, now, they're right back to saying there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect on the back of a crank paper by two people whose expertise in climate science is not very well established.</p> <p>Which ones of them are stupid, and which ones are part of the Oreskes-documented campaign of dishonesty?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | <a href="#comment-6208768">January 8, 2012 7:11 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208774"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208774"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">138</span> <p>Joel, Frank, Jeff,</p> <p>You don't often see such a perfect example of incompetence combined with arrogance as we see in Rog Tallbloke: classic Dunning-Kruger in fact. He's obviously a deluded f@@kwit but thinks he is capable of evaluating the validity of science that's far beyond his abilities. </p> <p>IOW anyone who tries to correct his dogmatic ignorance is wasting their time, although it might benefit others (on sites that allow those corrections to be shown!). </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: TrueSceptic | <a href="#comment-6208774">January 8, 2012 7:28 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208794"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208794"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">139</span> <p>Roger (may I call you that - Roger?).</p> <p>I haven't laughed so much in weeks. Thank you.</p> <p>The fact though is that I wasn't laughing <i>with</i> you...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6208794">January 8, 2012 8:22 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208804"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208804"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">140</span> <blockquote> <p>Since you have chosen to post parts of our behind the scenes chat here, I'll post our entire exchange for the record and leave comments closed.</p> </blockquote> <p>Sounds suspiciously like silencing dissent to me!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: John | <a href="#comment-6208804">January 8, 2012 8:40 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208805"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208805"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">141</span> <blockquote>You don't often see such a perfect example of incompetence combined with arrogance as we see in Rog Tallbloke: classic Dunning-Kruger in fact. </blockquote> <p>C'mon, he's a web content editor for a university, obviously well-positioned to be the next galieinsteinarwin!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: dhogaza | <a href="#comment-6208805">January 8, 2012 8:41 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208815"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208815"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">142</span> <p>WUWT is just a mouthpiece for Libertarian zealots. Science and truth is not for them, just ideology...</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.libertarian.to/author/index.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.libertarian.to/author/index.php</a></p> <p>check out this author list :)</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: harvey | <a href="#comment-6208815">January 8, 2012 9:25 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208841"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208841"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">143</span> <p>Apart from a roll-call of the usual suspects (including the hilarious 'Galileo Movement') I note Noam Chomsky, George Monbiot and Oliver Cromwell(!) on that list!...</p> <p>And no Hayek!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: bill | <a href="#comment-6208841">January 8, 2012 11:42 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208881"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208881"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">144</span> <p>Okay guys, I'm a libertarian. But I don't let ideology get in the way of evidence. Trust me, I get beat up enough within that realm because I follow evidence first. I think that government shouldn't intrude in people's lives as much as possible, but government needs to protect the people's rights. So in my "ideological" view, when people are dumping crap into the water, or air it is the government's responsibility to take action where I as an individual cannot. Maybe I'm rationalizing to support the real world and evidence in the case of AGW. Anyway, some of us libertarians aren't nutcases...sadly most are when it comes to this issue in particular...though I think many just say they are libertarian when convenient as they oppose things like gay marriage, no corporate welfare, and military adventurism. They are just neo-cons pretending to be libertarian. Sorry for the rant. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: JRC | <a href="#comment-6208881">January 9, 2012 2:42 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208883"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208883"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">145</span> <p>Sorry...in my last post I wrote the pseudo-libertarian opposed military adventurism. That was the opposite of what I meant. They are in favor of such when the majority of libertarians are against it. Anyway, again I apologize for the rant. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: JRC | <a href="#comment-6208883">January 9, 2012 2:48 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208890"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208890"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">146</span> <p>It would be interesting to hear Tallbloke's expert opinion on where the differences lie between Nikolov and Zeller, and Gerlich and Tscheuschner.</p> <p>/me ducks</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Martin Vermeer | <a href="#comment-6208890">January 9, 2012 3:17 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208914"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208914"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">147</span> <blockquote>Sorry gents, I mistook this for a science blog.</blockquote> <p>The gents here are scientists or educated in science, whereas you are an ignorant crank who doesn't understand the "squiggles" of technical papers, someone so mindbogglingly stupid as to proclaim that it's ridiculous to think that CO2 is a pollutant because it's <i>a naturally occurring gas</i> (so is sulpher dioxide, moron), and so inept and lacking in scientific understanding as to proclaim the unscientific dunces Gerlich and Tscheuschner -- who reject basic physics -- to have "real atmospheric thermodynamic expertise" (so much for appeals to authority not cutting it with you). You're a cherry-picking sack of shit, an idiot and a liar, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCjTRgHWTMs" rel="nofollow">an asshole and a jackass</a>, a shit stain on humanity. Since this isn't the sort of blog you were looking for, you should get lost.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6208914">January 9, 2012 4:27 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208921"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208921"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">148</span> <p>@137 Vince Whirlwind</p> <blockquote>Which ones of them are stupid, and which ones are part of the Oreskes-documented campaign of dishonesty?</blockquote> <p>This is perhaps the only interesting question remaining about deniers. People like <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Monckton" rel="nofollow">Christopher Monckton</a>, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer" rel="nofollow">Ian Plimer</a>, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joanne_Nova" rel="nofollow">Jo Nova</a> and <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stewart_Franks" rel="nofollow">Stewart Franks</a> are clearly in it for the money, but their acolytes and minions seem more driven by neural deficiency than lucre.</p> <p>Still, it's hard to tell how many of the persistent and anonymous skeptidiots are professionals on a payroll. There are agencies that hire out people to shape opinions on the 'net by trawling blogs and social networking sites.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stewart_Franks" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stewart_Franks" rel="nofollow">Scribe</a> | <a href="#comment-6208921">January 9, 2012 4:57 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208922"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208922"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">149</span> <p>Roger Tattersall's remarkable (heh heh) level of scientific understanding, as well as his credulity, are on full display at</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/why-the-sun-is-so-important-to-climate/" rel="nofollow">http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/why-the-sun-is-so-important-to-climate/</a></p> <p>For someone who claims to reject appeals to authority, ya gotta love his comment,</p> <blockquote>I have been waiting for someone to properly critique Ferenc Miskolczi’s papers on the greenhouse effect. Who better than Dr Roy Spencer? </blockquote> <p>But when Spencer explained what a crock Miscolczi’s theory is (for more trashing see <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=232818" rel="nofollow">http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=232818</a> ... gotta love the denier idiots there who argue that the fact this garbage paper isn't cited proves that there's something to it and it's "being carefully ignored"), Tattersall didn't understand a word of it, except that it wasn't what he wanted to hear, and so he hopes that Miscolczi will respond so his confirmation bias can latch onto that.</p> <p>Since he is incapable of grasping it from what Spencer wrote about Miscolczi, Tattersall ought to ask him what he thinks of G&T, heh heh.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6208922">January 9, 2012 4:58 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208924"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208924"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">150</span> <blockquote>Which ones of them are stupid, and which ones are part of the Oreskes-documented campaign of dishonesty?</blockquote> <p>Most of them are both.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6208924">January 9, 2012 5:14 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208926"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208926"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">151</span> <p>Sometimes ianam's short fuse and colourful language make me wince, but I had to laugh at:</p> <blockquote> <p>You're a cherry-picking sack of shit, an idiot and a liar, an asshole and a jackass, a shit stain on humanity. Since this isn't the sort of blog you were looking for, you should get lost.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm not saying that I necessarily agree (or disagree) with it, but one has to concede that he <i>does</i> put his point across...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6208926">January 9, 2012 5:17 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208927"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208927"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">152</span> <p>And Roger (may I call you that - Roger?)...</p> <p>Personally I'd like you to hang around for at least a while longer. I suspect that there are a few of us who haven't finished dissecting your approach to discussing physics...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6208927">January 9, 2012 5:19 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208928"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208928"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">153</span> <blockquote>I think that government shouldn't intrude in people's lives as much as possible</blockquote> <p>Whereas liberals think it should?</p> <blockquote>t is the government's responsibility to take action where I as an individual cannot</blockquote> <p>Without taxation?</p> <blockquote>They are just neo-cons pretending to be libertarian</blockquote> <p>Other libertarians might say you're just a liberal pretending to be a libertarian.</p> <p>Libertarians are naive, ignorant, dogmatic, hypocritical, and intellectually dishonest ... just not all in the same areas.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6208928">January 9, 2012 5:21 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208933"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208933"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">154</span> <blockquote><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/g-t-weigh-in-on-adiabatic-atmospheres-and-raise-the-bar/" rel="nofollow">http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/g-t-weigh-in-on-adiabatic-atmospheres-and-raise-the-bar/</a></blockquote> <p>Good grief, Roger is even dumber than I could have imagined:</p> <p>Roger the imbecile: <i>I believe the current thinking is that most of the emission to space is from about 5km, lower than the tropopause.</i></p> <p>Maurizio: <i>No, the 5km is an “effective height”, not a physical layer.</i></p> <p>Roger the cretin: <i>: Ok so the ‘effective height’ is so called because – what? It is at the temperature the bulk of the outgoing long wave radiation must go from?</i></p> <p>Maurizio: <i>The effective height is a mathematical concept. It’s the equivalent of computing orbits by assuming the whole mass of every planet is concentrated in a central point. Useful if everybody understands that’s not where the mass actually is.</i></p> <p>Roger the retard: [still didn't understand a word of it but at least knew better than to keep making a fool of himself on that subject]</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6208933">January 9, 2012 6:04 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208937"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208937"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">155</span> <p>Some clarification.</p> 133 Frank the 'swifthack' decoder <p>Frank removes context in order to create the impression we are claiming that the relevant effect we are discussing is the 'gravitational redahift' which is 9 orders of magnitude too small to do anything exciting. This is incorrect, but indicative of his debating methods.</p> 134 Yet Joel appeals to Willis Eschenbach's authority on the subject. 135 Paraphrase as much as you please. We are selective about who joins the conversation at the Talkshop because we want to be able to discuss science in a pleasant easygoing atmosphere where the focus can be on the subject matter, rather than devolving into a noisy ruckus of misrepresentation, innuendo, insult and off the cuff negative assessments of peoples mental states from armchair psychologists. 136 See above. 137 There is no single 'denialist position'. This is a figment of the imaginations of people who also believe there is a 'concerted campaign of dishonesty'. At the moment, the Talkshop is concentrating on assessing the.claims in the Nikolov and Zeller extended conference poster. At the end of the process (which will take some time yet, because properly assessing theories which cover a lot of ground and offer major paradigm shifts can't be judged overnight), we will arrive at our conclusion. let the chips fall where they may. 138 I have a background in mechanical science and engineering, and a degree in the history and philosophy of science. I'm more competent than some, less competent than others to assess specific scientific claims. In such cases where specialists turn up to offer assessments I mostly act as librarian, looking up and providing relevant material for others to assess and comment on. I also provide the environment in which the discussion can take place in relative calm, without "f@@kwits" like you messing it up for everyone. 139 No problem, laughter is good for the soul, whatever its source, it makes me glad for you. 140 See the reply to 135 above. 141 Who? 146 I don't have an expert opinion on that, which is why I posted the article so others could offer their opinions. 147 You will be delighted to hear that this is the last contribution I'll be making to this particular thread. At the moment, my time is better spent trying to help untangle the old disagreement about the gravito-thermal-effect between Maxwell, Boltzmann, and Maxwell's former tutor Loschmidt. I'll leave you scientists to your deliberations. 148 We'll see, eventually. <p>Thanks for your thoughts, even the nasty ones. I got a laugh too. - thread saved.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://tallbloke.wordpress.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Rog Tallbloke</a> | <a href="#comment-6208937">January 9, 2012 6:16 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208943"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208943"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">156</span> <blockquote>You will be delighted to hear that this is the last contribution I'll be making to this particular thread.</blockquote> <p>We've heard this before.</p> <blockquote>We'll see, eventually. </blockquote> <p>As I said, we already know, moron. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6208943">January 9, 2012 6:25 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208963"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208963"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">157</span> <p>Tallbloke is an industrial strength crank magnet who believes that there was a conspiracy to hide evidence that proved the existence of an ether. According to Tallbloke the evidence was "buried by mainstream astrophysics in favour of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity."</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6208963">January 9, 2012 7:25 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208972"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6208972"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">158</span> <p>True MikeH - as soon as you hear Maxwell (and/or his equations) being lauded by people who couldn't add together two six-packs without removing a shoe, you just know that the Einstein and the aether conspiracy is to follow.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: chek | <a href="#comment-6208972">January 9, 2012 7:41 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6208994"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6208994"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">159</span> <p>Roger "I am Spartacus" Tattersall:</p> <blockquote> <p>Frank removes context in order to create the impression we are claiming that the relevant effect we are discussing is the 'gravitational redahift' which is 9 orders of magnitude too small to do anything exciting.</p> </blockquote> <p>You mean the context in which you scream "I am Spartacus!" while threatening to launch phantom lawsuits against policemen and the Internet? Ah yes, I may have omitted that, Spartacus wannabe.</p> <blockquote> <p>There is no single 'denialist position'.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes there is, and it's called 'Not The IPCC'.</p> <p>The 'position' where anything and everything that disagrees with the IPCC is right and good, even if they flat out contradict one another.</p> <blockquote> <p>At the moment, the Talkshop is concentrating on assessing the.claims in the Nikolov and Zeller extended conference poster. At the end of the process (which will take some time yet, because properly assessing theories which cover a lot of ground and offer major paradigm shifts can't be judged overnight), we will arrive at our conclusion. let the chips fall where they may.</p> </blockquote> <p>OK, so not only is Tattersall Spartacus, he's also</p> <blockquote> <p>I also provide the environment in which the discussion can take place in relative calm</p> </blockquote> <p>I didn't know Spartacus was about civilized debate. I thought that was the province of Cicero. Or was it Galileo? Dang, mixed metaphors are so confusing.</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6208994">January 9, 2012 8:49 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209054"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209054"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">160</span> <blockquote> <p>Maurizio: No, the 5km is an “effective height”, not a physical layer.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'd never thought I would be commending Omnologos... but here he is precisely right.</p> <p>The "effective radiation level" is like the "expected throw" of a fair die, 3.5. No real die, fair or loaded, can ever throw a 3.5. Similarly very little radiation comes from this level; most comes from far above it (in the CO2 15 micron band) or from far below it, from water vapour or the solid Earth surface.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Martin Vermeer | <a href="#comment-6209054">January 9, 2012 11:41 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209142"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209142"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">161</span> <blockquote>I mistook this for a science blog</blockquote> <p>This is a quote of one of the authors (Nikolov) that Tallbloke goes gaga over at his blog:</p> <blockquote>The CO2 increase over the past 50-60 years is most likely due to degassing of the oceans as a result of a warming driven by reduction in cloud cover. Contrary to popular beliefs, man-made CO2 emissions are quite tiny (3-5%) compared to the CO2 fluxes between oceans and the atmosphere. The claim that human industrial activity is driving recent CO2 increase is a myth</blockquote> <p>This Nikolov character is capable of a wide range of science denial. I don't know sort of blog Tallbloke is running but it has very little to do with science.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Chris O'Neill | <a href="#comment-6209142">January 9, 2012 2:06 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209177"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209177"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">162</span> <p>Leeds U, where Tallbloke (Roger Tattersall) is a web content editor in school of education, actually has a fair-sized <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/" rel="nofollow">School of Earth & Environment</a> and the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/ebi/" rel="nofollow">Earth and Biosphere Institute</a>. The latter regularly publish in <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/ebi/publications.htm" rel="nofollow">real journals.</a></p> <p>People might rummage around, see if they know anyone there and ask if Tattersall shows up for seminars, interacts with faculty, etc and thus perhaps get a local perspective on his level of expertise. One of the benefits of being attached to or at least conveniently-near a decent university is the opportunity of such interactions with real researchers.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: John Mashey | <a href="#comment-6209177">January 9, 2012 3:30 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209180"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209180"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">163</span> <p>Degassing due to surface warming does not explain the observed decrease in pH in those surface waters over the same period of time. It does not explain the observed stable isotope signature. Deniers who throw these simple responses up ignore the fact that the earth is an interconnected, system, subject to conservation of mass and energy.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://twitter.com/adavid" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://twitter.com/adavid" rel="nofollow">Anthony David</a> | <a href="#comment-6209180">January 9, 2012 3:33 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209184"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209184"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">164</span> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>134 Yet Joel appeals to Willis Eschenbach's authority on the subject.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>But Eschenbach is a mining executive with no qualifications in science at all. Has that changed?</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>138 I have a background in mechanical science and engineering</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>Somehow I knew the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis" rel="nofollow">salem hypothesis</a> was at play here.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Phil M | <a href="#comment-6209184">January 9, 2012 3:42 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209204"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209204"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">165</span> <p>Not only that Phil, but the phrase 'background in' is itself super vague. As Jeff Harvey once memorably observed to some unlikely candidate claiming 'a background in high-energy physics' that could just as easily mean working in the security hut in front of the CERN building as much as the attempted intended implication.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: chek | <a href="#comment-6209204">January 9, 2012 4:24 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209237"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209237"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">166</span> <p>John Mashey</p> <p>I wonder if the faculty and students of the two departments you mention are aware of how Rog T amuses himself in his spare time?</p> <p>Perhaps not. Otherwise I imagine that at least some of them would be regular (and vexatious) correspondents at his blog. </p> <p>An opportunity missed, if you ask me. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: BBD | <a href="#comment-6209237">January 9, 2012 5:16 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209322"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209322"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">167</span> <p>And Roger (may I call you that - Roger?)...</p> <p>Given just the commentary on this thread, I'd be forced suggest that perhaps you consider asking for a refund of the money you spent on your formal education.</p> <p>If the evidence here is any indication, something - a <i>lot</i> of something - didn't stick.</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6209177" rel="nofollow">John Mashey's oft-repeated advice</a> is also good: go visit the scientists at your institution, listen - and <i>start</i> to learn.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6209322">January 9, 2012 7:48 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209375"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209375"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">168</span> <blockquote>I'd never thought I would be commending Omnologos</blockquote> <p>Yes, even a dogmatic denier crank like Morabito is not so devoid of comprehension of even the simplest matters as Tattersall. I'm not clear on why Joel identified tallbloke as someone who was "previously smart enough to reject" denial of the greenhouse effect, when he seems to be and have been a leader of that imbecilic pack.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6209375">January 9, 2012 10:23 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209448"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209448"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">169</span> <p>@Anthony #163: Don't forget that there's another problematic issue when invoking the oceans as the source of the CO2 increase: with a simple calculation, assuming that more than 80% of the CO2 increase is due to ocean outgassing, you'd have to find a sink that takes up well over a hundred gigatons <em>each year</em>.</p> <p>After all, humans release about 30 Gt CO2/y mainly through fossil fuel burning, and if that's only 20%, this means oceans would release (net!) 120 Gt CO2/y. Since the increase in CO2 is about 15 Gt CO2/y (let's keep it simple), that means there's a sink that currently takes up 135 Gt CO2/y.</p> <p>That's more than 1000 Gt in a decade, and allowing for the somewhat exponential increase, probably around 3000 Gt over the last 50-60 years. If the ocean is a net emitter, the biosphere must be the net sink. Estimated total carbon in the biosphere is around 2000 Gt C, which is ca. 75000 Gt CO2. You'd think we would notice if the biosphere increases by 30%, no?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Marco | <a href="#comment-6209448">January 10, 2012 1:39 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209463"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209463"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">170</span> <blockquote> <p>Yes, even a dogmatic denier crank like Morabito is not so devoid of comprehension of even the simplest matters as Tattersall. </p> </blockquote> <p>What fascinates me is this not even getting their act together on the basics. Sure, scientists may also disagree on esoteric details, but among them they have the basics sorted out. In contrast every denialist seems to have his own very personal mix of basic things that he actually 'gets', and just as basic things that he is delusional about.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Martin Vermeer | <a href="#comment-6209463">January 10, 2012 2:36 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209513"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209513"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">171</span> <blockquote>I wonder if the faculty and students of the two departments you mention are aware of how Rog T amuses himself in his spare time?