The New Statesman has published this poem by Clive James.
The imminent catastrophe goes on
Not showing many signs of happening.
The ice at the North Pole that should be gone
By now, is awkwardly still lingering,
And though sometimes the weather is extreme
It seems no more so than when we were young
Who soon will hear no more of this grim theme
Reiterated in the special tongue
Of manufactured fright. Sea Level Rise
Will be here soon and could do such-and-such,
Say tenured pundits with unblinking eyes.
Continuing to not go up by much,
The sea supports the sceptics, but they, too,
Lapse into oratory when they predict
The sure collapse of the alarmist view
Like a house of cards, for they could not have picked
A metaphor less suited to their wish.
A house of cards subsides with just a sigh
And all the cards are still there. Feverish
Talk of apocalypse might, by and by,
Die down, but the deep anguish will persist.
His death, and not the Earth’s, is the true fear
That motivates the doomsday fantasist:
There can be no world if he is not here.
Clive James has put his head above the climate parapet before, in this essay about scepticism, Montaigne and golf-ball crisps.
Yes indeed. one wonders whether climate catastrophism will go out with a whimper or a bang. The more its exponents cling stubbornly to prognostications of doom and gloom, the more they demand the establishment of a Marxist New World Order to combat ‘inevitable’ catastrophic climate change, the further down that road we regress, the more likely it becomes that their eventual downfall will be sudden and catastrophic – and the more likely it will be that ‘victory’ for sceptics will be Pyrrhic. We can but hope for a size 10 natural climate foot to come stomping down very soon, Monty Python-like, upon their Green edifice, leaving nothing but the smoking, flattened remains of the nascent ‘Anthropocene’ just visible within a large and truly unmistakable natural climate change footprint. Perchance to dream.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am a self admitted obsessive on the subject of whether climate alarmism will got out with a quiet murmor or an enormous and very public collapse. From a scientific point of view, the scam has no visible foundations at all, so logic dictates that it should fall down.
However, I keep forgetting that 2000 years after someone said “some of you will not pass away before a return”, there are a large number of people still waiting (or at least supposedly waiting) for a return.
However, I agree with Jaime – that the longer we have to wait, the more extreme their views – the more likely we will see a sudden, massive and very humiliating collapse. … at least that’s true for the first decade … after which it is just another religion and there’s no chance in hell of it collapsing. (And yes, after 18 years … we are perhaps already past that point).
LikeLiked by 2 people
You guys are hilarious. And fascinating.
With Michael Mann putting his name to a ‘pause’ paper, perhaps we’re already seeing how things will go? A subtle, incremental shifting of emphasis so that in 10, 20 years tenured alarmists now will be tenured once-alarmists who simply did more research because that’s how science works i.e. they’ll always have it their way, they’ll never lose face – and the circus will move with them. Pessimistic from a sceptical point of view – but underlines the importance of documenting their every move.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you fascinating, Geoff Price?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoff Price is hilarious and fascinating too. He certainly was on the Falling forward thread.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think I’m relatively dull, old school / conventional pro-science skeptic, but you’re welcome to disagree.
I’m just struck by the theatrical confidence, and repeated statements to the effect that AGW is some evidence-free belief system, even literally as global temp records are through the roof. The ways the internet provides subculture and reinforcement around these alternative reality notions. What seems like transparently motivated/arbitrary reasoning (defining the goal posts e.g. “they predicted all the polar ice would be gone by now”, or Jaime’s solipsistic break with conventional scientific epistemology, demanding ‘special’ spanning observations simultaneously validating all steps in a causal chain or else claiming basic empirical evidence cannot truly be said to exist, likely similar to Scottish’s preposterous “the scam has no visible foundations” [other than the laws of thermodynamics] etc.)
Mind you, I would be less gobsmacked by a position along the lines of “well AGW is clearly happening [on the significant scale claimed by physical science], but I do not buy the economic arguments for carbon mitigation specifically… cleaning up black carbon maybe, but too much harm or unintended consequences with messing with energy prices” etc. Which is strangely rare. While that still appears to be invalid economic reasoning, it is at least a rational policy opinion rather than a rejection (or transparently motivated, narrowly selected acceptance) of physical science.
There you go. Told you he was hilarious. Calls himself a skeptic.