</blockquote> <p>If I were at that college, I'd be sure to spend a few hours networking with staff and students of the faculty concerned to make sure they were all aware that their web jockey plays a climatologist-wannabe online and promotes reactionary tosh. That's just the sort of retaliation we need to mount against these subversive Luddites.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Scribe | <a href="#comment-6209513">January 10, 2012 5:56 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209515"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209515"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">172</span> <p>Martin, remember that there also are plenty of scientists who are at least as deluded. See Gerlach and Tscheuschner, see Zeller (he has a PhD in Fluid Mechanics and Wind Engineering), see Nikolov (PhD in Forest Ecology. Regarding Nikolov: the Forest Service should be concerned having someone with such basic failures of understanding the carbon cycle being so deeply involved in their studies on the same...</p> <p>Roger Andrews points him to the basic problem with his claim, but I suspect he will ultimately ignore that...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Marco | <a href="#comment-6209515">January 10, 2012 6:00 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209612"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209612"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">173</span> <blockquote>I'd never thought I would be commending Omnologos... but here he is precisely right.</blockquote> <p>I hereby award Omnologos the Stopped Clock Award for the month of January ...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: dhogaza | <a href="#comment-6209612">January 10, 2012 9:57 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209685"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209685"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">174</span> <p>re: John Mashey @ 162</p> <p>I see Leeds U, (not very far from me), also have links with the Oil industry :-</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.cipeg.leeds.ac.uk/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cipeg.leeds.ac.uk/</a></p> <p>Therefore, one might question the impartiality of some of their staff.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: clippo UK | <a href="#comment-6209685">January 10, 2012 12:19 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209700"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209700"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">175</span> <p>Another phantom lawsuit by Rog "I am Spartacus" Tallbloke?</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://ijish.livejournal.com/43788.html" rel="nofollow">http://ijish.livejournal.com/43788.html</a></p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6209700">January 10, 2012 12:56 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209702"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209702"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">176</span> <p>Re:174 Without further data, I would be really careful. There is a large group of people doing fine environmental research, as evidenced by Science and Nature publications. The school may get funding from oil companions as well, and the effects could range from bad to just fine, depending on circumstances. That is often true of industry funding of university research: you really have to evaluate them case by case.</p> <p>For instance, there are plenty of reasonable people at George Mason University, but a few parts ate like branches of the Kochs and Scaife, etc.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: John Mashey | <a href="#comment-6209702">January 10, 2012 12:59 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209709"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209709"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">177</span> <p>ianam says: "I'm not clear on why Joel identified tallbloke as someone who was 'previously smart enough to reject' denial of the greenhouse effect, when he seems to be and have been a leader of that imbecilic pack."</p> <p>Well...You are probably right that I did not realize how imbecilic he was from the start.</p> <p>Marco says: "Martin, remember that there also are plenty of scientists who are at least as deluded. See Gerlach and Tscheuschner"</p> <p>Actually, that is only one possible interpretation. Another possible interpretation is that G&T are engaged in intentional deception of others. I tend to imagine that G&T might think of themselves as defense lawyers for CO2. So, for example, they jump on picayune details that the eyewitnesses disagree on or get wrong in order to distract the jury from the fact that this still doesn't show that the defendant is guilty as sin. (This is particularly apparent in the section where they critique various statements of the greenhouse effect.)</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Joel Shore | <a href="#comment-6209709">January 10, 2012 1:10 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209712"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209712"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">178</span> <p>I said "...in order to distract the jury from the fact that this still doesn't show that the defendant is guilty as sin."</p> <p>I think there is a missing NOT in that sentence. I am reminded of this exchange from "Kentucky Fried Movie": </p> <p>"Hornung: Mr. Grunwald, in addition to your occupation as a spoon, is it not true that you are a driving instructor? Grunwald: No. Hornung: Then it is true. Grunwald: Yes. Hornung: That you're not a driving instructor? Grunwald: No. Hornung: Your Honor, I object to this line of questioning. Judge: Overruled."</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Joel Shore | <a href="#comment-6209712">January 10, 2012 1:16 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209715"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209715"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">179</span> <p>Marco: </p> <p>Hmmm..."Natural Science", apparently another journal to scratch off the "real scientific journals" list!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Joel Shore | <a href="#comment-6209715">January 10, 2012 1:22 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209717"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209717"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">180</span> <p>Sorry...That last post to Marco was an errant one meant for Rabett Run: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/01/indelible-dumbness-of-physicists.html?showComment=1326219810265#c7926499235820974089" rel="nofollow">http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/01/indelible-dumbness-of-physicists.html?showComment=1326219810265#c7926499235820974089</a></p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Joel Shore | <a href="#comment-6209717">January 10, 2012 1:24 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209734"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209734"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">181</span> <p>Joel, fair enough to put it here also. I am not an expert in climate science, but even I can see the strawmen arguments in that paper. I just loved their "does not make physical science". There, now it has been proven it does not make physical sense, because we said so. Or the "as we have argued", and then suddenly that argument (with the argumentation perhaps(?) embedded in a lot of math) is proof. After all, they have argued, and therefore it is so.</p> <p>But I really can't understand what reviewer (or Editor) would allow the personal attacks they put in their introduction. That by itself tells you enough about "Natural Science" as a journal.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Marco | <a href="#comment-6209734">January 10, 2012 2:06 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209758"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209758"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">182</span> <blockquote>remember that there also are plenty of scientists who are at least as deluded</blockquote> <p>Don't forget to mention Roy Spencer and <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/" rel="nofollow">his delusional "natural" CO2 hypothesis</a>. So many qualified crackpots, so much denial.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Chris O'Neill | <a href="#comment-6209758">January 10, 2012 3:07 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209807"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209807"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">183</span> <p>Marco,</p> <p>Yeah...It makes you wonder if there was any review whatsoever! It does seem to have undergone one revision which makes me wonder what it could have possibly been like before that revision?!?</p> <p>I just saved that paper to my computer with an appropriate name: Kramm<em>crap</em>2000.pdf</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Joel Shore | <a href="#comment-6209807">January 10, 2012 4:15 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209824"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209824"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">184</span> <p>The journal Natural Science does not appear to have an impact factor or to appear on the Web of Science. Like most of the other contrarian crap, its a small wonder that dross ends up in there. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Jeff Harvey | <a href="#comment-6209824">January 10, 2012 4:45 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209830"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209830"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">185</span> <p>Chris O'Neill says: "Don't forget to mention Roy Spencer and his delusional 'natural' CO2 hypothesis. So many qualified crackpots, so much denial."</p> <p>Yeah...That was a low point for Roy Spencer, and to my knowledge he has never even admitted his incredible error there. To his credit, Roy has been trying to explain why the Unified Climate Theory is nonsense. Unfortunately, his worshipful fans like tallbloke seem to have no problem ignoring what Roy says when he actually says something intelligent. </p> <p>I guess tallbloke is a perfect garbage filter: No matter what goes in, only the complete garbage gets out.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Joel Shore | <a href="#comment-6209830">January 10, 2012 4:52 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209833"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209833"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">186</span> <blockquote>there also are plenty of scientists who are at least as deluded</blockquote> <p>For sufficiently small values of "plenty". OTOH, what Martin said of deniers applies to <i>all</i> of them.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6209833">January 10, 2012 5:03 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209844"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209844"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">187</span> <blockquote>That was a low point for Roy Spencer, and to my knowledge he has never even admitted his incredible error there. </blockquote> <p>A low plateau, as he continues to feature it (#2 on the menu, after the home link but before "about" Dr. Roy Spencer) on his web site. A good rebuttal is at <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-we-know-recent-warming-is-not-natural.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-we-know-recent-warming-is-not-natural.html</a> .. in typical intellectually dishonest denier fashion, Spencer makes no mention of this or any other criticism of his argument.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6209844">January 10, 2012 5:23 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209871"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209871"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">188</span> <p>▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.ecoshock.net/eshock12/ES_120111_Show_LoFi.mp3" rel="nofollow">Climate change may force human evolution</a> (podcast) features interviews with climate scientists. Recommended.</p> <p>▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://www.ecoshock.net/eshock12/ES_120111_Show_LoFi.mp3" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.ecoshock.net/eshock12/ES_120111_Show_LoFi.mp3" rel="nofollow">Scribe</a> | <a href="#comment-6209871">January 10, 2012 6:32 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209911"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209911"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">189</span> <p>From new article in <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://australianconservative.com/2012/01/plimer-book-challenges-the-climate-scaremongers-with-answers-to-101-questions/" rel="nofollow">the Australian Conservative</a></p> <blockquote>The Galileo Movement is promoting the book to schoolteachers and school librarians, with an offer of a free copy. Full details of the offer are available at Connor Court.</blockquote> <p>Time to apply for your free copy of Plimer's latest offering. This is a new paradigm in book publishing: publish and give away. Where's the profit, you may ask? It's in the smokestacks of the polluting industries funding this trash pamphlet.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Scribe | <a href="#comment-6209911">January 10, 2012 8:43 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209942"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209942"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">190</span> <p>@68 on Warwick Hughes. Posted similar to this on his web site but was quickly snipped. It appears that poor ol’ Warwick can’t handle substantive criticism. </p> <p>Start here warwicks source graph: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/archive/temperature/20110919.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/archive/temperature/20110919.shtml</a></p> <p>The displayed graph and accompanying text clearly indicates:The chance that the average October to December maximum temperature will exceed the long-term median maximum temperature </p> <p>Follow the link to here for the baseline data: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/climatology/temperature/percentile/maximum/50/p50-October-December.png" rel="nofollow">http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/climatology/temperature/percentile/maximum/50/p50-October-December.png</a></p> <p>Note the coverage: Based on 56 years of data 1950-2005.</p> <p>Now to measure the effectiveness of the outlook WH should have gone here: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/temperature-percentiles/index.jsp?prodtype=1&maptype=3&period=October-December&product=50th" rel="nofollow">http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/temperature-percentiles/index.jsp?prodtype=1&maptype=3&period=October-December&product=50th</a></p> <p>Alas, in a flux of analytical ineptitude we got this:</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=meananom&period=3month&area=nat" rel="nofollow">http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=meananom&period=3month&area=nat</a></p> <p>and poor ol' WH forgot to note that these were temperature anomalies: All temperature anomalies are calculated with respect to the average over the 1961 to 1990 reference period.</p> <p>So the two are not directly comparable, differing measures and differing baselines.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: sillyfilly | <a href="#comment-6209942">January 10, 2012 10:04 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209959"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209959"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">191</span> <p>Well spotted sillyfilly. I posted this at his site. We will see if it survives.</p> <p>The first graph is the chance of exceeding the median Max Temp which is based on 56 years of data 1950 to 2005. </p> <p>The second graph is labelled at BOM with "All temperature anomalies are calculated with respect to the average over the 1961 to 1990 reference period."</p> <p>You are comparing apples and oranges.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6209959">January 10, 2012 10:43 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209971"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6209971"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">192</span> <p>@190 clarification:</p> <p>link to current data needs correction, actuals are here:</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=maxave&period=3month&area=nat" rel="nofollow">http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/temp/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=maxave&period=3month&area=nat</a></p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: sillyfilly | <a href="#comment-6209971">January 10, 2012 11:28 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6209992"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6209992"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">193</span> <p>Joel (and others): Steve Carson (at Science of Doom) has already taken on the Kramm & Dugli article, nicely pointing out that its conclusion does not follow from the article itself, as well as its odd way of dismissing a theory in part because there's an error in a textbook and an (semantic) error in a description of the greenhouse effect.</p> <p>Quite telling: Kramm has responded, but not to Steve Carson's questions and comments...</p> <p>Chris: the Roy Spencer argument has been accepted by Ned Nikolov, he points to Spencer's analysis in a comment at Tallbloke. I would like to remind everyone that Nikolov's job at Forest Service is to look at exchange of various gases between the biosphere and the atmosphere. Quite worrysome that someone who is so deep into that part of the carbon cycle makes such uninformed comments about other parts of the carbon cycle.</p> <p>Ned, if you are reading this: has the biosphere increased in mass with 1000 Gigatons of C in the last 50 years?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Marco | <a href="#comment-6209992">January 11, 2012 12:51 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210007"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210007"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">194</span> <p>Re 190,192, Hughes really doesn't understand how the BoM probability forecasts are derived,doesn't understand how to judge their success,and insists they "cost millions",which is an absurd claim that he has never substantiated. He seems to think they are sophisticated models,and when they are 'wrong' by his estimation they have no value. They are actually inexpensive spinoffs from standard data collection: once you have long records across land and ocean,it's simple combination and comparison to generate likelihoods. Hughes needs to read-and understand-the background information presented with each forecast.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Nick | <a href="#comment-6210007">January 11, 2012 2:02 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210049"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210049"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">195</span> <p>Hi everyone, I know this is a bit of a deviation from the thread, but I wanted to let everyone know that in just over a week I will commence a winter camping/hiking trek across one of Canada's most famous parks in Ontario. One of the themes (see below) of the trek is to bring attention to the effects of climate change on local biomes and their biodiveristy. We have a facebook page: </p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.facebook.com/AlgonquinTraverse" rel="nofollow">http://www.facebook.com/AlgonquinTraverse</a></p> <p>Officially:</p> <p>Beginning on Saturday, January 21st a long-time friend of mine in Canada, Mark Williamson (he is also a professional biologist) and I will commence a winter hiking/camping trek across Algonquin Park, which is located in central Ontario, Canada. The park consists of a huge expanse of unbroken wilderness consisting mainly of boreal forests (some northern hardwoods) and hundreds of lakes, and there is only one road going through the extreme southern part of the park. The trek will cover some 180-200 km, in winter conditions, where the average daily temperatures are -6 -10 C and the night temperatures a 'balmy' -15 -30 C(!!!). Its been a lot warmer than that over the poast two monthsm though, and researchers at the University of Toronto have already noted shifts in vegetation patterns in the province over the past 20-30 years. I will present a lecture at the University on the mechanisms underlying plant invasions in late February. </p> <p>We anticipate that the entire trip will take us some 20-25 days to complete. A successful winter traverse of the park from west to east has never been done before, so its nice to be doing something for the first time! We have acquired excellent gear for the trip, including some sponsorship for various materials, and expect to have some of our adventures published in one or two Canadian outdoor publications. The aim of the trip is twofold: first, to bring attention to the effects of climate change, which is certainly impacting local biomes in the region, and to collect samples of snow and ice and to test them for the presence of trace organic contanimants. We also hope to see some of the native fauna whilst hiking across the park: grey wolves (there are at least 15 pack territories in the park), lynx, fisher, American Marten, Moose, White-Tailed Deer, Great-Horned, Barred and Great Grey Owls, two species of crossbills, Pine Grosbeak, Boreal Chickadee, Common Raven, Grey Jay etc. We have set up a facebook page for anyone who might be interested (see above). This will be updated regularly. </p> <p>Providing I make it out of the park in one piece, I should be back in Holland on February 27th. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Jeff Harvey | <a href="#comment-6210049">January 11, 2012 5:12 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210093"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210093"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">196</span> <p>Jeff I did the 'snow-sampling' thing whilst trekking across Vatnajokull a few years ago. Looks to me as though you're going to see a whole lot more than just the inside of a ping-pong ball on your trip. Good luck and have fun H </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Hasis | <a href="#comment-6210093">January 11, 2012 6:38 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210218"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210218"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">197</span> <p>I am seeing Denialist trumpet a new paper by <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611003385#bib52" rel="nofollow">Scaffeta</a>. It looks like to me it is the same old, same old. How did it get published? And what do you people think is the best rebuttal?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Trent1492 | <a href="#comment-6210218">January 11, 2012 1:26 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210265"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210265"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">198</span> <p>Trent1492, realclimate already took ta prior paper on: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/an-exercise-about-meaningful-numbers-examples-from-celestial-attribution-studies/" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/an-exercise-about-meaningful-numbers-examples-from-celestial-attribution-studies/</a></p> <p>You can fit any data with a sufficient number of oscillations. Especially if you add something with a 60 year phase and the whole calibration period being about 2 such oscillations.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Marco | <a href="#comment-6210265">January 11, 2012 3:04 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210284"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210284"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">199</span> <p>Hello Marco,</p> <p>That is a different paper than the one I linked too. From my amateurs and none to competent look it appears to be saying the same thing. Yet, I am seeing it published in pretty respectable <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611003385#bib52" rel="nofollow">Journal</a> </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Trent1492 | <a href="#comment-6210284">January 11, 2012 3:32 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210300"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210300"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">200</span> <p>Trent1492,</p> <p>Don't overestimate the respectability of the journal - its impact factor (IF) is 1.579, which puts in strongly in the lowest quarter of journals in the same field. If the Scafetta paper was published in a journal with an IF over 3, then I would think there was a lot more to it. But is remarkable how much contrarian science ends up in relative 'bottom feeding' journals. This begs the question: do the authors of said articles realize their stuff was weak in the first place and decide to go low, or was it rejected several times from more rigid journals before settling near the bottom? This is a question I would like to see addressed, because low IF journals have lower thresholds for peer review than stronger journals. I had 10 papers published in my field (ecology) last year: 3 went into journals with an IF over 3, another 4 went into journals with an IF of 2-3, and the last three went into journals with an IF of 1-2. I would certainly never expect any of my research in journals with IF < 3 to get a lot of attention outside of my general circle of researchers, but its amazing how the climate change denial echo chamber hypes up relatively weak studies. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Jeff Harvey | <a href="#comment-6210300">January 11, 2012 4:16 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210337"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210337"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">201</span> <p>Thanks for the info, Jeff. I have already pointed out that the paper fails to explain such phenomena as a cooling stratosphere, etc, etc. I got into a "debate" with some clown over at <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=michael-mann-defends-climate-comput-12-01-10&posted=1#comments" rel="nofollow"> Scientific American on an article</a> about Michael Mann. He is claiming expertise in computer modelling and waving this latest paper from Scaffeta around like a holy relic. If you or any one else would like to join in I would appreciate it.</p> <p>What is the likelihood of this paper ever being addressed by the scientific community?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Trent1492 | <a href="#comment-6210337">January 11, 2012 6:13 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210341"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210341"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">202</span> <blockquote>begs the question</blockquote> <p>Point of information: to beg the question is to make a circular argument -- "beg" being in the sense of "evade", not "implore". What you want here is "raises the question".</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: ianam | <a href="#comment-6210341">January 11, 2012 6:20 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210356"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210356"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">203</span> <p>Oz: this is one of yours. I've taken on a task that requires serious head-vise, that of reviewing numerous issues of Heartland's Environment and Climate Newsletter. See <a href="heartland.org/sites/default/files/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/23702.pdf" rel="nofollow">IPCC Author Selection Process Plagued by Bias, Cronyism: Study</a>, based on a study for SPPI (Science and Public Policy Institute, by John McLean. This was 2008. Has anything much been heard from him of late?</p> <p>[SPPI is a 1-man effort by Robert Ferguson, actually a PO box in a suburban UPS store about 10 minutes' walk from Ferguson's house.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: John Mashey | <a href="#comment-6210356">January 11, 2012 7:06 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210367"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210367"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">204</span> <p>JM - he's still rattling around. Fulminating on the newspaper letters page every now and then. You made me download the report and read it. I didn't realize what a funny writer and master satirist he is. It's HILARIOUS!!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://2risk.wordpress.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://2risk.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Roger Jones</a> | <a href="#comment-6210367">January 11, 2012 7:37 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210375"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210375"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">205</span> <p>John McLean is some sort of IT guy who was pretending for a while that he had a PhD.</p> <p>He predicted 2011 would be the coldest year since 1953.</p> <p>He's totally clueless.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | <a href="#comment-6210375">January 11, 2012 7:49 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210377"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210377"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">206</span> <p>JM @ 203</p> <p>Mclean has become infamous for predicting "it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier"</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.skepticalscience.com/mclean-exaggerating-natural-cycles.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticalscience.com/mclean-exaggerating-natural-cycles.html</a></p> <p>Check out the temp graph with the almost vertical line and the hover label that says "Mclean is batshit insane".</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6210377">January 11, 2012 7:53 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210410"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210410"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">207</span> <p>Jonas N finally admits that my</p> <blockquote> <p>attempt... to derive knowledge/information [about the papers he read in order to accuse the IPCC of making up its confidence level numbers is fraught due to] ...the absence of such.</p> </blockquote> <p>I've <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6210397" rel="nofollow">acknowledged his confession</a>.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6210410">January 11, 2012 9:17 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210415"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210415"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">208</span> <p>McLean's hilarious prediction <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://hot-topic.co.nz/mcleans-folly-and-the-climate-clueless/" rel="nofollow">got a run over at Hot Topic</a>, too, the NZ Climate Science Coalition (<em>cough</em>) having decided it was worth running with.</p> <p>This, and subsequent even more outlandish predictions and warnings of an impending little Ice Age, was all so entertainingly and monumentally Stoopid that the Friends of G&T <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://friendsofginandtonic.org/files/267747d80dee74a8eb3ff83a97f3ed22-442.html" rel="nofollow">decided it needed international recognition</a>.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: bill | <a href="#comment-6210415">January 11, 2012 9:32 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210450"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210450"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">209</span> <p>Watts has changed the banner on WWWT so that there is now a graph of global temperature in the background... superimposed with Spencer's favourite 3rd order polynomial as a 'trend' line...</p> <p>The thing is, a third order polynomial is the only order polynomial (less than 7, at least) that gives a clear (or indeed - <i>any</i>) negative slope at the end of the current mean annual global temperature data, implying cooling. Running averages of various lengths also describe consistently <i>increasing</i> trends beyond the noise.</p> <p>What Watts and Spencer have done is select (from dozens of options) the only simple curve that can be fitted so that it is monotonically decreasing at the end of the temperature series. On top of that there is no mathematical justification for fitting the single "valley and hill" shape of that category of cubic polynomial to the temperature series (I'd actually spent some time explaining why this is so, but decided that I'd just make people's eyes roll back in their heads).</p> <p>Watts and Spencer should be embarrassed and ashamed.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6210450">January 11, 2012 11:08 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210457"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210457"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">210</span> <p>Thanks all for McLean update.</p> <p>This is such fun I bring another, which oddly ties back to Deltoid and relates to #209 on polynomials.</p> <p>People may recall <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/the_australians_war_on_science_32.php#comment-6210432" rel="nofollow">a bad graph, a worse version</a>, with a sixth order polynomial.</p> <p>I have added Heartland's <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/the_australians_war_on_science_32.php#comment-6210432" rel="nofollow">attempt to make the graph even more misleading.</a></p> <p>(Note: Fixed broken, link, the right one is See <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/24380.pdf" rel="nofollow">Jan 2009 E&CN, p.5</a>.)</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: John Mashey | <a href="#comment-6210457">January 11, 2012 11:29 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210479"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210479"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">211</span> <blockquote> <p>Mclean has become infamous for predicting "it is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956 or even earlier"</p> </blockquote> <p>I was thinking that now the data for 2011 should (just about) be in, it would be a good time to revisit the prediction, preferably in as many places where it was prominently touted as possible.</p> <p>Don't think the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2010/plot/rss/from:2010/plot/uah/from:2010">2011 data</a> is quite complete at WoodForTrees yet - looks like another couple of months for most data series are needed - but they'd have to be bloody cold to make the year anywhere near 1956.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6210479">January 12, 2012 1:03 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210482"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210482"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">212</span> <blockquote> <p>...superimposed with Spencer's favourite 3rd order polynomial as a 'trend' line...</p> </blockquote> <p>Where's Tim Curtin when you need him? ;-)</p> <p>Guess they'll either remove the 3rd order polynomial quick smart when new data comes in that changes the fit to one with a solid upwards thrust at the end - or avoid updating the underlying data altogether. And not one of their fans will protest - or even notice.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6210482">January 12, 2012 1:09 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210487"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210487"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">213</span> <p>Speaking of McLean's "cold 2011", the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt">GISS</a> Dec-Nov annual mean anomaly is available for 2011, but Jan-Dec is not yet.</p> <p>No prizes for guessing that 2011 Dec-Nov was a lot warmer than 1956: +0.51 C vs -0.20 C.</p> <p>Now all McLean requires is that Dec 2011 proves to have been about -8 C to be in with a chance on the 2011 Jan-Dec metric!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6210487">January 12, 2012 1:25 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210495"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210495"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">214</span> <p>Tonite is fine time for graphical follies of one sort or another, so I offer one more example from Heartland E&CN, before I got back to grinding through these things.</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/23086.pdf" rel="nofollow">E&CN May 2008</a> offers fun items. p.1.1 has a group picture from the Heartland Climate Conference. Oz folks may recognize some I don't.</p> <p>p.5 has the first of a series of half-page ads, "A Picture is worth a thousand words", advertising a booklet by <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_J._Rychlak" rel="nofollow">Ronald Rychlak</a>.</p> <p>Heartland says: "This new Heartland Policy Study, by law professor Ronald Rychlak, explains how advocates of the alarmist perspective on global warming have manipulated the evidence with charts, graphs, and other visual exhibits designed to “misrepresent data, misleading the public and describing a ‘reality’ unsupported by science.”</p> <p>Fortunately, this booklet is now <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://heartland.org/policy-documents/no-115-understanding-visual-exhibits-global-warming-debate" rel="nofollow">freely available</a> for your perusal.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: John Mashey | <a href="#comment-6210495">January 12, 2012 1:50 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210508"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210508"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">215</span> <p>Re #214 John Mashey, yep, they are specialists on the subject of misleading people... well worth a read.</p> <p>Amazingly they don't insist on plotting global temperatures on the Kelvin scale ;-)</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Martin Vermeer | <a href="#comment-6210508">January 12, 2012 3:55 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210536"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210536"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">216</span> <p>Thanks for that link to the booklet John (sort of)</p> <p>Don't you just love it when people criticise the presentation of data by others whilst apparently only being able to use the default settings on Excel themselves?</p> <p>As for the objections raised about 'Fig 21'. Is it really that difficult to see that the foreground in the 1928 image is predominantly taken up by <em>glacier</em> and not seasonal snowcover as the author appears to suggest?</p> <p>That was enough for me. What a bunch of w...jokers they are!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Hasis | <a href="#comment-6210536">January 12, 2012 6:34 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210554"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210554"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">217</span> <p>Hasis,</p> <p>Yes, the discussion about Fig 21 is hilarious. The image shows a <strong>glacier</strong> in 1928 and a <strong>lake</strong> at the same place in 2004. The text:</p> <blockquote> <p>The comparison certainly suggests that much snow was lost between 1928 and 2004 at the Upsala Glacier, part of the South American Andes in Argentina. Of course, there is no indication of the month in which each photograph was taken. One might have been taken in the summer and the other in the winter. ...</p> </blockquote> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Lars Karlsson | <a href="#comment-6210554">January 12, 2012 7:19 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210576"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210576"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">218</span> <blockquote> <p>One might have been taken in the summer and the other in the winter. ...</p> </blockquote> <p>Well, you could take a picture or find one from winter and solve that issue, couldn't you?</p> <p>Or is it easier to complain?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Wow | <a href="#comment-6210576">January 12, 2012 8:37 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210590"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210590"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">219</span> <p>That booklet is pathetic, but the thing that really amuses me is the overwhelming air of smugness that pervades it.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bob | <a href="#comment-6210590">January 12, 2012 9:05 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210608"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210608"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">220</span> <p>almost 300 comments, and not one word on GingerbreadGate! Typical.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Marion Delgado | <a href="#comment-6210608">January 12, 2012 9:54 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210609"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210609"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">221</span> <p>SteveC it never gets to that many posts if people ignore the person who'd grab attention for hundreds of posts. It's the byplay. If you're caring about the lurkers, gather the technical points and make them all at once in a post without using a troll's name, is my advice. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Marion Delgado | <a href="#comment-6210609">January 12, 2012 10:00 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210613"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210613"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">222</span> <p>This new old incarnation of the ideal climate theory is all too similar to the Goddard/Motl ad hoc model. </p> <p>Did they even straighten out, ever, when the wet and dry adiabatic rates apply?</p> <p>Rebutting the greenhouse effect itself takes a great deal of crazy.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Marion Delgado | <a href="#comment-6210613">January 12, 2012 10:07 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210614"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210614"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">223</span> <p>Shermer's a radical market fundamentalist. Yet another person whose definition of skeptic should be followed by "for other people's religions and fixed ideas, but never mine."</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Marion Delgado | <a href="#comment-6210614">January 12, 2012 10:10 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210617"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210617"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">224</span> <p>Fran Barlow, if you're to be allowed to continue to comment in the presence of your betters, we'll have to have (shuffles papers) at least 27 My time flitches from you. See that they're well-scooped or we'll insist you evaluate them for 6 Sigma Gauge Reproduction and Reliability, as well. If your geological results don't indicate an iron sun, you're doing something wrong. All of this comes straight from Ian, so I want no backtalk.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Marion Delgado | <a href="#comment-6210617">January 12, 2012 10:16 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210620"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210620"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">225</span> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.thelocal.se/2173/20050928/" rel="nofollow">http://www.thelocal.se/2173/20050928/</a></p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/13/business/13PRIZ.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/13/business/13PRIZ.html</a></p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Marion Delgado | <a href="#comment-6210620">January 12, 2012 10:25 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210665"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210665"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">226</span> <p>That duff guy didn't get his own topic yet? Aw c'mon.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://hankroberts.wordpress.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://hankroberts.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Hank Roberts</a> | <a href="#comment-6210665">January 12, 2012 11:49 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210675"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210675"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">227</span> <p>re: #214, etc. Regarding the booklet, I really do suggest checking <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_J._Rychlak" rel="nofollow">Rychlak's background</a> to assess his expertise and viewpoints. This may help explain some of this ...</p> <p>and really, do look at #210. Polynomials are fun.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: John Mashey | <a href="#comment-6210675">January 12, 2012 12:15 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210777"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210777"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">228</span> <p>Re McLean's folly: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://hot-topic.co.nz/mcleans-folly-2-the-reckoning/" rel="nofollow">The Reckoning</a>...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://hot-topic.co.nz/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://hot-topic.co.nz/" rel="nofollow">Gareth</a> | <a href="#comment-6210777">January 12, 2012 4:19 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210806"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210806"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">229</span> <p>216</p> <p>Last night when I went to sleep my back yard was ice free but this morning there was a glacier there. Record summer cold snap in southern Australia. Damn those glaciers - up and down like a bride's nightie. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://2risk.wordpress.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://2risk.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Roger Jones</a> | <a href="#comment-6210806">January 12, 2012 5:42 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210817"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210817"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">230</span> <p>re: 299 As <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_J._Rychlak" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> tells us: "Ronald J. Rychlak is an American lawyer, jurist, author and political commentator. He is the Associate Dean For Academic Affairs and the Mississippi Defense Lawyers Association Professor of Law at the University of Mississippi School of Law, and is known for his published works, career as an attorney, and writings on the role of Pope Pius XII in World War II."</p> <p>Mississippi is not known for its glacier experience.</p> <p>BTW: it turns out there are many more strange connections between Heartland and Australia than one might imagine, involving odd money flows findable in the depths of IRS Form 990s.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: John Mashey | <a href="#comment-6210817">January 12, 2012 6:12 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210821"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210821"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">231</span> <p>Hello Everyone,</p> <p>I got this guy over at Scientific American in a <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=michael-mann-defends-climate-comput-12-01-10&posted=1#comments" rel="nofollow"> thread</a> who claims he wants to wager 100,000 usd on climate. I thought I recalled someone here who wanted wager 10,000 Euros? Anyway I invited this guy over here to see if anyone wanted to play with him.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Trent1492 | <a href="#comment-6210821">January 12, 2012 6:22 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210903"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210903"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">232</span> <p>Re the booklet <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6210495" rel="nofollow">John Mashey gives us @ 214</a></p> <blockquote>One might have been taken in the summer and the other in the winter.</blockquote> <p>(This 'describing' photographs documenting the disappearance of tens of thousands of tonnes of glacial ice.)</p> <p>Yep, that's one of the most Stupid observations I've encountered in this debate, and that's truly saying something. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: bill | <a href="#comment-6210903">January 12, 2012 9:02 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210942"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210942"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">233</span> <p>Okay, here's a comment over on WUWT that I have to admit has left me totally speechless: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/earths-baseline-black-body-model-a-damn-hard-problem/#comment-862396" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/12/earths-baseline-black-body-model-a-damn-hard-problem/#comment-862396</a></p> <p>It had never before occurred to me that this sort of depth of lack of self-awareness could actually occur in sentient human beings.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Joel Shore | <a href="#comment-6210942">January 12, 2012 10:53 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210947"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210947"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">234</span> <p>Congratulating themselves on what a paragon of reasoned discussion they are presenting to the world is quite the theme at WUWT, in my experience. I'm sure Messrs. Dunning and Kruger would colour themselves unsurprised.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: bill | <a href="#comment-6210947">January 12, 2012 11:10 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210948"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6210948"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">235</span> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6210821" rel="nofollow">Trent1492</a>.</p> <p>That was me trying to wager with Jonas N and his Scandinavian trolleagues about the eventuality of significant/catastrophic climate change.</p> <p>As a marker of 'catastrophic' warming, I selected Arctic sea ice volume, because it conspicuously and undenialbly reflects polar atmospheric/ocean temperature, and because it serves as important habitat for at least two iconic species - the walrus and the polar bear. Loss of summer Arctic sea ice would be unprecedented - at least, for approximately <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_the_Arctic#Modelling.2C_history.2C_and_predictions_of_sea_ice" rel="nofollow">the last 700 thousand years</a> - and it would be ecologically 'catastrophic'.</p> <p>The logic of my wager is simple... Denialists say that there is no global warming; I say in response that if the planet is not warming, they should be prepared to put money on it, and to put more money on it, the warmer the planet (potentially) becomes as indicated by decreasing summer Arctic sea ice volume.</p> <p>The conditions are on the Jonas thread. My only concerns now are that:</p> <p>1) neither of the landmark time periods - 2025 and 2050 - might be reached with escrow accounts intact: the global economic system is decidedly wobbly, and is likely to be more so in the future, especially over longer-term spans. Even so, if I can find a denialist who's prepared to put even 10K euros down for my 10k, then I'd be interested.</p> <p>2) the euro seems to be a currency whose value is not guaranteed in the future. Perhaps the answer to this would be to convert the current wager values into gold gram equivalents.</p> <p>Strangely, once confronted with odds reflecting their stances, no denier seems to retain the desire to stand behind their positions...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6210948">January 12, 2012 11:10 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6210951"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6210951"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">236</span> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6210942" rel="nofollow">Joel Shore</a>.</p> <p>A few days ago another teacher waxed lyrical about how WWWT had opened her eyes to the IPCC fraud, and how she relies on WWWT for teaching her students. And she's not the first I've seen making that sort of statement; and even more sadly, I've seen the same declarations come from Australian teachers.</p> <p>Frankly, there's a serious problem there, and one that really begs for some appropriate intervention.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6210951">January 12, 2012 11:17 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211022"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211022"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">237</span> <p>Thanks for the response Bernard. Do you have a link to the bet? I do not think this guy is serious or honest but I think being able to counter him by being able to direct them to that wager will shut him up. </p> <p>I also want to just put in a word for you gang showing up at Scientific American occasionally. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Trent1492 | <a href="#comment-6211022">January 13, 2012 3:32 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211061"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211061"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">238</span> <p>Flying Spaghetti Monster on a stick.</p> <p>"Monckton responds to “potholer54”", conveniently saved to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://backupurl.com/z53ohv" rel="nofollow">at BackupURL so that people don't have to tread in the mess</a>.</p> <p>It's hard to know where to start, but I suspect that Peter Hadfield will have a rather good idea...</p> <p>Public service anouncement: put down the tea, and tighten the head-vice.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6211061">January 13, 2012 6:43 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211075"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211075"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">239</span> <blockquote> <p>“Monckton says he advised Margaret Thatcher on climate change. He didn’t.” I did.</p> </blockquote> <p>I see Monckton comes from the Pentaxz school of logical argument.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: John | <a href="#comment-6211075">January 13, 2012 7:09 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211086"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211086"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">240</span> <blockquote> <p>“Monckton says Greenland is not melting. It is.” Well, it is now</p> </blockquote> <p>I actually spat tea everywhere at that. What a comedic genius.</p> <blockquote> <p>“Monckton says there’s no systematic loss of sea-ice in the Arctic. There is.” No, I said that the 30-year record low ice extent of 2007 had been largely reversed in 2008 and 2009. </p> </blockquote> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://earthsky.org/earth/arctic-sea-ice-reached-record-lows-in-2011" rel="nofollow">Ha ha ha ha</a>!</p> <p>I could go on. He pulls so many Monckton Maneuvers throughout the rebuttal it will take Potholer54 weeks to disect them all which, I suspect, was the point. </p> <p>Oh God, Peter's going to have a field day with this, and I haven't even mentioned the slimey tactic Monckton uses to get around quoting Hadfield accurately:</p> <blockquote> <p>I noted them down rather hastily, since I am disinclined to waste much time on him, so the sentences in quote-marks may not be word for word what he said, but I hope that they fairly convey his meaning.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is from a man who considers himself a scientist, mathematician and academic.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: John | <a href="#comment-6211086">January 13, 2012 7:26 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211115"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211115"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">241</span> <p>233 Joel,</p> <p>Could it really never have occurred to you before?</p> <p>You have been bravely and thanklessly attempting to educate the uneducable at WUWT for quite some time. How could you still be surprised? </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: TrueSceptic | <a href="#comment-6211115">January 13, 2012 9:16 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211128"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211128"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">242</span> <p>Well, okay, TrueSceptic, it has occurred to me before...But just when I think they have gone as low as they can possibly go, they prove me wrong!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Joel Shore | <a href="#comment-6211128">January 13, 2012 9:48 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211132"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211132"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">243</span> <p>I have been asked to post an offer of a wager at this site regarding the reliability of the current set of GCM’s. </p> <p>I am will to wager $100K usd that your GCM of choice will not be able to reasonably accurately predict the annual rainfall amounts 36 months from now at 30 different locations around the world. I have used this to demonstrate that GCMs are not accurate enough to give us reliable predictions of future rainfall at any specific location around the globe. For the wager we will call reasonably accurate as being =/- 5%. </p> <p>Would anyone like to make this wager?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211132">January 13, 2012 9:51 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211137"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211137"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">244</span> <p>pokerplyer:</p> <p>I can do better than that. I'm willing to wager $1m USD that, using currently available information, your favourite method of analyzing climate data will not be able to predict the exact name of the Japanese Prime Minister at 1 Jan 2020 00:00 UTC.</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding Swifthack</a> | <a href="#comment-6211137">January 13, 2012 10:06 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211146"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211146"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">245</span> <p><i>pokerplayer</i>, whoever thinks that they want a GCM to predict the weather "36 months from now at 30 different locations around the world" doesn't understand what GCMs do, or what climate is.