And who said “AGW is some evidence-free belief system”? Or did he just make that up?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Clive James poem has made it to The Times:
Clive James pours poetic scorn on climate change fears
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoff. This is far more hilarious:
Granted. it’s not very fascinating, so I suggest you stick with Cliscep if you want to continue to be fascinated – and better informed (though probably none the wiser). 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, cliscep is a great source of science info. 😉 Imbetween the profound and almost rhyming poetry. The guardian article is hilarious because…?
And Paul, of course normal skepticism is different than “climate science skepticism”. The anti-AGW world routinely recirculates easily verifiable urban legends a half a dozen times before breakfast every day. CSI has been around and advocating scientifically-grounded skepticism for a long time, and explicitly rejects your adoption of the term, as I’m sure you know.
(Though I don’t endorse the ‘deniers’ label as it is unnecessarily polarizing, or at least seen to be by those it targets.)
It is of course not any great mystery why you *want* to adopt the label and its associated perceived legitimacy and scientific credibility.
[PM: Your failure to answer the question is noted.]
“The guardian article is hilarious because…?”
“And Paul, of course normal skepticism is different than “climate science skepticism”. The anti-AGW world routinely recirculates easily verifiable urban legends a half a dozen times before breakfast every day.”
Positively rib-tickling Geoff. Do carry on. I’ll just grab some popcorn.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Read all about it! People ignorant about X praise man who knows nothing about X for dissing X. This is newsworthy in The Times and New Statesman.
What I want to know is why the likes of Raff and Geoffmprice hang out on sceptic sites like this. I think it’s because the people in their lives are bored silly of the subject of climate change. Raff and GP see their debate with us as a victory against climate change but the real battle is with everybody else. Why would you start with the group least likely to see your point of view? Why would you play games with an issue this big? Because for most people it’s a non issue. All they’re worried about is the price of energy and the weather this week. Sure, they’re a bit worried about climate. Just like they’re worried about ghosts and aliens and… well I was going to write ‘spiders’ but people would have avoided holiday destinations because of creepy crawlies but how many have decided not to go on a holiday because of CO2. A few?
We have an obesity problem and despite being unable to solve it, we are worrried. People discuss solutions, have self help groups and web sites. Clubs. Big businesses exist solely to help people help themselves. Warmists have what? ATTP’s web site? And how often do they swap CO2 reduction tips. Nah, too boring. More fun to bitch at sceptics.
Raff and Geoffmprice are fiddling while they think Rome burns, emitting masses of CO2. Seriously is there ANYBODY who cares about the issue?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, I liked the poem. But it doesn’t have the sheer dramatic climatey passion of Emma Thompson’s famous “A Poem to SHELL”, does it.
The science is complex. Denial’s a breeze,
But take a good look at the Arctic, please.
IT’S MELTING, I’ve seen it and all ‘cos of oil… etc.
The all-caps adds a certain nuance of poetic urgency, as well befits a global climate crisis. There’s extra pathos towards the end, too, when the child wails “But Grandad, oh Grandad, my feet are all wet”, being afflicted by sudden sea-level rise, while his/her selfish grandparent looks on, unmoved.
Honestly, who could read this and carry on burning oil whilst at the office?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raff hops onto this post to lend moral support to Geoff by castigating we sceptics of being ignorant of X, when we’re still awaiting his explanation of why X=Y elsewhere.
X=Y what is that about?
Tiny, it is just entertaining. It is a little bit sad that it takes endorsement of an ignoramus to keep people’s pecker up, but you chose your path…
Funny – of the many things *I* want to know, one is why the likes of people going by the handle “TinyCO2” (God I hope you actually do know that all molecules are “tiny”) hang out on “sceptic” sites like this. It’s not surprising on some level, but still fascinating. I’m sure I could go find forums still alive today where anti-evolutionists speculate as a group about how “the scam has no visible foundations at all!”, how “there is not *one single piece* of empirical evidence of humans-from-random-chemicals theory!”, and share erudite thoughts on whether secular evolutionism “will go out with a whimper or a bang”. Same structure of arguments, but that particular topic is so thirty years ago.
Alex – LOL, fair enough. Peace on poetry.