</p> <p>You'd be better off trying your weather wager with a crackpot like <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.weatheraction.com/" rel="nofollow">Piers Corbyn</a></p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: chek | <a href="#comment-6211146">January 13, 2012 10:31 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211148"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211148"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">246</span> <blockquote> <p>doesn't understand what GCMs do, or what climate is.</p> </blockquote> <p>You could have left it at that.</p> <p>Either "pokerplayer" doesn't know what climate is, or they're deliberately trying to find something that can't be answered so as to "win" the bet.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Wow | <a href="#comment-6211148">January 13, 2012 10:33 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211168"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211168"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">247</span> <p>242 Joel,</p> <p>What's that saying? "There's no bottom to stupid"? ;)</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: TrueSceptic | <a href="#comment-6211168">January 13, 2012 11:10 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211169"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211169"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">248</span> <p>He is over at this thread on<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=michael-mann-defends-climate-comput-12-01-10&posted=1#comments" rel="nofollow"> Scientific American</a> crowing about how no one is taking up the bet.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Trent1492 | <a href="#comment-6211169">January 13, 2012 11:16 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211186"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211186"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">249</span> <p>Trent, let him crow. He's just portraying his ignorance of GCMs and climate.</p> <p>Worse, he does not even realise the implicit problem of the uncertainty of 'predicting' rainfall. We <em>know</em> that the regional projections are not only dependent on the emission scenarios and potential natural variations we cannot control (if another Pinatubo goes off, our current 'prediction' will get even more likely to be wrong), we also know the regional projections are still not accurate enough to make any solid projections.</p> <p>However, unlike what pokerplyer likely implies, this does not mean we should not worry about climate change. In fact, quite the opposite: it means this uncertainty should make us worry even more. Due to the uncertainty, we have no idea what we have to adapt to. In other words, the uncertainty makes mitigation by far the only acceptable path to take!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Marco | <a href="#comment-6211186">January 13, 2012 11:42 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211230"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211230"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">250</span> <p>Here is what I wrote at unScientific American.</p> <p>The whole issue of GCMs is one of the most critical to the issue and one where many readers are highly misinformed. I am an aerospace engineer and am very familiar with complex model development and use. I do not claim to be an expert on the development of GCM's because I do not know what variables or the weights or timing of those variables that are or should be programmed into the models.</p> <p>I do know how complex models should generally be developed and documented because virtually everyone follows a set of engineering guidelines for model development. This process involves defining the key criteria that you wish the model to be able to predict, within what margins of error, over what timeframes or conditions. This practice has NOT been followed for GCMs. Ask Mann why it makes sense to average the results of many models vs. determining what model produces reliable, repeatable results and only using that model until a better one is developed. Ask Mann why he can trust the output of GCMs that produce significantly different results when they are runs multiple times using the same data. </p> <p>As a engineer, I am telling you that the current GCMs are HIGHLY unreliable, and were never designed for use in governmental policy development. These models are a waste of the US taxpayers money. The same funds could be spent much better one the development of two sets of much more practical models. The 1st west would be regional models that could reasonably accurately forecast condition 20 to 30 years in the future. The 2nd set would be local and regional models that would be highly reliable 12 months into the future. These two types of models would allow people to completely adapt to potential changes in the weather or climate. Mann is spreading baloney. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211230">January 13, 2012 12:59 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211238"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211238"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">251</span> <blockquote> <p>I am an aerospace engineer and am very familiar with complex model development and use.</p> </blockquote> <p><b>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!</b></p> <p>Really, before you try to fit that sock onto your hand for the third time, you should look up the words "turbulence", "chaos", and "stochastic" in an undergraduate level textbook. If you don't have the appropriate undergraduate level textbook, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780198529491" rel="nofollow">consider getting one</a>.</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6211238">January 13, 2012 1:14 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211240"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211240"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">252</span> <p>pokerplyer:</p> <blockquote>your GCM of choice will not be able to reasonably accurately predict (=/- 5%) the annual rainfall amounts 36 months from now</blockquote> <p>Yet another ignoramus who thinks climate models are meant to predict weather.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Chris O'Neill | <a href="#comment-6211240">January 13, 2012 1:19 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211241"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211241"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">253</span> <p>Marco I have not written that we should not be concerned about future weather, but I have written that we have limited resources and should address the issue smartly and efficiently.</p> <p>Virtually every concern that could come about as a result of the world being somewhat warmer can easily be adapted to by the construction of proper infrastructure. Humans need to build or re-built infrastructure every 25 to 30 years as a matter of course, so this is a very cost effective approach and can be done in the US quite easily.</p> <p>Many countries around the world do not build proper infrastructure to protect their citizens and societies. They do not do this for a variety of reasons, including cultural and corruption related factors. That is not a problem for the US or the EU to resolve. I see no reason why the US owes funding to any other country or the UN in general over the issue of CO2 emissions. Independent countries can adapt to the future climate if they build what is needed, but if they fail to do so, it is not a problem for the US tax payer to be a part of fixing. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211241">January 13, 2012 1:21 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211244"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211244"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">254</span> <p>pokerplyer, are you still seriously expecting us to buy your "I am an aerospace engineer" pretence?</p> <p>Especially when you've shown no knowledge of actual engineering, but only lots of knowledge of being a blathering idiot?</p> <p>Do you really expect that the people reading this blog are this gullible?</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6211244">January 13, 2012 1:28 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211245"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211245"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">255</span> <p>Chris</p> <p>If the IPCC or other alarmist individuals writing papers are using GCMs to claim that a particular region of the world will be harmed by a warmer climate because that region will receive 10% less rainfall it means that the IPCC or the writer of the paper is using the GCM to forecast future weather. I am writing the models are not sufficiently accurate for that purpose. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211245">January 13, 2012 1:28 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211248"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211248"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">256</span> <p>pokerplyer:</p> <p>Still claiming "I am an aerospace engineer", when you exhibit the opposite of knowledge regarding the concepts of "turbulence" and "chaos" and "stochasticity"? Hello?</p> <p>The more you blather on, the more you expose yourself to be a blathering idiot, and a fraud.</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6211248">January 13, 2012 1:32 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211249"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211249"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">257</span> <p>Frank</p> <p>Whether you believe it or not I don't really care, but it happens to be a fact. Mechanical engineering undergrad with a masters in economics and finance. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211249">January 13, 2012 1:32 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211253"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211253"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">258</span> <p><i> Whether you believe it or not I don't really care, but it happens to be a fact. Mechanical engineering undergrad with a masters in economics and finance. </i></p> <p>Kinda like <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/Pointy-Haired_Boss.jpg" rel="nofollow">this guy</a>?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: caerbannog | <a href="#comment-6211253">January 13, 2012 1:41 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211255"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211255"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">259</span> <p>pokerplyer:</p> <p>So you previously claim to be an "aerospace engineer", and suddenly now you just have an undergraduate in "mechanical engineering" and a "masters in economics and finance"?</p> <p>And you claim all these things even though you can't grasp the undergraduate level concepts of "turbulence" and "chaos"?</p> <blockquote> <p>Whether you believe it or not I don't really care,</p> </blockquote> <p>Oh, I think you do care. Because without all that pretentious degree dropping, your 'arguments' are nothing more than the blatherings of a blatherer.</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6211255">January 13, 2012 1:42 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211256"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211256"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">260</span> <p><i> Whether you believe it or not I don't really care, but it happens to be a fact. Mechanical engineering undergrad with a masters in economics and finance. </i></p> <p>Repeat with a link that can be followed:</p> <p>Kinda like this guy? <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/Pointy-Haired_Boss.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/Pointy-Haired_Boss.jpg</a></p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: caerbannog | <a href="#comment-6211256">January 13, 2012 1:43 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211257"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211257"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">261</span> <p>pokerplyer:</p> <blockquote>If the IPCC or other alarmist individuals writing papers are using GCMs to claim that a particular region of the world will be harmed by a warmer climate because that region will receive 10% less rainfall it means that the IPCC or the writer of the paper is using the GCM to forecast future weather.</blockquote> <p>No it doesn't.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Chris O'Neill | <a href="#comment-6211257">January 13, 2012 1:43 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211258"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211258"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">262</span> <p>caerbannog: link broken alas. :(</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6211258">January 13, 2012 1:43 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211260"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211260"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">263</span> <p>Frank</p> <p>When an engineer has worked in the aerospace industry for over 25 years they are generally called aerospace engineers. Care to make a wager on my resume idiot? </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211260">January 13, 2012 1:45 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211262"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211262"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">264</span> <p><i> When an engineer has worked in the aerospace industry for over 25 years they are generally called aerospace engineers. Care to make a wager on my resume idiot? </i></p> <p>I've known plenty of aerospace/defense engineers with over 25 years of experience, and for the most part, they didn't know <em>squat</em> about climate science.</p> <p>Typical case:</p> <p>Engineer with 25 years of experience: "Michael Mann's method generates hockey sticks from random noise."</p> <p>Me: "How do the random noise eigenvalues compare with Michael Mann's tree-ring eigenvalues?"</p> <p>Engineer with 25 years of experience: "Huh?"</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: caerbannog | <a href="#comment-6211262">January 13, 2012 1:53 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211266"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211266"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">265</span> <p>and what part of comment #250 does anyone think is incorrect and why? I'll try to check back</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211266">January 13, 2012 2:00 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211269"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211269"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">266</span> <p>pokerplyer,</p> <p>If you understood the terms "turbulence", "chaos", and "stochasticity", you'll immediately realize what a blathering pile of blather your comment <a href="#comment-6211230" rel="nofollow">250</a> was. The proof of this is, as they say, left as an exercise for the reader.</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6211269">January 13, 2012 2:03 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211275"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211275"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">267</span> <p>Again to "pokerplyer":</p> <blockquote> <p>Really, before you try to fit that ["I am an aerospace engineer"] sock onto your hand for the third time, you should look up the words "turbulence", "chaos", and "stochastic" in an undergraduate level textbook. If you don't have the appropriate undergraduate level textbook, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780198529491" rel="nofollow">consider getting one</a>.</p> </blockquote> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6211275">January 13, 2012 2:10 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211290"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211290"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">268</span> <p>Frank I do not know what your background is, but your comment is so silly as to be nonsense. Your having asked me to look up "turbulence", "chaos", and "stochastic" only demonstrates that you do not desire a meaningful exchange. </p> <p>Are you inferring that because GCMs are complex models that the developers should not define the characteristics that the models are expected to be able to accurately forecast, within what margins of error, over what timeframes? Idiot, exchanges with you seem to be a waste of time. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211290">January 13, 2012 2:40 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211301"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211301"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">269</span> <p>pokerplyer said:</p> <blockquote>Independent countries can adapt to the future climate if they build what is needed, but if they fail to do so, it is not a problem for the US tax payer to be a part of fixing.</blockquote> <p>Why should they have to pay to improve their infrastructure when it is others, mostly Western countries, who have caused the problems they wil be facing?</p> <p>You are a typical arrogant, ignorant and selfish denier. Your motto is:</p> <blockquote> I can do what ever I want and too bad for anyone who has the misfortune to be affected by my arrogance, ignorance and selfishness</blockquote> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Ian Forrester | <a href="#comment-6211301">January 13, 2012 2:57 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211303"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211303"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">270</span> <p>pokerplyer:<blockquote>your comment is so silly as to be nonsense. Your having asked me to look up "turbulence", "chaos", and "stochastic" only demonstrates that you do not desire a meaningful exchange.</blockquote>Why don't you tell us in your own words your understanding of the scientific meanings of "turbulence", "chaos", and "stochasticity"? I thought this is stuff that "I am an aerospace engineer" would know like the back of your hand? Stuff that you'd factor into your own calculations?</p> <p>Or are you trying to hide your lack of knowledge, and your ridiculous degree dropping, by dodging these concepts?</p> <p>-- frank</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://climategate.tk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://climategate.tk/" rel="nofollow">frank -- Decoding SwiftHack</a> | <a href="#comment-6211303">January 13, 2012 3:01 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211345"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211345"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">271</span> <p><em>Care to make a wager on my resume idiot/</em></p> <p>Pokerplayer, I'd certainly wager on your complete inability to understand the significance of short term versus long term events as well as temporal trends. Your wager infers that you think that weather and climate are interchangeable concepts. In other words, in inferring a short term linear relationship, this does not allow for stochastic events to occur along a significant statistical gradient. </p> <p>I am a scientist with a PhD in population ecology, and if I analyzed regression data sets I generate in my experiments the way that you are suggesting, then I would have to consider no result as being statistically significant if there were only one outlying data point somewhere along the x axis. This is clearly what you are suggesting - that every data point along the axis must, by your inane definition, be higher than the previous one closer to the point of origin. Your wager is that the odds are that some of the points along the regression will be (in terms of some short term meteorological event) lower on the y-axis that a point that follows it along the x-axis, without taking into consideration the many data points along a long x-axis (representing years). </p> <p>You may be an aerospace engineer, but this is hardly rocket science. Clearly you have not got a clue about even basic statistics. Statistics is not my strong suit, but your grasp of it is abominable. </p> <p>Then you write this patent nonsense:</p> <p><em>Virtually every concern that could come about as a result of the world being somewhat warmer can easily be adapted to by the construction of proper infrastructure</em></p> <p>How many times must one put this kind of anthropocentric clap-trap to bed? The problem is not human adaptation to a rapidly changing climate, but the ability of complex adaptive natural systems to adapt. Warming threatens to disrupt the flow of a wide range of supporting ecological services that sustain humanity but which have few or no technological substitutes. Pokerplayer writes as if humans are exempt from the laws of nature, and that we can forever continue hammering away at the planet's natural systems to death and that, thanks to some miracle of human ingenuity that we can forever increase the human carrying capacity. But the planet's natural systems already have a reduced capacity to support man. Its time we factored in the costs to natural systems of human overconsumption and simplification, because at present these are excluded from economic pricing. Costanza et al's seminar 1997 Nature article estimated the value of supporting ecological services to the material economy alone and concluded that they were worth a staggering 33 trillion dollars, or more than twice the combined GDP of all nations on Earth at the time. As Costanza explained, the reason he wrote the paper is that he was fed up with neoclassical economists estimating the value of nature to be about 2% of global GDP - a complete inverse of reality. More and more economists are now realizing that the value of nature in sustaining human civilization goes well beyond consumptive value - something pokerplayer clearly does not understand. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Jeff Harvey | <a href="#comment-6211345">January 13, 2012 4:05 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211356"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211356"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">272</span> <p>re:pokerplyer @255</p> <blockquote><i>If the IPCC or other alarmist individuals writing papers...</i></blockquote> <p>aaah, 'IPCC' & 'alarmist' in the same sentence shows your pre-judgement. Furthermore, obviously you have DK syndrome </p> <p>and re: enhancing ones qualifications, didn't a certain David Evans (electrican /electrical engineer) claim to be a Rocket Scientist after a short spell at NASA?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: clippo uk | <a href="#comment-6211356">January 13, 2012 4:32 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211361"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211361"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">273</span> <p>Jeff You misunderstand my perspective. I am not claiming that additional atmospheric CO2 will not warm the planet, or that the significant increase in the human population is not impacting the habitats of other creatures. I do claim that we do not really understand what the rate of warming will be from additional CO2 and that there is no reliable evidence that a warmer world is worse for the world human population overall, or for the US in particular over the long term. </p> <p>You wrote- “The problem is not human adaptation to a rapidly changing climate, but the ability of complex adaptive natural systems to adapt.” I suggest that your position is clearly different than the one of the IPCC, and that yours would be stronger to argue for population control or reduction than it is for CO2 control.</p> <p>You wrote- “Warming threatens to disrupt the flow of a wide range of supporting ecological services that sustain humanity but which have few or no technological substitutes.” What specific supporting ecological services do you believe are threatened by potential warming? Again, what you have written seems less about warming than it is about the human population disturbing the environment overall and the natural evolution of that human population to desire to have the highest lifestyle that it can obtain in spite of the impact on the environment. </p> <p>By no means do I believe that humans are exempt from the laws of nature. I am simply a realist who understands that the planet is governed by 200 independent nation states with frequently conflicting goals. I do not see any reason why taxpayers in the US should be obligated to work harder or to pay more taxes because people in India of Pakistan (as examples) have not built proper infrastructure and have had unsupportable population growth. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211361">January 13, 2012 4:48 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211374"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211374"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">274</span> <p>Why do skeptics keep buying into the straw man arguments about whether it is warming or not. I know of no serious student of climate science who does not admit that the planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age. Given that the argument that Constantanople had the warmest April ever is trivial. Of course if the planet is warming than lots of places will set records. They mean nothing. The question is is that warming do to "Natural Variation" - meaning we are not sure exactly why it is warming. Or is it do to Anthropological increases in atmospheric Co2 which is of course the question under consideration. Generally it is considered that CO2 was not a major factor before 1950 and that 30 years is needed to have a reliable trend. Examine this graph for the 30 year periods 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000 <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000" rel="nofollow">http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000</a> or to make it simpler just the trend lines. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend" rel="nofollow">http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend</a> Now you will note there is an increase of temperature. Given that it is accepted that that has been happening because of the LIA rebound the question is are the trend lines different. If they are you have an argument for AGW if not you will have to make an argument that somehow the natural warming in the second half of the 20th century is somehow different. A much more difficult argument than its warmer today in this place than it was last year.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: cms | <a href="#comment-6211374">January 13, 2012 5:16 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211376"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211376"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">275</span> <blockquote>Given that it is accepted that that has been happening because of the LIA rebound </blockquote> <p><b>[Citation needed]</b></p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: chek | <a href="#comment-6211376">January 13, 2012 5:26 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211381"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211381"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">276</span> <p>For the Little Ice Age you might look to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.sciencemag.org/content/274/5292/1503.abstract" rel="nofollow">Article in Science</a> Though this is behind a paywall. You could look at "Mechanisms of global climate change at millennial time scales By Peter U. Clark, Robert S. Webb, Lloyd D. Keigwin"</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: cms | <a href="#comment-6211381">January 13, 2012 5:47 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211383"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211383"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">277</span> <p>Looks like we've found ourselves another Dunning Kruger posterboy! Yet another surly buffoon with multiple degrees in Advanced Geniusness who cannot distinguish between weather and climate.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: bill | <a href="#comment-6211383">January 13, 2012 5:49 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211387"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211387"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">278</span> <p>For any who want to learn about climate models, see the 2 FAQs at RC: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models" rel="nofollow">#1</a> and <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii" rel="nofollow">#2</a></p> <p>I've addressed this <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/simple-question-simple-answer-no/#comment-97878" rel="nofollow">question of why technical people can be very confused about models</a>, in some detail. See 3) about mechanical engineers. By coincidence, some of that discussion had started here at Deltoid.</p> <p>Some technical people use computers for some kinds of modeling and therefore think they automagically know about other kinds of modeling. Generally, they don't, as their modeling experience is usually far too narrow (by my standards, which I admit are atypical).</p> <p>Some people with M.E. backgrounds, for example like <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/faculty/jpabraham.htm" rel="nofollow">John Abraham</a> understand climate modeling, as do some of the fine aerospace researchers at NASA Ames.</p> <p>But is there any reason to suspect that typical corporate aerospace engineers understand the differences between their modeling and thsoe of climate modelers?</p> <p>NO, and I don't have a survey, but I certainly have anecdotal experience that the answer is generally NO. Background in CFD or other finite-element models is useful, but people have to spend time understanding the differences, and there is no reason for most to do so. The problem comes when someone aggressively over-generalizes.</p> <p>I used to be Chief Scientist @ Silicon Graphics in the 1990s. When I wasn't doing design work on {software, microprocessors and supercomputers, I spent 50-60% of my time talking to customers and partners, including many who did M.E. tasks like Computational Fluid Dynamics or structural mechanics, as well as people who did climate models (NCAR, GFDL, NASA), petroleum geophysicists, molecular modelers, high-energy physicists, operations research folks, etc, etc. I spent lots of time with 3rd-pary software developers, so for instance, spent a day with the developers at <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.mscsoftware.com/" rel="nofollow">MSC</a> and then did a keynote talk at a conference of theirs. The first part was to geared to discussing algorithms and any impediments they were finding so I could bring them back to our software people and for longer-term issues, think about memory system designs.</p> <p>I used to visit Boeing to give half-day technology briefings to senior staff. I used to talk regularly with other aerospace companies as well, and of course, many of the car companies, who sometimes used related software, although they probably did a lot more simulated crash testing, those being more common for cars. Of course, they use CFD codes, too.</p> <p>NASA AMES was often our lead customer for our biggest machines, always wanting something that wasn't on our price list. Their senior guys would come over to visit often, since we were a few miles away.</p> <p>Them: Why can't we buy a Terabyte or memory, only .5TB? Our big CFD codes need it. [They liked to run one big CFD code using an entire machine.] This was back when a TB was big.</p> <p>(Me) A: Don't worry, the hardware is designed for it, when the prices on the next 4X DRAM become sensible, about 6-9 months. But do you have the budget?</p> <p>(Them): Sure. (Me, asking a question whose answer I knew): Will a Terabyte be enough?</p> <p>(Them): (Outrage) No, no, our grid elements are still way too big for us to simulate whole vehicles ... etc, etc ... a tale I'd heard before, having worked with guys like Paul Woodward when he was doing stellar modeling that needed big memories.</p> <p>(Me, asking another question whose answer I knew): Well, how much <em>would</em> be enough?</p> <p>(Them): There's never enough. (Got to love that kind of customer. They always wanted something 4X bigger, and the only way to get that was for us to assemble the first such configuration at their site, and then finish the debugging.)</p> <p>But some parts of NASA do climate modeling and some of their people perfectly well understand the differences between that and aerospace M.E.</p> <p>GCM's aren't built to predict rainfall in any particular place a few years off. Expecting that is even sillier than: <br/>- expecting a NASTRAN or LS-DYNA or ANSYS run to predict whether or not a specific plane will be in for repairs some specific day a few years off or <br/>- expecting PAM-CRASH to tell you whether or not a specific car would be in a crash some specific week.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: John Mashey | <a href="#comment-6211387">January 13, 2012 5:54 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211388"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211388"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">279</span> <blockquote>automagically</blockquote> <p>Killer, John. That should pass into the lexicon.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: chek | <a href="#comment-6211388">January 13, 2012 6:05 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211395"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211395"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">280</span> <p>Glad you got my point Bill/</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: cms | <a href="#comment-6211395">January 13, 2012 6:23 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211397"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211397"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">281</span> <p>Pokerplyer.</p> <p>I don't do silly strawman excursions such as your GCM nonsense is, and I've come to realise that most denialists are scared of the wager to which I refer above (I'm sure that you can find the details), probably because there are to many options, so I'll cut to the chase.</p> <p>I'll bet you $100k against your $100K that the summer Arctic PIOMAS sea ice volume will, by 2020, drop below the current summer record.</p> <p>In the interest of informed decision-making I refer you to:</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-low-means-what.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-low-means-what.html</a></p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6211397">January 13, 2012 6:28 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211400"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211400"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">282</span> <blockquote>I do claim that we do not really understand what the rate of warming will be from additional CO2 and that there is no reliable evidence that a warmer world is worse for the world human population overall,</blockquote> <p>How accurately do you need to know the future rate of warming and what level of confidence that a warmer world will be worse do you need before you accept that action needs to be taken?</p> <blockquote>I do not see any reason why taxpayers in the US should be obligated to work harder or to pay more taxes because people in India of Pakistan (as examples) have not built proper infrastructure</blockquote> <p>Perhaps because the US is a major contributor to global warming? Why should they be required to pay for damage <i>you</i> have caused?</p> <p>I am curious as to how you think improved infrastructure can prevent or circumvent drought in Texas or acidification of the oceans. It seems to me that you are a prime example of the adage that 'to a hammer, everything looks like a nail'. Also, as others have pointed out, you need to learn the difference between weather and climate.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Richard Simons | <a href="#comment-6211400">January 13, 2012 6:46 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211414"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211414"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">283</span> <p>279 Chek,</p> <p>Computer geeks (and others?) have been using that for years. ;)</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: TrueSceptic | <a href="#comment-6211414">January 13, 2012 7:40 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211422"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211422"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">284</span> <blockquote> <p>I am simply a realist...</p> </blockquote> <p>Interesting claim. Let's see.</p> <blockquote> <p>...I do claim that we do not really understand what the rate of warming will be from additional CO2...</p> </blockquote> <p>Nor do you apparently understand scientific uncertainty bounds, nor why predicted warming of <em>climate</em> is much better bounded than weather predictions, nor the science of decision making under regimes of incomplete information - in particular, risk mitigation. </p> <p>The latter is interesting for someone who claims postgrad economics and finance qualifications, which is normally considered quite heavy on working with incomplete information. (You might want to apply for a refund on your tuition fees.)</p> <p>So I take it you don't buy house insurance until the forest fire is licking at your eaves because prior to that data coming in there's "no reliable information" that this particular fire will harm your property?</p> <p>No? You <strong>do</strong> have insurance? Hmmmm, interesting.</p> <p>But you want the ecosystem and human population - especially everyone other than the US - to take the risk with CO2 rather than "buying insurance", right? And you are confident you have good reasons for that, right?</p> <p>So you must have a risk-option-cost model that you used to come to this decision, right? What are the bounds on the impacts imposed by CO2-based warming, and the bounds on the costs of dealing with the impacts for the various options on the table in your model, and how were they derived? Oh, wait, you say you <em>don't really know</em> how much it will warm so therefore you <em>can't even have bounded</em> the impacts, and:</p> <blockquote> <p>... and that there is no reliable evidence that a warmer world is worse for the world human population overall...</p> </blockquote> <p>...so you are arguing you don't have enough information to bound the <em>effects</em> of the impacts either.</p> <p>If we can't reliably bound how fast it will warm nor reliably bound the impacts we care about let alone their costs, then risk mitigation says the <strong>only</strong> safe course of action is to completely avoid driving the system into those unknown states with potentially unbounded impacts. In other words, we have to keep CO2 at geologically recent levels - which we've already exceeded, so we'd better swing into action to get the levels down <em>pronto</em>. That's where your implied facts inexorably lead.</p> <p>You, however, appear to have drawn the opposite conclusion. That suggests you are either deeply incompetent at risk mitigation, or you aren't even attempting to argue a position based on a realistic assessment of the known information.</p> <p>Hey, look - turns out you're not a realist after all!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6211422">January 13, 2012 7:58 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211428"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211428"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">285</span> <p>Pokerplyer @ 250</p> <blockquote> I do not claim to be an expert on the development of GCM's... </blockquote> <blockquote> As a engineer, I am telling you that the current GCMs are HIGHLY unreliable ... </blockquote> <p>What is it with climate change deniers that they wear ignorance as a badge of honor?</p> <p>Like the man with a hammer who sees every problem as a nail, our intrepid idiot (I am engineer - listen to me) who claims a passing knowledge of models in the aerospace industry believes that GCM models of a chaotic and non linear system must be the same even though he admits he has little knowledge of them.</p> <p>His wager is simply additional illustration of his ignorance.</p> <blockquote>I am will to wager $100K usd that your GCM of choice will not be able to reasonably accurately predict the annual rainfall amounts 36 months from now at 30 different locations around the world.</blockquote> <p>If he bothered to actually educate himself before making his blowhard comments, he could have read the following FAQ on climate models at Real Climate.</p> <p>Q. "<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/" rel="nofollow">Can GCMs predict the temperature and precipitation for my home?</a>"</p> <p>A. "No. There are often large variation in the temperature and precipitation statistics over short distances because the local climatic characteristics are affected by the local geography. The GCMs are designed to describe the most important large-scale features of the climate, such as the energy flow, the circulation, and the temperature in a grid-box volume (through physical laws of thermodynamics, the dynamics, and the ideal gas laws). A typical grid-box may have a horizontal area of ~100×100 km2..."</p> <p>Or he could have read "<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/climate-models-local-climate/" rel="nofollow">Why global climate models do not give a realistic description of the local climate</a>"</p> <p>So tell us please Pokerplyer - who is claiming that GCMs can predict the annual rainfall at a specific location 36 months from now? Or did you just make it up?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6211428">January 13, 2012 8:25 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211444"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211444"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">286</span> <p>Let me start with a compliment to this site as it has not done as Real Climate or Skeptical Science does and deleted posts that disagreed with the moderators position. I also want to thank those who disagree with my conclusions and actually respond with coherent rationale as to why they disagree. I will review responses to my points worth review.</p> <p>Comment #261 by Chris I wrote- If the IPCC or other alarmist individuals writing papers are using GCMs to claim that a particular region of the world will be harmed by a warmer climate because that region will receive 10% less rainfall it means that the IPCC or the writer of the paper is using the GCM to forecast future weather.</p> <p>Chris’s reply- No it doesn't.</p> <p>My question- what data was the IPCC or the writer of a paper using to determine that rainfall would change fit it was not from a GCM? </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyr | <a href="#comment-6211444">January 13, 2012 9:34 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211445"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211445"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">287</span> <p>Comment #269- My comment- Independent countries can adapt to the future climate if they build what is needed, but if they fail to do so, it is not a problem for the US tax payer to be a part of fixing</p> <p>Ian’s response- Why should they have to pay to improve their infrastructure when it is others, mostly Western countries, who have caused the problems they will be facing?</p> <p>My response- They should have to pay for the infrastructure in their own country and not the US taxpayer. It seems as though you are unknowledgeable of actual world conditions. Much of the world does not build virtually any infrastructure and as a result when it rains heavily people are harmed. Travel in SW Asia and you will learn that infrastructure is not built largely due to vast corruption. It has nothing to do with anything the US or the EU has done or not done. If (hypnotically) that everything you believed was true regarding AGW, the difference in degree of harm to people from severe weather would be minimal as compared to the difference between a country that has prepared by building proper infrastructure and those like those in SW Asia that have not.</p> <p>The US has not been responsible for the fact that many countries have not built proper infrastructure to protect their citizens from bad weather. The vast majority of people harmed by severe weather events would not have been harmed if proper infrastructure had been constructed. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyr | <a href="#comment-6211445">January 13, 2012 9:36 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211453"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211453"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">288</span> <p>Comment #278 by John Mashey</p> <p>John wrote a long comment about his experiences with aerospace engineers- (we may have met I was with Boeing for 20 years), but his key comment was: </p> <p>“GCM's aren't built to predict rainfall in any particular place a few years off.”</p> <p>John- I agree. It would has been much more useful if the models would have been built to actually accurately predict conditions important to government policy making. Since the GCMs cannot accurately forecast future rainfall, what tool was used to determine that parts of the world would be harmed by less rainfall as a result of higher temperatures?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211453">January 13, 2012 9:50 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211458"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211458"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">289</span> <p>Comment #281 by Bernard- “I'll bet you $100k against your $100K that the summer Arctic PIOMAS sea ice volume will, by 2020, drop below the current summer record.”</p> <p>My response-I think you would win that bet, but do not think it is evidence of any overall harm. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211458">January 13, 2012 9:58 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211464"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211464"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">290</span> <p>Comment #282 by Richard - “How accurately do you need to know the future rate of warming and what level of confidence that a warmer world will be worse do you need before you accept that action needs to be taken?”</p> <p>My response-I would agree that actions are warranted as long as they are cost efficient based upon a cost benefit analysis. Taking actions that are expensive but do little to nothing to address the issue are pointless. It all depends upon the specifics.</p> <p>Richards further question- “I am curious as to how you think improved infrastructure can prevent or circumvent drought in Texas or acidification of the oceans.”</p> <p>My response- The drought in Texas is a weather event and not the result of AGW. The result of the drought would have been better adapted to by better, deeper reservoir construction which would have provided for more water having been saved to prepare for droughts. I actually have property in Texas btw. </p> <p>I do not believe ocean acidification is a real concern that is related to AGW. Much of what has been written on the topic is nonsense. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211464">January 13, 2012 10:11 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211466"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211466"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">291</span> <p>My, my. Pokerply piles ignorance onto ignorance.</p> <blockquote>Travel in SW Asia and you will learn that infrastructure is not built largely due to vast corruption</blockquote> <p>SW Asia is the Middle East, you geographically challenged clown. Much of the infrastructure in the ME is more modern and advanced than the aging infrastructure in the USA.</p> <p>In one of the poorer nations, the slums of cities like Cairo are in part a result of years of US military support for dictators like Mubarak. The citizens of Egypt may be poor but they are smarter than you - they identified the problem and are dealing with it. </p> <p>Egypt's carbon footprint is around 233 Mt of CO2e per year, the USA's is 7000 Mt of CO2e. Historically the contribution of the developed world to CO2e in the atmosphere dwarfs that of the poor nations.</p> <p>Your argument is "I can tip all my garbage into my neighbour's back yard and if he cannot afford to clean it up too bad." You are grotesque.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6211466">January 13, 2012 10:13 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211477"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211477"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">292</span> <blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>If the IPCC or other alarmist individuals writing papers are using GCMs to claim that a particular region of the world will be harmed by a warmer climate because that region will receive 10% less rainfall it means that the IPCC or the writer of the paper is using the GCM to forecast future weather.</blockquote> <p>No it doesn't.</p></blockquote> <p>My question- what data was the IPCC or the writer of a paper using to determine that rainfall would change fit it was not from a GCM?</p></blockquote> <p>Looks like pokeplyer still doesn't get the point. I'll give you a clue. For a given climate, the annual rainfall usually varies by much more than 5% from year to year.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Chris O'Neill | <a href="#comment-6211477">January 13, 2012 11:00 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211478"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211478"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">293</span> <blockquote>My response [to “How accurately do you need to know the future rate of warming and what level of confidence that a warmer world will be worse do you need before you accept that action needs to be taken?”] -I would agree that actions are warranted as long as they are cost efficient based upon a cost benefit analysis. Taking actions that are expensive but do little to nothing to address the issue are pointless. It all depends upon the specifics.</blockquote> <p>You are waffling.</p> <blockquote>The drought in Texas is a weather event and not the result of AGW. The result of the drought would have been better adapted to by better, deeper reservoir construction which would have provided for more water having been saved to prepare for droughts.</blockquote> <p>But it is the type of weather event that is expected to become much more common with global warming. How can you save more water if the rainfall is decreasing (think Colorado)? </p> <blockquote>I do not believe ocean acidification is a real concern that is related to AGW. Much of what has been written on the topic is nonsense. </blockquote> <p>Oh, really? What do you think is the cause of ocean acidification? Care to give an example of this nonsense from the scientific press?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Richard Simons | <a href="#comment-6211478">January 13, 2012 11:05 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211479"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211479"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">294</span> <blockquote>Let me start with a compliment to this site as it has not done does and deleted posts that disagreed with the moderators position.</blockquote> <p>Let me guess; in reality you serially disregarded their comments policy and insisted on making your non-complying or off-topic assertions on any post you chose?</p> <blockquote>I do not believe ocean acidification is a real concern that is related to AGW. Much of what has been written on the topic is nonsense. </blockquote> <p>Oh, mighty Genius, and it seems you know more than ocean chemists now, too! </p> <p>You, sir, are the apotheosis of a fool.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: bill | <a href="#comment-6211479">January 13, 2012 11:06 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211480"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211480"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">295</span> <p>chris o'neill- perhaps you didn't get or wish to respond to the point that the IPCC has referenced potential harms that are based on the premise of changes in rainfall can be predicted by GCM's. I state that is an incorrect assumption.</p> <p>Mike H- Since i grew up in Saudi Arabia as a teenager I am very familar with the area and infrastructure is not a priority in the region. I am in the region and was referencing India and Pakistan as SW Asia</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211480">January 13, 2012 11:12 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211483"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211483"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">296</span> <p>Pokerply @ 288 says in response to John Mashey's comment "GCM's aren't built to predict rainfall in any particular place a few years off"</p> <blockquote> Since the GCMs cannot accurately forecast future rainfall, what tool was used to determine that parts of the world would be harmed by less rainfall as a result of higher temperatures? </blockquote> <p>It appears we are dealing with a simpleton who cannot comprehend the difference between a weather forecast for a particular location and time and long term climate trends.</p> <p>Is he pretending to be thick or is he really thick? - hard to tell.</p> <p>Tell me this Captain Clueless. Are the existence of climate zones in the US (which every school kid learns in geography) a record of past climate and a prediction about future climate?</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climatemapusa2.PNG" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climatemapusa2.PNG</a></p> <p>Using your logic, those zones were mapped by examining the rainfall at particular locations 36 years in the past.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6211483">January 13, 2012 11:17 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211484"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211484"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">297</span> <p>Bill</p> <p>Your comment that "Ocean chemists" believe that human relaesed CO2 is the primary cause of the ph level of the oceans changing, and that this is a harm is so far fetched as to be laughable from what I have read. I absolutely agree that humans are damaging the oceans. Do you seriously think that human release of CO2 is at or near the top of the list? </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211484">January 13, 2012 11:22 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211486"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211486"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">298</span> <p>Mike H</p> <p>In response to comment 296</p> <p>Try to keep up- What information did the IPCC use other than GCMs to predict that additional human released CO2 would change rainfall amounts and harm specific regions? LOL they claimed that they could predict that the future rainfall would be changed by certain amounts based upon GCMs and not looking at history </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211486">January 13, 2012 11:31 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211497"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211497"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">299</span> <p>Pokerplyr @ 286</p> <p>Yes - I have noticed that Real Climate does not suffer fools so I can understand why you are not welcome there. </p> <p>Here most commenters prefer the Aussie tradition of "<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paul_Keating" rel="nofollow">doing you slowly</a>".</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6211497">January 14, 2012 12:45 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211500"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211500"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">300</span> <p>pokerplyer:</p> <blockquote>perhaps you didn't get or wish to respond to the point that the IPCC has referenced potential harms that are based on the premise of changes in rainfall can be predicted by GCM's.</blockquote> <p>Obviously you don't get or wish to respond to the point that even if you know the climate (which is all a GCM can give you), it is impossible to know the future rainfall in any particular year to an accuracy of 5%. Climate is the average over some number of years such as 30, not the rainfall in any one year.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Chris O'Neill | <a href="#comment-6211500">January 14, 2012 1:00 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211502"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211502"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">301</span> <p>Pokerplyr @ 295</p> <blockquote> I am in the region and was referencing India and Pakistan as SW Asia </blockquote> <p>As I said geographically challenged. This is <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Asia" rel="nofollow">South West Asia</a></p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6211502">January 14, 2012 1:04 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211505"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211505"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">302</span> <p>Pkerplyr @ 298</p> <p>You are now getting desperate throwing assertions about like confetti. How about the occasional reference to support your bluster. I can see why you got turfed off Real Climate - they expect hand waving to be supported by actual evidence. </p> <p>@ 297</p> <blockquote> Your comment that "Ocean chemists" believe that human relaesed CO2 is the primary cause of the ph level of the oceans changing, and that this is a harm is so far fetched as to be laughable from what I have read </blockquote> <p>Here is a tip - tear yourself away from the climate denier web site that currently has you in its grip and read some real science.</p> <p>How about the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the world's leading oceanic research organisation on [Ocean Acidification] (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification).</p> <p>Your bullshit may get you some plaudits at WUWT or the other moron infested blogs that you hang around in but people here for some weird reason are interested in science.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6211505">January 14, 2012 1:14 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211507"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211507"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">303</span> <p>Fixed link</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification" rel="nofollow">Ocean Acidification</a>.