Jaime, tell me again about how downwelling and outgoing radiation doesn’t have to do with AGW GHG theory, or how the troposphere hasn’t warmed, or that observational-based ECS estimates are “at odds” with paleoclimate and model-based, or how the Feldman study “ignor[ed] … the influence of solar variability”, or how AGW claims “‘inevitable’ runaway global warming”, or how there is an “insignificant contribution to the global greenhouse effect from CO2 alone”, or how “nature is overwhelmingly in control of water vapour concentrations”, or how “the sources and sinks and annual exchange of natural CO2 completely dwarf the contributions to atmospheric CO2” means… what exactly? Quite a compilation from a single exchange.
Cliscep is seeming more like an entertainment / gossip site for anti-mitigation folks, but that’s not to say there is no entertainment – definite hat tip for the feminist glaciology piece.
Mr. Price, let’s take a look at your statements. So far on this thread you have said that those who label themselves skeptics are not skeptics, taken issue with the pseudonym of one of the contributors, characterized this site variously as an entertainment/ and gossip site. Well, at least you find us ‘hilarious.’
Di gustibus non disputandem est. But I echo the questioner who wondered why you are becoming a regular here, given your opinions of the venue.
As a non-skeptic myself, I don’t see the same things you see here. I see a vigorous skeptic weblog with some smart people writing and commenting. Sadly it’s not 100%, unlike the brilliant weblogs I’m sure you normally frequent.
I must say that over the past decade or so I have gotten used to climate activists parachuting into non-compliant climate blogs, shotgunning a few lines of generic criticism and insults and then wandering off in search of their next target. Is that what we are to make of your contributions? I had thought from the previous thread that you were at least interested in discussing some of the issues rather than making facile and unflattering comparisons between climate skeptics and anti-evolutionists.
However, if that’s what you want to do, I suggest you look more closely at the writings of trolls that have preceded you, from the Danos, sods, CB Dunkersons, dhogazas, secular animists and countless others who have done the same.Some of them were good. Some horrible.
But then compare them to really excellent commenters from your side, for example Andrew Adams. And then choose how you wish to engage.
“Jaime, tell me again about how downwelling and outgoing radiation doesn’t have to do with AGW GHG theory . . . . . ” [etc. etc. etc.]
I thought we’d done that hilarity on Thomas’s previous post. To repeat it all again here would be tedious and unnecessary, therefore I refer any interested enquirer back to that post in order that they can ascertain whether the exchange was one of me just repeating “easily verifiable urban legends” (mainly after breakfast, if truth be told), with you easily verifying and debunking those urban legends.
As Thomas says above, if you have such a low opinion of the denizens of this page, one wonders why you comment so frequently, or is it the case that you see it as your moral mission to descend into the dark heart of climate change scepticism and dispel all ignorance that you find there with the shining Light of AGW Truth?
What an excellent poem that is from Clive James. All the more moving given his poor health. I will add it to my collection of poetry & song here in due course, where it will stand out as deeply heartfelt amidst the often less serious works intended more to raise at least wry smiles: http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/p/climate-culture-poetry-and-song-from.html
Scroll down a ways to find one from Geoff. Or scroll to the end for one of mine which I still quite like. Nowhere near as classy as Clive’s but maybe worth a read.
I note that neither Raff nor Mr Price disagreed with my view that they don’t care about AGW. That means their time spent here is just trolling (we knew that anyway). Is that what the issue deserves? I’m increasingly of the opinion that those who treat climate change as a joke are right (ie those two). Certainly if anyone wanted to get something done they’d despair at the persuasive talents they had to call on. A bunch of sneering, arrogant idiots who are so starved of companionship they spend their time irritating others. I spend my time here because I like these people. They’re funny and honest enough to say what they think, not what they think they ought to say. All of them care enough to engage with the issues and their actions match their stated beliefs. Unlike those two.
Geoffmprice, my monika is specifically chosen to be ambiguous, to make the reader jump to conclusions and boing, you jumped.
At least Clive James didn’t resort to rap to try and get his message across. Good grief.
It is worth people following the link about sceptics given by Geoff Price at 18 Mar 16 at 5:34 pm.
It is name-calling via press release. The reason for saying that sceptics are deniers is the baseless accusations of those who oppose them.
The way to understand if this blog can legitimately call itself “sceptic” is to look in a dictionary for the definitions of the word. I looked into the Cook / Mann definition of scepticism some time ago and compared it to the definitions in my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.
By this definition all those involved in the climate debate can use the label “sceptics”. The question is on the basis of that doubt.