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6211507">January 14, 2012 1:19 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211529"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211529"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">304</span> <blockquote><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification" rel="nofollow">Ocean Acidification.</a></blockquote> <p>Interesting to note how deranged people like <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6209992" rel="nofollow">Ned Nikolov</a> and Roy Spencer must be to think that the oceans are outgassing when <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/pH+Time+Series" rel="nofollow">NOAA's data shows oceanic dissolved CO2 is increasing</a>.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Chris O'Neill | <a href="#comment-6211529">January 14, 2012 2:44 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211564"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211564"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">305</span> <p>re: Pokerplyer @ 297</p> <blockquote>I absolutely agree that humans are damaging the oceans.</blockquote> <p>So, in your vast multi-discipline scientific experience, what do YOU think is the primary cause?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: clippo uk | <a href="#comment-6211564">January 14, 2012 4:21 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211565"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211565"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">306</span> <blockquote> <p>Try to keep up...</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm guessing you <em>wanted</em> to look extra foolish when you chose to use that gambit with people who are way ahead of you.</p> <p>No, wait, I'm wrong. Dunning & Kruger are on the other line and they would really like some of your time.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6211565">January 14, 2012 4:27 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211569"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211569"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">307</span> <blockquote> <p>Comment #281 by Bernard- “I'll bet you $100k against your $100K that the summer Arctic PIOMAS sea ice volume will, by 2020, drop below the current summer record.”</p> <p>My response-I think you would win that bet, but do not think it is evidence of any overall harm. </p> </blockquote> <p>So you admit that the planet <i>is</i> warming, but you think that it doesn't matter...</p> <p>Erm, excuse me if I appear to be sceptical, but exactly how much does the planet have to warm, in the opinion of an "aerospace engineer" who doesn't seem to play much poker, before there is "overall harm"? And what exactly <i>constitutes</i> "overall harm"?</p> <blockquote> <p>I do not believe ocean acidification is a real concern that is related to AGW. Much of what has been written on the topic is nonsense.</p> </blockquote> <p>+</p> <blockquote> <p>Your comment that "Ocean chemists" believe that human relaesed [<i>sic</i>] CO2 is the primary cause of the ph [<i>sic</i>] level of the oceans changing, and that this is a harm is so far fetched [<i>sic</i>] as to be laughable from what I have read. </p> </blockquote> <p>Why exactly is ocean acidification not "a real concern that is related to AGW"?</p> <p>Exactly how much of what has been written on the topic is "nonsense"? What is it exactly that is "nonsense"?</p> <p>What exactly have you "read" that permits you to discount the opinions of chemists and physiologists? I'm a biologist with a decade and a half experience in biomedical sciences before jumping horses to ecology (including, recently, marine ecology), and I have decades experience in maintaining (both professionally and as a hobbyist) freshwater and marine aquaria. And I have no doubt that the scientific consensus on the dangers of ocean acidification are as serious as they are described.</p> <p>I'm very curious to hear why an "aerospace engineer" has so much insight into scientific disciplines completely detached from his own trade that he can discount the understanding of physicists, climatologists, chemists, and biologists.</p> <p>It seems to me that your problem is that you are "plying" that poker a little too hard. Your proctologist would probably advise you to ease off a little from your pernicious habit.</p> <p>It's a shame that you turned out to be just another Denialatus windbag. I was hoping that you might actually believe your own guff sufficiently that you would put that $100k on the table: it would have been by far the biggest single contribution to my house construction that I am likely to see.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6211569">January 14, 2012 4:36 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211583"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211583"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">308</span> <p>Plythepoker,</p> <p>Oh, for God's sake... Start <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mackie_OA_not_OK_post_1.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Or see Professor Keith Hunter talking about it <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-climate-show-16-keith-hunter-on-oceans-acids-and-the-carbon-cycle/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. WARNING: some danger of learning something.</p> <p>Quite why "Ocean chemists" merits quotation marks is beyond me...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: bill | <a href="#comment-6211583">January 14, 2012 5:22 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211594"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211594"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">309</span> <p>It is interesting to interact with so many true alarmist concerned about the potential harms of CO2. Here is another summary of some of the points raised: 1. Ocean acidification-Rather than me writing I’ll provide a link that also references other studies- <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/4704-matt-ridley-taking-fears-of-acid-oceans-with-a-grain-of-salt.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/4704-matt-ridley-taking-fears-of-acid-oceans-with-a-grain-of-salt.html</a></p> <ol> <li>This question was posted- “but exactly how much does the planet have to warm, before there is "overall harm"? And what exactly constitutes "overall harm"? </li> </ol> <p>My response-It is the sum of the known harms. In relation to AGW the issue is whether the actions being proposed will be efficient when evaluated based on a cost benefit analysis to address the reported “harms”. Many suggested actions “harm” people to a greater degree than the benefit justifies. </p> <ol> <li>What is SW Asia?-- <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images" rel="nofollow">http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?</a><em>adv</em>prop=image&fr=yfp-t-701-s&va=southwest+asia+map</li> </ol> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211594">January 14, 2012 6:07 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211597"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211597"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">310</span> <p>Looks like pokerplyer has given up trying to understand the difference between weather and climate (if he ever did try).</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Chris O'Neill | <a href="#comment-6211597">January 14, 2012 6:20 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211602"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211602"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">311</span> <p>Chris #304: I would like to stress again that Nikolov actually is involved in analysis of parts of the carbon cycle in his job. This makes it even more mindboggling to see him make such a mistake.</p> <p>And it should be a real concern to his employer...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Marco | <a href="#comment-6211602">January 14, 2012 6:42 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211606"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211606"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">312</span> <p>Gee, I reference bona-fide ocean chemists, and you reference ...?</p> <p>(And didn't he do a great job when he was the head of a bank?)</p> <p>And oh, Mighty One, did you actually <i>read</i> that piece? I did, and then thought - funny, no actual citations. I found <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1234" rel="nofollow">the Scripps article</a>, though.</p> <p>I suggest everyone reads it, then compares what it says to Ridley's interpretation. Cherrypicking, much? And then some unidentifiable cherrypick gives us 'marine and freshwater assemblages have always experienced variable pH conditions'. Gee, 'climate has always changed' Mk II! Oh, and freshwater lakes pH - well, that's cleared up the <i>ocean</i> acidification issue, then. Plus also 'freshwater mussels thrive in [acidic] Scottish rivers'. Whoop-de-doo!</p> <p>And then we get that tiresome idiocy about the ocean not really being acid because the pH is still above 7.0.</p> <p>And can you pair</p> <blockquote>If the average pH of the ocean drops to 7.8 from 8.1 by 2100 as predicted, it will still be well above seven, the neutral point where alkalinity becomes acidity.</blockquote> <p>with</p> <blockquote>studies have shown that <i> at least some kinds of calcifiers</i> [my emphasis] still thrive—at least as far down as pH 7.8.</blockquote> <p>...and tell me what happens to even these surviving calcifers beyond that point? And what we might expect generally if pH fluctuates around an average if that average is rapidly trending downward?</p> <p>I'll leave you to find any remaining references to actual science, since Ridley's piece is intriguingly coy on these studies - it's almost like he wouldn't want us to look them up! </p> <p>This substance-free link-spamming is doubtlessly why you got chucked out of the other sites you claim to have been victimised by.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: bill | <a href="#comment-6211606">January 14, 2012 7:05 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211614"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211614"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">313</span> <blockquote> <p>Many suggested actions “harm” people to a greater degree than the benefit justifies.</p> </blockquote> <p>A post-grad finance/economics grad should know that one can't evaluate that equation until you've got a handle on the potential "harm", which a person of ordinary intelligence here understands to be the risk due to climate change. Risk by definition involves a range of possible outcomes and some form of probability distribution. You've previously indicated you cannot quantify this risk to any reasonable level of certainty, although you can't admit it to yourself so you assert that it is low.</p> <p>Which means you're pulling the claim to have evaluated this cost-benefit equation out of your arse.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6211614">January 14, 2012 7:32 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211656"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211656"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">314</span> <p>Pokerplyer: I was going to suggest some scientific papers you could look at to see that ocean acidification is a concern, but in view of the link you gave it's obvious that they would be beyond you. Take a look at <a>this outline</a> at SkepticalScience.</p> <p>BTW: You have still not answered these questions: exactly how much does the planet have to warm, in the opinion of an "aerospace engineer" who doesn't seem to play much poker, before there is "overall harm"? And what exactly constitutes "overall harm"?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Richard Simons | <a href="#comment-6211656">January 14, 2012 10:39 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211683"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211683"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">315</span> <p>I believe a post-grad finance/economics grad should know that one can't predict climate change until s/he got a handle on the mechanism behind climate change, which all person of ordinary intelligence understands.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://realclimate.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://realclimate.com/" rel="nofollow">Olaus Petri</a> | <a href="#comment-6211683">January 14, 2012 11:53 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211685"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211685"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">316</span> <p>PokerPlayer quoting something found at the GWPF is like picking your reality checks from J K Rowling - both based on fiction.</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/21/lord-lawson-global-warming-errors" rel="nofollow"> Here is some perspective </a> to help dispel your illusions.</p> <p>Here is <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation" rel="nofollow"> some more, revealing the other jokers in this pack </a> with <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=GWPF" rel="nofollow"> even more here </a>. The fact that the now much self-debased Plimer is in the mix should tell you plenty.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">Lionel A</a> | <a href="#comment-6211685">January 14, 2012 12:04 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211692"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211692"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">317</span> <p><i> Erm, excuse me if I appear to be sceptical, but exactly how much does the planet have to warm, in the opinion of an "aerospace engineer" </i></p> <p>Actually, pokerplyer isn't really an "engineer" -- for his Master's degree, he took the path of least resistance and chose finance/business instead of hard science/engineering.</p> <p>He's a PhB (Pointy-haired Boss) beancounting-type, not a hard-core technical person. And it shows in his posts.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: caerbannog | <a href="#comment-6211692">January 14, 2012 12:19 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211716"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211716"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">318</span> <p><i> Interesting to note how deranged people like Ned Nikolov and Roy Spencer must be to think that the oceans are outgassing... </i></p> <p>What's really pathetic about that is the fact that demonstrating that natural processes must be net CO2 <em>absorbers</em> is a straightforward high-school math bookkeeping exercise. </p> <p>Really -- converting MTons of CO2 emissions to PPM changes in the atmosphere is something that a high-school student should be able to do! It seems that hard-core denier-think negates not only college degrees, but high-school diplomas as well!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: caerbannog | <a href="#comment-6211716">January 14, 2012 1:17 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211765"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211765"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">319</span> <p>What is interesting is the tendency of the posters here to be so sure of their position as throw out insults vs. actually discussing the relevant issues in play. </p> <p>I started out posting what I acknowledge is a silly bet that nobody familiar with what a GCM can do would have accepted. The purpose of that wager was to get people who fear cAGW to actually learn about the capabilities and limitations of general circulation models. These models were not designed to provide data for government policy making and are unsuitable for that purpose. Mann has pushed the approach but it is wrong due to the unreliability of those models. If you believe GCMs outputs are consistent and reliable you are mistaken. </p> <p>One the questions several times is how much the planet has to warm to be considered dangerous climate change I offer the following rationale for discussion. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/05/what-constitutes-dangerous-climate-change/" rel="nofollow">http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/05/what-constitutes-dangerous-climate-change/</a></p> <p>Btw--please notice I have not really slammed those who have posted really stupid comments that are factually wrong. Read the one who told me to learn geography for considering Pakistan and India to be part of SW Asia? I guess you all think I was wrong about that also. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6211765">January 14, 2012 3:26 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211826"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211826"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">320</span> <blockquote> <p>Actually, pokerplyer isn't really an "engineer" -- for his Master's degree, he took the path of least resistance and chose finance/business instead of hard science/engineering.</p> </blockquote> <p>Ahhh, so he's a porky-pie-er, not a poker player. That's why he folded as soon as his 100K bet was confronted.</p> <p>It's interesting to note (especially for any of the Scientific American lurkers who might have wandered over to see how their Denialatus bruvver is decimating the scientific consensus) that Porkypie-er doesn't ever actually engage in testable scientific discussion, backed with testable references. A bit like the Scandinavian Trollege of Advanced Obfuscation and Confabulation...</p> <p>Yes, too many Denialati emperors, and not a stich between them.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6211826">January 14, 2012 5:52 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211865"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211865"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">321</span> <p>pukerplyer @ 309</p> <p>Our intrepid explorer is still searching for SW Asia. Here is a tip dullard - try an atlas instead of a random collection of images. </p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.physicalmapofasia.com/regions-of-asia/southwest-asia" rel="nofollow">http://www.physicalmapofasia.com/regions-of-asia/southwest-asia</a></p> <p>Showing the same ineptitude for science as he does for geography, he provides a link to the laughable climate denier outfit, the GWPF (<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/chris-huhne-lawson-think-tank" rel="nofollow">described</a> as 'misinformed', 'wrong' and 'perverse' by the energy secretary in the UK Conservative government). That in turn links to some reheated tripe in Murdoch's WSJ. The Murdoch press - the go to place for phone hacking, far-right opinion and Ocean Science. What's next pokerplyer - a link to Fox News.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6211865">January 14, 2012 7:07 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211879"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211879"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">322</span> <p>Here are some excerpts from <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://sio.ucsd.edu/Ocean_Acidification/ocean_acid_brochure_2011_final.pdf" rel="nofollow">research</a> at Scripps that did not make it into the WSJ article. Too inconvenient?</p> <blockquote> WITH SHOCKING SPEED, THE INCREASING ACIDIFICATION OF THE WORLD’S OCEANS HAS BEEN TRANSFORMED FROM AN ABSTRACT PROBLEM WITH AN INDEFINITE TIME SCALE TO A CONSEQUENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE THAT HAS TANGIBLE EFFECTS OBSERVABLE NOW. SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY AT UC SAN DIEGO IS PART OF A GLOBAL EFFORT TO BRING PUBLIC ATTENTION TO A SUBTLE BUT PROFOUND CRISIS THAT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND ADDRESSED NOW </blockquote> <blockquote> Researchers are trying to understand the difference in reactions to acidification among marine species. For example, why are some species sensitive to high CO2 concentrations while others are not? </blockquote> <blockquote> Recent research has since found falling pH levels in a variety of ocean regions, with particularly vulnerable systems being detected in polar waters and off the west coast of North America. The decrease is enough to put many key marine organisms at risk. The pace of acidification will likely not give many organisms sufficient time to adapt. Some estimates suggest, for example, that the growth rate of coral might be outpaced by its depletion rate by mid-century. One recent estimate indicates that some vulnerable polar ecosystems could experience initial stages of corrosive surface waters within 20 or 30 years. </blockquote> <blockquote> Some of the species most vulnerable to ocean acidification are vital to ocean food webs.Pteropods are small marine snails that are a large part of the diet of salmon and other commercially important fish species. Some pteropod species have shells so thin that they are transparent. </blockquote> <blockquote> Researchers exposed a pteropod shell to carbonate ion-depleted seawater with acid levels set to the pH of Southern Ocean water expected in 2100. The shell dissolved after 45 days. </blockquote> <blockquote> The West Coast shellfish industry has reported losses in yield and stunted development of the larvae of farmed and wild-caught oysters, clams, and other species. Scripps’ Andrew Dickson chairs the California Current Acidification Network (C-CAN), a new collaboration between industry and scientists to explore what is causing shellfish losses, what role ocean acidification might be playing in this problem ... </blockquote> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6211879">January 14, 2012 7:55 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211905"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211905"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">323</span> <p>Hello Everyone, </p> <p>Poker Player is now claiming that he has been banned from this site. I know he is lying because I am cognizant of the how this site handles trolls. And Poker Player has been here nowhere here as long as David Duff and his fellow idiots.</p> <p>His claim of banning is <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=michael-mann-defends-climate-comput-12-01-10&posted=1#comments" rel="nofollow"> found here</a> on comment #69. By the way, the article I linked too is an interesting interview with Michael Mann on computer models.</p> <p>I want to thank everyone who took part in the destruction of Poker Player. A link back to this thread is going to serve as a nice big cudgel. His collapse in the face of Bernard J. is just something that is going to come in very handy.</p> <p>And yes, he is geographically ignorant. I served in the Persian Gulf back in 1991 and one of the the medals I received was the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=michael-mann-defends-climate-comput-12-01-10&posted=1#comments" rel="nofollow">Southwest Asia Service Medal </a>.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Trent1492 | <a href="#comment-6211905">January 14, 2012 9:07 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211915"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211915"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">324</span> <p>re: #322 Trent1492 And you might refer to #278, as the expertise claimed as an "aerospace engineer" seemed to evaporate, perhaps because the people I usually briefed were likely were rather higher in the management chain at Boeing. </p> <p>All of this likes moving goalposts.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: John Mashey | <a href="#comment-6211915">January 14, 2012 9:57 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211925"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211925"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">325</span> <p>Pokerplyer may have written a comment that got caught in the moderation filter awaiting action by a human, and concluded that his comments are being <em>SUPPRESSED, I TELL YOU!!!!</em></p> <p>He wouldn't be the first. Some of them also aren't aware that when cleared by the moderator their comments appear in submission order.</p> <p>You might want to ask him at SciAm <strong>how</strong> he knows he has been banned. Bet that proves somewhat interesting ;-)</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6211925">January 14, 2012 10:47 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211935"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211935"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">326</span> <p>Darn it. This is the link to the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Asia_Service_Medal" rel="nofollow">Southwest Asia Service Medal</a>. My apologies. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Trent1492 | <a href="#comment-6211935">January 14, 2012 11:18 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211936"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211936"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">327</span> <p>Yes. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. </p> <p>However, the observed global temperature does not show accelerated warming with increase in CO2 emission.</p> <p>Global Mean Temperature (GMT) data => <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://bit.ly/pxXK4j" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/pxXK4j</a></p> <p>The most important observation in the above data is that the upper GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT peaks, the lower GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT valleys, and these lines are parallel. Also, the line that bisects the vertical space between the two GMT boundary lines is nearly identical to the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade for the whole data. This result indicates that, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position. </p> <p>In the above data, the GMT touched its upper boundary line only 3-times, about every 60-years, but has never crossed it for long in the last 130 years.</p> <p>In the GMT data, a shift in climate to an accelerated global warming would have been indicated if the upper GMT boundary line had been a curve with an increasing positive slope with increasing years, or the upper and lower GMT boundary lines had been diverging with increasing years.</p> <p>Fortunately, the upper GMT boundary line is a straight line having, interestingly, the same global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade as the global warming trend line for the whole data. Also, the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel, showing no change in the magnitude of the GMT swing with increasing years. As a result, the vertical cooling or warming swing of 0.5 deg C between the two GMT boundary lines is cyclic and is therefore natural.</p> <p>However, there is evidence of a persistent but natural global warming of 0.06 deg C per decade. Not 0.2 deg C per decade as claimed by the IPCC.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: sam | <a href="#comment-6211936">January 14, 2012 11:23 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211938"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211938"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">328</span> <p>That comment system at SciAm is quite the experience! I left a little note for Plythepoker; we shall see what results...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: bill | <a href="#comment-6211938">January 14, 2012 11:25 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211967"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211967"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">329</span> <p>Hmm, one of AWOL PorkiePyer's comrades-in-arms has joined us; 'sam' is 'selti' at SciAm, and this is a just a copy of his post #72 over yonder. I cheerfully leave this masterpiece of almost Girmaesque WFT selective detrending to those with more patience than me, such as Trent 1492, who has already pointed out the obvious over there.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: bill | <a href="#comment-6211967">January 15, 2012 1:52 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211974"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211974"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">330</span> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6211936" rel="nofollow">Sam</a>.</p> <p>Thank you for the biggest laugh that I've had all week.</p> <p>You are obviously statistically illiterate, but I simply have to repeat some of your gems just to reinforce how silly your 'analysis' is:</p> <blockquote> <p>The most important observation in the above data is that the upper GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT peaks, the lower GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT valleys, and these lines are parallel. Also, the line that bisects the vertical space between the two GMT boundary lines is nearly identical to the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade for the whole data. This result indicates that, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position. </p> <p>In the above data, the GMT touched its upper boundary line only 3-times, about every 60-years, but has never crossed it for long in the last 130 years.</p> </blockquote> <p>A first-year university student in science would be failed if s/he handed in that sort of tripe even in the first week of first term. You show no indication of understanding:</p> <ol> <li>how to best describe a trajectory</li> <li>how to test for statistical significance</li> <li><i>a priori</i> statistical test selection</li> <li>anything else remotely connected with statistics</li> <li>much at all</li> </ol> <p>Seriously...</p> <blockquote> <p>In the above data, the GMT touched its upper boundary line only 3-times, about every 60-years, but has never crossed it for long in the last 130 years.</p> </blockquote> <p>You are so clueless that I'd have to write an introductory textbook here just to explain why. For those ignorant lurking colleagues of yours who might be lurking here, and who don't understand the source of my derision, ponder this analogy...</p> <p>...a philosophy professor asks his freshmen at the end of first term to describe what defines inner beauty. Someone in the front row put his hand up and earnestly says "big tits".</p> <p>Except sam's effort is worse.</p> <p>Apologies to the poster who recently linked to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8VD4JXUozM&feature=related" rel="nofollow">this gem</a>, but I can't remember who you are. It neatly exacpsulates my exasperation with sam though.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6211974">January 15, 2012 2:13 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211979"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211979"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">331</span> <p>Sam @ 327 You are an imbecile. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6211979">January 15, 2012 2:54 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211990"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6211990"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">332</span> <p>Sam is a Poe, surely? It is just not possible to be that statistically-illiterate and still be able to turn on a computer.</p> <p>Has anyone noticed how the quality of visiting denialists is deteriorating around here? I am starting to yearn for the days of Tim Curtin and Ben. They were at least semi-coherent.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: GWB's nemesis | <a href="#comment-6211990">January 15, 2012 4:05 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6211994"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6211994"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">333</span> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6211990" rel="nofollow">GWB's nemesis</a>.</p> <p>Samn is from the Scientific American blog deniosphere.</p> <p>The Stupid is so dense there that poe-ing would be a largely fruitless exercise: I suspect that this one is real.</p> <p>It would be a frabjous day indeed if sam was in fact a poe. That would inch SciAm back just that little bit more from the brink. Speaking of which: Trent, you're doing excellent work there countering the flood of scientific illiteracy - keep it up.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6211994">January 15, 2012 4:43 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212013"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212013"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">334</span> <p>coneill at sci am summed up sam the "fun with graphs" moron with the comment</p> <blockquote> ...you've tortured the data until it confessed to what you wanted it to say. </blockquote> <p>If cruelty to data was a criminal offense, most of the denialati would be in jail.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6212013">January 15, 2012 6:13 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212031"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6212031"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">335</span> <p>Pokerplyer's <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6211765">#319</a> has shown up. I'm guessing it was held up in moderation and that was why he claimed to have been banned here.</p> <p>Mind you, it sounds like a bit of hasty arse-covering revisionism which rarely works around here (acknowledgement that his original bet was silly, but no unsilly new bet offered), and re-assertion of various unjustified claims. The latter include "models are unsuitable for government policy making", which presumably still relies on his initial fallacy that models must predict long range local <em>weather</em> to be suitable for that purpose since he hasn't withdrawn that implication. (That was a bit like claiming that a model of future average traffic demands is useless for deciding when to build more freeway capacity because it can't tell you how many cars will be on a particular 5km stretch of freeway 17 years, 2 months and 13 days from now between 3:22pm and 3:34pm.) </p> <p>And still no glimmer of acknowledgement that if models <em>aren't</em> sufficiently reliable for government policy making, then we have to make policy <strong>under even more uncertainty</strong>, which means we have to slam the brakes hard on GHG emissions right now.</p> <p>Oh, and he links to Curry re: "what constitutes dangerous climate change". </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6212031">January 15, 2012 7:09 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212034"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212034"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">336</span> <blockquote> <p>...you've tortured the data until it confessed to what you wanted it to say.</p> </blockquote> <p>One critique at SciAm was: why did you force those axis scales? </p> <p>So have a look at the massive difference in presentation if you <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/offset:14/plot/gistemp/compress:12/offset:13.885/detrend:-0.02/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:-0.42/detrend:-0.23/offset:14/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/offset:14.1/detrend:-0.23/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:13.5/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2010/trend/offset:14/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:13.5">merely move the offset for series 5 and 7 to somewhere near the other five curves</a> instead of using them to massively expand the y-axis range.</p> <p>How to lie with graphs, indeed.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6212034">January 15, 2012 7:14 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212119"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6212119"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">337</span> <p>Wow, as a marine biologist who used to specialize in chemical ecology on coral reefs (in SW Asia) and who now works on coastal development in South Florida, it almost seems like Pokerplayer is a gift from the heavens offered up to me.</p> <p>First, for your claim that it's relatively cheap and easy to adapt to warming... Consider where I live in South Florida. There are 5.5 million people living within 20 miles of the coast on land that mostly falls within 3m of sealevel and is interwoven by hundreds of miles of bays, canals, and inlets. All of the fresh water comes from aquifers which are susceptible to (and already suffering from) saltwater intrusion. As sea levels continue to rise, how do we protect our water source from saltwater intrusion or find another source that is as cheap as using the naturally occurring aquifers? Also, how do you protect the billions of dollars in property that are already essentially at sea level? Parts of Miami Beach and Ft. Lauderdale already flood with seawater during extreme high tides. Are you going to relocate 5.5 million people and have them abandon their property- some of the most valuable in the country? Or maybe you would build several hundred miles of seawalls, gates, and massive pumps (and where are you going to build these structures in a coastal area that's already almost 100% developed?)? Lets not forget how that solution worked for New Orleans either. Is this something we really want to try in a more hurricane-prone city? How much do you figure that would all cost just to protect 1 coastal metropolitan area? How about for all the major coastal cities in the US? How does that cost compare to improving energy efficiency and reducing reliance on fossil fuels?</p> <p>Now, as for the GWPF link in 309- "bafflingly stupid" is about the best summary of it. A couple of hints to anyone who has any desire to understand ocean acidification-</p> <ol> <li><p>Learn the difference between the terms "alkalinity" and pH as used in marine chemistry. In marine chemistry, alkalinity refers to the concentration of certain buffering ions- usually carbonate and bicarbonate(but not including H+), not to pH. While any solution with a pH above 7 could be described as alkaline, in the case of seawater, saying you've reduced the alkalinity is NOT equivalent to saying you've reduced the pH. Acidification is the term used because it describes the process of adding acid and it avoids the ambiguity of using alkalinity/alkaline in regards to seawater chemistry.</p></li> <li><p>Look up "light-enhanced calcification." The diurnal variation in pH is not physiologically insignificant, as the GWPF author would like you to believe. Most corals and calcifying algae show reduced growth at night. The reason? Photosynthesis consumes CO2 from the water in the calcifying tissue layers during the day, which makes the local chemistry more favorable for CaCO3 deposition. At night, respiration produces CO2 which makes conditions unfavorable for calcification. Despite what the author implies, what we know about diurnal variations in CO2, pH, and alkalinity and the impacts they have on calcifiers is in no way comforting in the face of a long-term decrease in pH due to addition of CO2. In fact, it's a large reason why we're worried.</p></li> <li><p>In looking for studies which examine the impacts of reduced pH on calcifiers it's important to distinguish between those studies which manipulate carbonate alkalinity vs. those that don't. As you add CO2 to seawater it shifts the carbonate/bicarbonate equilibrium towards bicarbonate. However, in order to isolate pH as a variable, lots of studies have artificially maintained constant carbonate concentrations (which isn't what happens in nature). Under these conditions, calcification often remains fairly close to normal even at reduced pH. However, if you reduce the pH without maintaining high carbonate concentrations (which is what happens in the oceans) calcification is reduced. </p></li> </ol> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Mike G | <a href="#comment-6212119">January 15, 2012 1:52 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212230"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212230"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">338</span> <p>Mike G.</p> <p>You might be interested in the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s.php" rel="nofollow">Tim Curtin thread now a live show</a> thread...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6212230">January 15, 2012 7:15 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212238"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6212238"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">339</span> <p>Over at that SciAm thread, "selti" a.k.a. drive-by "sam" continues his nonsense. </p> <p>He implies that the concern about warming is merely due to a "continued warming projection" - but subsequently doesn't seem to realise he contradicts himself by arguing that "...GLOBAL WARMING has STOPPED..." (no prizes for guessing he's cherry-picked a 1998 start for his trend). </p> <p>He also goes for "AGW is a fictitious theory not supported by the data", and asserts from his tortured graph (having not understood the earlier critiques) that "...true climate sensitivity is only 3x0.06/0.2 = 0.9 deg C".</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6212238">January 15, 2012 7:35 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212415"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212415"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">340</span> <p>Bernard, "selti" at SciAm would appear to have the right set of beliefs to consider a wager with you, although I don't know if he's prepared to put his money where his mouth is. He argues (re: the AMO):</p> <blockquote> <p>This thermohaline circulation has a warming and cooling phase of about 30 years. From about 1970s to 2000s, the thermohaline circulation was during its warming phase and that is the reason for the observed global warming. From about 2000s to 2030s, the thermohaline circulation will be in its cooling phase. As a result, in the 2000s, the GMT (as already observed) plateaus, and global cooling should follow until the 2030s.</p> <p>...</p> <p>...AGW will die its deserved death in the coming five years with the expected global cooling.</p> </blockquote> <p>Although he does also go on to state (illogically, but that's how his other beliefs have been derived):</p> <blockquote> <p>On the other hand, if the 1998 record is exceeded in the next five years, I will join the AGW believer camp.</p> </blockquote> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6212415">January 16, 2012 7:23 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212424"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6212424"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">341</span> <p>Does "selti" know that according to NASA temperature records, the hottest year on record globally is 2005? </p> <p>Not that I expect it's likely to change his/her mind.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: zoot | <a href="#comment-6212424">January 16, 2012 8:06 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212433"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212433"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">342</span> <p>FYI, "selti" at SciAm says he is Girma, which should mean something to most long-time Deltoid denizens.</p> <p>He says he is prepared to bet, but it's (a) over weather time-scales, and (b) not related to AGW trends which are not detected via records:</p> <blockquote> <p>I bet the 1998 record for hadcrut3gl.txt will not be exceeded in the next three years (2012, 2013 & 2014). This is a simple extension of the Annan & Whitehouse bet. </p> </blockquote> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6212433">January 16, 2012 9:03 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212446"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6212446"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">343</span> <p>All I have re: degrees is a bachelor's in music, and I <i>know</i> I don't know very much about climatology.</p> <p>Nevertheless from reading pokerplyer's nonsense I get the impression that I know a bit more than he does.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://composer99.blogspot.com" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://composer99.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">Composer99</a> | <a href="#comment-6212446">January 16, 2012 9:31 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212460"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212460"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">344</span> <p>Lotharsson, as James Annan just noted, in HADCRUT4 2005 and 2010 already exceed 1998...</p> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2012/01/not-so-fast.html" rel="nofollow">http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2012/01/not-so-fast.html</a></p> <p>HADCRUT3gl will likely be discontinued, now that there is a new updated version coming, so his bet is likely a dud.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Marco | <a href="#comment-6212460">January 16, 2012 9:53 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212461"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6212461"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">345</span> <p>Engineer with 25 years of experience: "Michael Mann's method generates hockey sticks from random noise."</p> <p>Me: How?</p> <p>Engineer: you have to generate random noise, yeah, and then you get a hockey stick. I've done it!</p> <p>Me: OK, I just get a wavey line that doesn't curve up at the end. How did you do it?</p> <p>Engineer: You must be incompetent then, since I did it easily!</p> <p>Me: OK, so how did you do it?</p> <p>Engineer: You can get it from someone else on the internet, can't you use google?</p> <p>Me: But you said YOU did it. Just pass over the program you had that generated the random data and I'll use that.</p> <p>Engineer: I don't have time to do that, it's easy to get from the internet.</p> <p>Me: You said YOU did it. Did you lie? After all, it should be fairly easy to show me YOU did it, by showing what you did. Go on.</p> <p>Engineer runs away.</p> <p>You see, the engineer hasn't actually done it. They just read someone used "Pink noise" and got a hockey stick.</p> <p>What they seem to fail to realise is that</p> <p>a) pink noise isn't totally random: it has a bias on it. A trend if you like.</p> <p>b) you have to SELECT a curve that looks hockey-stick-like. Well, it's rather easy to get any curve you want from random numbers if you just select the run and period. But that's the selection process making a hockey stick, not random noise.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Wow | <a href="#comment-6212461">January 16, 2012 9:59 AM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212541"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212541"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">346</span> <p>Marco:</p> <blockquote>as James Annan just noted, in HADCRUT4 2005 and 2010 already exceed 1998... <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2012/01/not-so-fast.html" rel="nofollow">http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2012/01/not-so-fast.html</a> HADCRUT3gl will likely be discontinued,</blockquote> <p>The fact denialists will cry blue murder over this.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Chris O'Neill | <a href="#comment-6212541">January 16, 2012 12:08 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212618"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6212618"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">347</span> <p>Let's see if this post goes through on a timely basis.</p> <p>Mike G asks: “As sea levels continue to rise, how do we protect our water source from saltwater intrusion or find another source that is as cheap as using the naturally occurring aquifers?”</p> <p>My response- Do you believe that sea levels are rising solely due to AGW? The rate of sea level rise over the last 20 years is roughly 1 foot per century. This rate is not a problem. Over a long term basis, since sea levels are near their all time low levels they are likely to rise. Local communities need to prepare since nothing related to CO2 emissions will lessen the long term trend. </p> <p>Mike G asks: “Also, how do you protect the billions of dollars in property that are already essentially at sea level? Parts of Miami Beach and Ft. Lauderdale already flood with seawater during extreme high tides.”</p> <p>My response- It is not my responsibility to protect property built in areas likely to be damaged by being built in areas highly susceptible to damage by natural disasters. They should probably build sea walls to protect the property built in an unsafe area or have very expensive insurance since the property is likely to be damaged by a storm. </p> <p>Mike G asks: “Are you going to relocate 5.5 million people and have them abandon their property- some of the most valuable in the country?”</p> <p>My response- No that is their problem to deal with. If the property is in an area likely to be damaged by storms it will have high insurance costs and the property values will fall as a result. People make choices where to live and deal with the consequences. Supply and demand is a system that works.</p> <p>Mike G asks: “How much do you figure that would all cost just to protect 1 coastal metropolitan area? How about for all the major coastal cities in the US? How does that cost compare to improving energy efficiency and reducing reliance on fossil fuels?”</p> <p>My response- Mike, all the areas you mention need to be protected from bad weather regardless of whether humans emitted CO2 or not. The issue is that sometimes people are shortsighted and do not build the infrastructure to protect their investments or build on property that looks pretty when all is well, but is highly susceptible to damage from storms. Should others have to pay for those people’s poor choices?</p> <p>If this post goes through I will get back to discuss OA </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6212618">January 16, 2012 2:04 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212628"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212628"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">348</span> <p>All our human emissions are projected by models to change world's oceans by about 0.3 pH units over next 90 years, & that's referred to as "catastrophic", yet we now know that fish & some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day'</p> <p>What makes Mike so sure that the .3 ph rise over 90 years would be a problem? </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6212628">January 16, 2012 2:14 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212640"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6212640"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">349</span> <p>Pokerplyer, the difference in average annual temperature between Marseille (France) and Amsterdam (The Netherlands) is less than 5 degrees. Much less than the temperature swings these two places can experience on a daily basis (monthly high and low easily differ by 10 degrees or more during several months). The Netherlands is likely to see a 3-4 degree increase in temperature over the next 90 years on a business as usual scenario.</p> <p>Compare the flora and fauna between these two places and then reconsider your comment in #348.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Marco | <a href="#comment-6212640">January 16, 2012 2:33 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212720"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212720"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">350</span> <p>Marco</p> <p>I do not think the comparison to temperatures and ocean ph levels is a good one in your example. The argument has been that the average ph change of .3 ph units over 90 years will be harmful. It turns out that the ph level varies by a much higher amount than that on a regular basis. Therefore, it would not appear that the average amount of change over the long term would be harmful. </p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: pokerplyer | <a href="#comment-6212720">January 16, 2012 4:37 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212750"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6212750"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">351</span> <p>Pokerplyer clearly cannot understand the argument that Marco has put to him! It's as simple as that.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: bill | <a href="#comment-6212750">January 16, 2012 5:47 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212758"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212758"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">352</span> <blockquote> <p>Should others have to pay for those people’s poor choices?</p> </blockquote> <p>Apparently not.</p> <p>But when asked:</p> <p>Should others have to pay for those GHG emitters' poor choices?</p> <p>Apparently so.</p> <p>Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6212758">January 16, 2012 6:00 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212776"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6212776"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">353</span> <blockquote> <p>The argument has been that the average ph change of .3 ph units over 90 years will be harmful. It turns out that the ph level varies by a much higher amount than that on a regular basis.</p> </blockquote> <p>You really haven't thought this through, have you?</p> <p>My speed when driving varies by 110 km/h. How can an average change of a mere 30 km/h be harmful? After all, the stopping distance and kinetic energy are ... er, proportional to the square of my speed, so ... er ... my chances of avoiding - let alone surviving - an accident at 110 km/h ... er ... compared to 140 km/h ... er ... er ...</p> <p>Or try this. The interest rates bond holders demand from (say) various European governments vary by a few percent on a quasi-regular basis, so what's an extra percent or so between friends? That must mean that once it hits about 7 percent ... er ... crap.</p> <p>Or this. You have a margin account at a stockbroker, and you trade short. Your outstanding borrowings from the broker regularly range from 50 to 96% of your margin limit, so a small increase of 6% due to a market crash can't possibly ... oh, crap, margin call ...</p> <p>Your argument that some marine life "...adapt[s] naturally to changes far larger than that every year..." is deeply misguided; the annual cycle is <em>not</em> <strong>adapting</strong> to changes in the <strong>average</strong>; they're adapted <strong>to</strong> a given <strong>range</strong>. When you move the entire range, <em>then</em> they have to adapt - and a bunch of them won't do well when they try (especially when combined with changing ocean temperatures). And if some key species don't do well, they can cause entire sections of the ecosystem that depend on them to collapse.</p> <p>And it's worse in non-linear systems - which you <em>should</em> be very familiar with from <em>both</em> your engineering and finance perspectives. You don't seem to understand that ecosystems (and pH scales) are both highly non-linear.</p> <p>On a meta level, perhaps it would be prudent to reassess your personal belief that your personal analyses based on very limited expertise in these fields and running contra to expert analysis is correct - especially if you're intending to bet on it?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6212776">January 16, 2012 6:33 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212781"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212781"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">354</span> <p>Oh, and the latest response to Trent by pokerplyer at SciAm is classic. Posted in full apart from the address to Trent, so that it may be correctly savoured:</p> <blockquote> <p>You try to claim that sea level is rising at an alarming rate and ignore the 20 year trend of good measurements and reference data drawn based on salt-marsh sedimentary sequences from the US Atlantic coast. You must realize how inaccurate that information is don't you? </p> </blockquote> <p>(What, the US Atlantic is "the globe" now? My denialist bingo card is starting to fill up.)</p> <blockquote> <p>Now I don't have any idea what youthink I am lying about, since I take being truthful as extermely important. I am guessing it was my comment about being "banned" from that other site, when I was really only temporarily prevented from posting comments there. It is really interesting about the tone of the comments there. A very high degree of ranting and very little substance. I rather assumed that you run the site.</p> </blockquote> <p>Methinks pokerplyer has a little problem with <em>recognising substance</em>.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6212781">January 16, 2012 6:39 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212782"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6212782"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">355</span> <p>pokerplyer @ 348</p> <blockquote> What makes Mike so sure that the .3 ph rise over 90 years would be a problem? </blockquote> <p>I would not assume that pp knows that <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mackie_OA_not_OK_post_4.html" rel="nofollow">pH is a log scale</a>. He shows no knowledge of any other science. His talking points are just echoes of denier blogs.</p> <blockquote> A difference of 0.11 pH units corresponds to a 29% increase in the concentration of H3O+. A difference of 0.4 pH units corresponds to a 150% increase in H3O+. </blockquote> <p>Lotharsson @ 352 <br/> You nailed it.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6212782">January 16, 2012 6:43 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212789"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212789"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">356</span> <blockquote> <p>I cheerfully leave this masterpiece of almost Girmaesque WFT selective detrending...</p> </blockquote> <p>Hah - <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6212433">you called it</a>!</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: <a title="http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c">Lotharsson</a> <a class="commenter-profile" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://profile.typekey.com/6p0128775d5bcc970c"><img alt="Author Profile Page" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/mt-static/images/nav-commenters.gif" width="16" height="16"/></a> | <a href="#comment-6212789">January 16, 2012 7:02 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212812"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6212812"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">357</span> <blockquote>All our human emissions are projected by models to change world's oceans by about 0.3 pH units over next 90 years, & that's referred to as "catastrophic", yet we now know that fish & some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day'</blockquote> <p>They often 'adapt' by not growing. How's that going to work on a permanent basis?</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Richard Simons | <a href="#comment-6212812">January 16, 2012 8:06 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212819"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212819"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">358</span> <p>Porkyplyer needs to buy a clue.</p> <blockquote> <p>Let's see if this post goes through on a timely basis.</p> </blockquote> <p>Right where you post there's this:</p> <blockquote> <p><b>Post a Comment</b></p> <p>(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)</p> </blockquote> <p>Deltoid posts are held for moderation when excessive links and/or keywors are used. I have posts held often: <i>I</i> don't assume that I'm temporarily or permanently banned.</p> <blockquote> <p>Do you believe that sea levels are rising solely due to AGW?</p> </blockquote> <p>Of course not. But unlike you, we have read the literature and have some understanding of attribution of causes of sea level rise. We accept that global warming is mostlly responsible for sea level rise. </p> <p>What is <i>your</i> understanding of attribution of causes of SLR?</p> <blockquote> <p>The rate of sea level rise over the last 20 years is roughly 1 foot per century. This rate is not a problem.</p> </blockquote> <p>No, it's simply a problem over longer time-scales.</p> <p>And you completely avoid the fact that the rate of sea level rise will increase greatly in the future. Or are all 'aerospace engineer[ing]' processes in your world linear?</p> <blockquote> <p>Over a long term basis, since [<i>sic</i>] sea levels are near their all time low levels they are likely to rise.</p> </blockquote> <p>What, like London and Sydney are near their "all time" [<i>sic</i>] proximities and are likely to drift closer?</p> <p>Seriously, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Sea_level_temp_140ky.gif" rel="nofollow">what constitutes "low" in "aerospace" engineering terms</a>?!</p> <blockquote> <p>Local communities need to prepare since [<i>sic</i>] nothing related to CO2 emissions will lessen the long term trend.</p> </blockquote> <p>Except that if we stopped emitting today we'd save metres of sea level rise for future generations.</p> <p>Unless of course you subscribe to the notion that humans have already tipped the mean global temperature toward a future maximum possible value.</p> <blockquote> <p>My response- It is not my responsibility to protect property built in areas likely to be damaged by being built in areas highly susceptible to damage by natural disasters. </p> </blockquote> <p>No, but it is your responsibility to ensure that you don't alter and/or increase in extent the "areas [that will become] highly susceptible to damage by natural disasters"</p> <p>You are not responsible for the neighbour's tree that grows over your neighbour's house. You <i>are</i> responsible for ensuring that <i>your</i> tree does not grow over his house.</p> <blockquote> <p>They should probably build sea walls to protect the property built in an unsafe area or have very expensive insurance since the property is likely to be damaged by a storm.</p> </blockquote> <p>And who's going to pay for the increase in requirements for sea walls and insurance? The victims of the storms or (where the two do not coincide) the people whose emissions caused the increase in storms?</p> <blockquote> <p>Mike G asks: “Are you going to relocate 5.5 million people and have them abandon their property- some of the most valuable in the country?”</p> <p>My response- No that is their problem to deal with. </p> </blockquote> <p>Why, if it's not their fault?</p> <blockquote> <p>If the property is in an area likely to be damaged by storms it will have high insurance costs and the property values will fall as a result. People make choices where to live and deal with the consequences. </p> </blockquote> <p>But what if the property is not presently in an area likely to be damaged by storms?</p> <blockquote> <p>Supply and demand is a system that works.</p> </blockquote> <p>Then sell me a fillet of dodo, please.</p> <blockquote> <p>My response- Mike, all the areas you mention need to be protected from bad weather regardless of whether humans emitted CO2 or not. The issue is that sometimes people are shortsighted and do not build the infrastructure to protect their investments or build on property that looks pretty when all is well, but is highly susceptible to damage from storms. Should others have to pay for those people’s poor choices?</p> </blockquote> <p>You're confabulating weather with climate again.</p> <p>It would seem that the standard for entry into "aeropsace enginneering" is not an onerous one to fulfill.</p> <blockquote> <p>If this post goes through I will get back to discuss OA </p> </blockquote> <p>You'd better do a lot of homework first. I highly recommend the Skeptical Science series.</p> <blockquote> <p>The argument has been that the average ph change of .3 [<i>sic</i>] ph [<i>sic</i>] units [<i>sic</i>] over 90 years will be harmful. It turns out that the ph [<i>sic</i>] level varies by a much higher amount than that on a regular basis.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not in all parts of the ocean. </p> <p>And a 0.3 unit change in pH represents a doubling/halving of acidity. For many marine organisms that is a seriously huge ecophysiological challenge. And yet you say that "the ph [<i>sic</i>] level varies by a much higher amount than that on a regular basis"? </p> <p>This would be extraordinary news to marine ecologists: please, please reference this claim. Consider that a:</p> <ol> <li>0.4 unit decrease in pH represents a 250% increase in acidity</li> <li>0.5 unit decrease in pH represents a 320% increase in acidity</li> <li>0.6 unit decrease in pH represents a 400% increase in acidity</li> </ol> <p>As an "aerospace engineer" you make a <i>lousy</i> marine ecophysiological chemist. Reread Lotharsson's explanations of press <i>versus</i> pulse exposure is you don't yet have a clue.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6212819">January 16, 2012 8:34 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212821"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6212821"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">359</span> <p>pokerplyer:</p> <blockquote>Over a long term basis, since sea levels are near their all time low levels they are likely to rise.</blockquote> <p>Where do you get this unmitigated garbage from? (refer <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png)</a> It's becoming clear that you don't care if you spout garbage.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Chris O'Neill | <a href="#comment-6212821">January 16, 2012 8:40 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212822"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212822"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">360</span> <p>The magic sea-pixies told him! That link included a redundant bracket - <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png" rel="nofollow">this</a> would work better.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: bill | <a href="#comment-6212822">January 16, 2012 8:46 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212823"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6212823"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">361</span> <p>Dang.</p> <blockquote> <p>What, like London and Sydney are near their "all time" [sic] proximities and are likely to drift <strike>closer<strike> <i>further away</i> [from each other]?</strike></strike></p> </blockquote> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6212823">January 16, 2012 8:46 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212829"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212829"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">362</span> <p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6212821" rel="nofollow">Chris</a>.</p> <p>Porkyplyer's outright untruth is all the more egregious for the fact that it's not just since the last glacial maximum that the current sea level is notable. If one considers <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Sea_level_temp_140ky.gif" rel="nofollow">the link</a> in <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6212819" rel="nofollow">my earlier post</a> it's clear to sea that sea level is presently almost as high as it has ever been over most of the last one million years, and that a business-as-usual carbon dioxide emissions scenario will soon push sea level to the <i>highest</i> that it's been in at least that period.</p> <p>That's a definition of "low" that I've not encountered before. Perhaps I'm just not smart enough to be an "aerospace engineeer"...</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6212829">January 16, 2012 9:00 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212837"></a> <div class="comment oddcomment " id="comment-6212837"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">363</span> <p>Humour aside, Porkyplyer is probably trying to use sea levels over geological time spanning the age of the Earth with which to make his claim.</p> <p>This ludicrous cherry-picking raises two important points:</p> <p><ol> <li>in considering the causes of higher sea level since the planet formed, one is forced to account for physcial processes that strongly support the science that says that humans are currently warming the planet</li> <li>the context of the sea levels on the scale on hundreds of millions of years is irrelevant to humans, because the processes that operate on the larger cale are not causing sea level change now, and because human extancy is likely to cease before any of those geological processes kick in again.</li> <ol></ol></ol></p> <p>All that humans can do in a practical sense is to consider (and act on) the causes of global warming/sea level rise that they <i>do</i> have influence over, and to that end there is only one significant candidate cause - CO<sub>2</sub> emissions.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: Bernard J. | <a href="#comment-6212837">January 16, 2012 9:16 PM</a></p> </div> </div> <a id="c6212845"></a> <div class="comment evencomment " id="comment-6212845"> <div class="commentContent"> <span class="commentNumber">364</span> <p>I have already noted that pukerplyer is geographically challenged. Let us see if he can find Britain on this <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png" rel="nofollow">map</a></p> <p>Perhaps sea level rise, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3Jwnp-Z3yE" rel="nofollow">the movie</a> will help.</p> <p class="commentFooter">Posted by: MikeH | <a href="#comment-6212845">January 16, 2012 9:28 PM</a></p> </div> </div> </div> <form method="post" action="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/javascript-is-required-to-comment/" name="comments_form" onsubmit="if (this.bakecookie.checked) rememberMe(this)"> <input type="hidden" name="static" value="1"/> <input type="hidden" name="entry_id" value="181356"/> <div class="comments-open" id="comments-open"> <h3 class="metaHeader">Post a Comment</h3> <p id="trackbackInfo">(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)</p> <div class="comments-open-content"> <script type="text/javascript"> writeTypeKeyGreeting(commenter_name, 181356); </script> <div id="comments-open-data"> <div id="name-email"> <p> <label for="comment-author">Name:</label><br/> <input id="comment-author" name="author" size="30"/> </p> <p> <label for="comment-email">Email Address:</label><br/> <input id="comment-email" name="email" size="30"/> </p> </div> <p> <label for="comment-url">URL:</label><br/> <input id="comment-url" name="url" size="30"/> </p> <p id="comments-open-text"> <label for="comment-text">Comments: (you may use HTML tags or <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/dingus">markdown</a> for style). <b>Please make urls into proper links</b> like this: [Description](http://example.com).</label><br/> <textarea id="comment-text" name="text" rows="10" cols="30"></textarea> </p> <input type="hidden" id="comment-bake-cookie" name="bakecookie" value="0"/> </div> <div id="comments-open-footer" class="comments-open-footer"> <input type="submit" accesskey="v" name="preview" id="comment-preview" value="Preview"/> <input type="submit" accesskey="s" name="post" id="comment-post" value="Post"/> </div> </div> </div> </form> <script language="Javascript">document.comments_form.action = 'https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblog' + 's.com/mtcomments'; </script> </div>  <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150js_/http://s15.sitemeter.com/js/counter.js?site=s15lott98"> </script> <noscript> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://s15.sitemeter.com/stats.asp?site=s15lott98" target="_top"> <img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://s15.sitemeter.com/meter.asp?site=s15lott98" alt="Site Meter" border="0"/></a> </noscript>  </div> </div> <div id="rightCol"> <div id="rightColInner"> <div id="greenCol"> <h2><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/">ScienceBlogs</a></h2> <h3>Search ScienceBlogs:</h3> <form action="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.google.com/cse" id="searchbox_017254414699180528062:uyrcvn__yd0" class="searchbox"> <input type="hidden" name="cx" value="017254414699180528062:uyrcvn__yd0"/> <input type="text" name="q" class="text"/> <input type="image" src="/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/-/img/button_search.gif" value="search" alt="search" name="sa"/> </form> <h3>Go to:</h3> <p class="dropdown"><select onchange="location.href=this.options[this.selectedIndex].value + '?utm_source=bloglist&utm_medium=dropdown';"> <option>Choose a blog...</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/worldsciencefestival/">2010 World Science Festival Blog</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/">A Few Things Ill Considered</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/">Aardvarchaeology</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/">Aetiology</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/art_of_science_learning/">Art of Science Learning</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/">bioephemera</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com.br/brazillion/">Brazillion Thoughts</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/brookhaven/">Brookhaven Bits & Bytes</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/">Built on Facts</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/">Casaubon's Book</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/classm/">Class M</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/commonknowledge/">Common Knowledge</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/">Confessions of a Science Librarian</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/">The Corpus Callosum</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/deanscorner/">Dean's Corner</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/">Deltoid</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/">denialism blog</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/">Developing Intelligence</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/digitalbio/">Discovering Biology in a Digital World</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/">Dispatches from the Culture Wars</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/">DrugMonkey</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/catdynamics/">Dynamics of Cats</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/erv/">erv</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/evolution/">Evolution for Everyone</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/">EvolutionBlog</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/">Greg Laden's Blog</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/guiltyplanet/">Guilty Planet</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/SETI/">Life at the SETI Institute</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/lifelines/">Life Lines</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/">Mike the Mad Biologist</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/">Neurophilosophy</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/">Neurotopia</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/observations/">Observations of a Nerd</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/omnibrain/">Omni Brain</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/isisthescientist/">On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/oscillator/">Oscillator</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/seed/">Page 3.14</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/">Pharyngula</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/photosynthesis/">Photo Synthesis</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/">The Pump Handle</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/">Respectful Insolence</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/scienceisculture/">Science is Culture</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/bookclub/">The ScienceBlogs Book Club</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/sb/">ScienceBlogs HQ</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/sciencepunk/">SciencePunk</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/">The Scientific Activist</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/thescian/">The Scientific Indian</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/">Starts With A Bang</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/">Stoat</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/">Tetrapod Zoology</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/thoughtfulanimal/">The Thoughtful Animal</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/">Thoughts from Kansas</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/">Tomorrow's Table</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/principles/">Uncertain Principles</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/universe/">Universe</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/usasciencefestival/">USA Science and Engineering Festival: The Blog</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/">We Beasties</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/weizmann/">The Weizmann Wave</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/worldsfair/">The World's Fair</option> <option value="http://scienceblogs.com/zooillogix/">Zooillogix</option> </select></p> <div id="sliders"> <h3 id="channelsLink">Channels</h3> <ul id="channelsList" class="topList"> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/24-hours/">Last 24 Hours</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-science/">Life Science</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/physical-science/">Physical Science</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/environment/">Environment</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/humanities/">Humanities & Social Science</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/education/">Education</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/politics/">Politics</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/medicine/">Medicine & Health</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/brain-and-behavior/">Brain & Behavior</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/technology/">Technology</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/information-science/">Information Science</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/jobs/">Jobs</a></li> </ul> <h3 id="rssLink">RSS Feeds</h3> <ul id="rssList" class="topList"> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/sample/editors-feed.xml">ScienceBlogs Select</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/sample/combined.xml">The Combined Feed</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/sample/peer-review.xml">Peer Review on Sb</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/sample/sb-news.xml">News-Related Posts</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/rss.php">All Feeds</a></li> </ul> <h3 id="moreLink">More ScienceBlogs</h3> <ul id="moreList" class="topList"> <li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://twitter.com/scienceblogs/"><span class="new">New!</span> Sb on Twitter</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/email.php">Email Alerts</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/newsletter/subscribe.php">Weekly Newsletter</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/shop/">The ScienceBlogs Shop</a></li> <li><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/comments/">The Latest Comments</a></li> </ul> </div>  <div style="margin:0; text-align:center;"> <iframe src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150if_/http://www.facebook.com/plugins/likebox.php?id=256321580087&width=160&connections=3&stream=false&header=false&width=190&height=200&border=false" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border:none; overflow:hidden; width:190px; height:200px;" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>  </div> <div class="skyscraper"> Advertisement <div class="adHolder">   <script language="JavaScript1.1"> var bust; if (typeof bust == 'undefined') { bust = Math.floor(1000000*Math.random()); } if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mozilla/2.') >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV")>= 0) { document.write('<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/ng.scienceblogs/misc;sz=160x600;tile=3;ord='+bust+'">'); document.write('<img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/ng.scienceblogs/misc;sz=160x600;tile=3;ord='+bust+'" border="0" height="600" width="160"></a>'); } else { document.write('<scr' + 'ipt language="JavaScript1.1" SRC="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/ng.scienceblogs/misc;dcopt=;sz=160x600;tile=3;ord='+bust+'">'); document.write('<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/ng.scienceblogs/misc;sz=160x600;tile=3;ord='+bust+'">'); document.write('<img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/ng.scienceblogs/misc;sz=160x600;tile=3;ord='+bust+'" border="0" height="600" width="160"></a>'); document.write('</scr' + 'ipt>'); } </script> <noscript> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/ng.scienceblogs/misc;sz=160x600;tile=3;ord=20021017123955"> <img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/ng.scienceblogs/misc;sz=160x600;tile=3;ord=20021017123955" border="0" height="600" width="160"></a> </noscript>  </div> </div> <div class="listHolder"> <h3 class="big">Top Five Most Active</h3> <ol id="mostActiveList"> <li><b>1</b><a rel="nofollow" class="title" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/whooping_cough_returns_in_michigan.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link">Whooping cough returns in Michigan</a> <p class="blogTitle"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/whooping_cough_returns_in_michigan.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link">Orac</a> 01.16.2012</p> </li> <li><b>2</b><a rel="nofollow" class="title" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2012/01/ids_demise_revisited.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link">ID's Demise, Revisited</a> <p class="blogTitle"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2012/01/ids_demise_revisited.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link">Jason Rosenhouse</a> 01.02.2012</p> </li> <li><b>3</b><a rel="nofollow" class="title" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/andrew_wakefield_great_science_fraud.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link">Andrew Wakefield: Recognized as the Great Science Fraud that he is</a> <p class="blogTitle"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/andrew_wakefield_great_science_fraud.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link">Orac</a> 01.14.2012</p> </li> <li><b>4</b><a rel="nofollow" class="title" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link">January 2012 Open Thread</a> <p class="blogTitle"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link">Tim Lambert</a> 01.02.2012</p> </li> <li><b>5</b><a rel="nofollow" class="title" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2012/01/science_its_whats_for_breakfas.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link">Science: It's What's for Breakfast</a> <p class="blogTitle"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2012/01/science_its_whats_for_breakfas.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link">Chad Orzel</a> 01.16.2012</p> </li> </ol></div>  <div class="adHolder" style="width: 160px; margin: 0 0 24px 14px;"> <iframe width="160" height="500" style="border:0;overflow:hidden;" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150if_/http://researchblogging.org/widget-request/posts?key=3msu4pf2gqg&tags=chatter;"></iframe></div> <div style="margin-bottom: 24px; text-align: center;"> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://twitter.com/scienceblogs"><img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/promos/Blogpage_Unit1_twitter.gif" alt="Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter"/></a> </div> <div class="listHolder" style="display: none;"> <h3 class="big">Science News from <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://nytimes.com/science/">NYTimes.com »</a></h3> <div id="nytimesBlock"> <h3>From NYTimes.com</h3> <p id="top">Latest science stories | <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://nytimes.com/science/">More at nytimes.com<img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/img/icon_arrow_org-right.gif" alt="" style="vertical-align: middle; margin-top: -3px; margin-left: 4px;"/></a></p> <ol id="nytimesList"> <li><b>1</b><a class="title" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=680aad2428ffc4fa381f1eb44625939f">‘Open Science’ Challenges Journal Tradition With Web Collaboration</a> <p class="blogTitle"></p></li> <li><b>2</b><a class="title" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=265216a62b0e861caf21ec5710f9e2b7">Findings: Countering Climate Change Without Waiting for a Payoff</a> <p class="blogTitle"></p></li> <li><b>3</b><a class="title" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=80f44a57dd55c21c5613211e15e743ca">Books on Science: Scott’s South Pole Times: Penguins, Hockey and Serious Stuff Too</a> <p class="blogTitle"></p></li> <li><b>4</b><a class="title" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1b6b61b08a80224a8c54295daca9cb68">For Bio-Hackers, Lab Work Often Begins at Home</a> <p class="blogTitle"></p></li> <li><b>5</b><a class="title" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=af4cd0df56b611ae343d6a5fe936bba8">Yeast Reveals How Fast a Cell Can Form a Body</a> <p class="blogTitle"></p></li> </ol> </div> </div> <div style="margin-bottom: 24px; text-align: center;"> <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150js_/http://www.kqzyfj.com/placeholder-4798562?target=_blank&mouseover=Y"></script> </div>   </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div id="footerBlock"> <div class="inner"> <p class="blogLinks"><a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/theblogs.php">The Blog Index</a> | <a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/about.php">About ScienceBlogs</a> | <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/mailto:advertising@scienceblogs.com?subject=Advertising%20with%20ScienceBlogs%20inquiry">Advertise with ScienceBlogs</a> | <a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/main/privacy/">Privacy Policy</a> | <a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/main/terms/">Terms & Conditions</a> | <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/main/code/">Code of Conduct</a> | <a href="/web/20120117030150/http://scienceblogs.com/channel/about.php#contact">Contact Us</a></p> <p>© 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.</p>  <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://seedmediagroup.com/" class="smgLink"></a> </div> </div> <script type="text/javascript"> var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/https://ssl." : "https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); </script> <script type="text/javascript"> var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-163469-3"); pageTracker._initData(); pageTracker._trackPageview(); </script>  <script type="text/javascript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150js_/http://edge.quantserve.com/quant.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> _qacct="p-99371ybtcwVuI";quantserve();</script> <noscript> <img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-99371ybtcwVuI.gif" style="display: none" height="1" width="1" alt="Quantcast"/></noscript>  <input type="hidden" name="OBKey" value="8kVDobuc8+AAEjPuKp2edA=="/> <script language="JavaScript">var OBCTm=1248980629434; </script><script language="JavaScript" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150js_/http://widgets.outbrain.com/claim.js"> </script>  <script> document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/https://sb" : "http://b") + ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js' %3E%3C/script%3E")); </script> <script> COMSCORE.beacon({ c1:2, c2:3005368, c3:"", c4:"", c5:"", c6:"", c15:"" }); </script> <noscript> <img src="https://web.archive.org/web/20120117030150im_/http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=3005368&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c15=&cj=1"/> </noscript>   <script type="text/javascript"> document.write('<s'+'cript language="JavaSc'+'ript" src="' + document.location.protocol + '//web.archive.org/web/20120117030150/http://www.nationalgeographic.com/stats/ax/nielsen.js"></s'+'cript>'); </script>  </body> </html>