A lot of climate sceptics base the doubts on the validity of the CAGW warming theory on the discrepancy between the predictions derived from the theory and the real world. This is what Clive James is referring to in the first few lines of the poem.
Geoff Price gives a very clear example of the scepticism of the climate alarmists. The claims of those who oppose climate alarmism are not valid knowledge claims, as they differ from the alleged opinions of those who believe in the theory.
The primary difference between the sceptics who reject CAGW (and associated mitigation policy) and with the “sceptical” climate alarmists is the point of reference. For the sceptics it is the real world and other possible theories, or other value systems. For alarmists their point of reference is the opinions of a closed group.
A secondary difference is that the “scepticism” of the alarmists is just a defense mechanism to defend against different opinions and beliefs. The emphasis on getting belief statements from scientific societies, and on consensus opinion are examples.
Fascinating. Your apparent confidence that you and others here and honest and decent, while those with whom you disagree are not, is quite telling. I’ve always thought that most people who engage on blogs are probably more decent than one would guess based on their behaviour. I still do think this, but the more I interact on blogs like this one, the harder it is to continue thinking this to be true.
I also don’t necessarily think that people saying what they actually think is necessarily a good thing. There are many things I might think that I might have the decency to not actually say – sometimes I do fail, but that’s not something I’m proud of. However, I do think that your apparent pride in saying what you think is a little odd given how much of this debate revolves around things that shouldn’t be said. For example: suggestions that climate “skeptics” are conspiracy-theorists; using the term “climate science denier”,……
Personally, I do think that a great many of the “skeptic” talking points are essentially suggestions of a world-wide conspiracy. I do think that many who comment here and write posts here could justifiably be regarded as “climate science deniers”, or as promoting science denial. However, if I was to be honest enough to say this (as I have been at times) I suspect the tone of the debate would get worse, not better. For some reason you don’t seem to think that you have any obligation to conduct yourselves in a manner that would improve the debate, while at the same complaining about the tone of others. Maybe you should consider that those about whom you complain are actually being honest?
[I thought he’d given up, but the hypocrite of the century is back for more ridicule. The guy who claimed that McIntyre and McKitrick’s paper had numerous easily explained issues, but could not say what these issues were, is preaching an incoherent content-free sermon about decency and honesty!]
Jaime, I go you one better. (Let’s make Rik our own Godwin:)
LikeLiked by 1 person
ATTP is another one who’s ‘fascinated’ by what goes on here apparently.
“I also don’t necessarily think that people saying what they actually think is necessarily a good thing. . . .
I do think that many who comment here and write posts here could justifiably be regarded as “climate science deniers”, or as promoting science denial.”
You see Ken, that’s where sceptics and AGW enthusiasts differ. Your idea of saying what you think and be damned basically amounts to insulting those people who are sceptical of your beloved ‘climate science’, or some of the central tenets thereof. TinyCO2’s idea of people being honest enough to say what they think I suspect amounts to rather more than merely slagging off the opposition. It involves having the presence of mind to express views contrary to what we are constantly told is ‘mainstream, settled science’ – often backed up with facts and data and peer-reviewed research – and to justifiably on occasions question the motives of those who ‘do’ and those who promote that science.
ATTP the guy who almost gave himself whiplash rejecting the concept that believers in AGW actually cut their CO2 first.
ATTP, for some reason you think you can call people deniers, idiots, etc., and then lecture them on comportment. I ‘struggle to understand’ this.
By the way, just like Paul Homewood’s blog, it appears there has recently been a concerted effort to give Cliscep a poor rating on Web of Trust. 54 people have rated it and the site has been marked as unsatisfactory on:
“Opinions, religion, politics
Misleading claims or unethical”
I’ve just given it a good rating. I suggest anybody else who disagrees with the above should do the same.
I’m a little uncertain as to what you’re saying. It appears that you’re suggesting that AGW enthusiasts (your term) have a tendency to simply insult those with whom they disagree, while “skeptics” (your term) do not. This, however, is so obviously untrue that I’ll assume that I’ve misunderstand what you’re saying. However, there is a chance that we do in some sense agree as what I was getting at it is that being proud of saying what you think, is a little odd if what you say simply ends up insulting those with whom you disagree; especially you then criticise the tone of others.
I have no memory of making any such argument. Since you appear to regard yourself as part of a group of honest and decent people, I shall assume that you’re either mis-remembering our discussion, or didn’t understand it.
You clearly are struggling, since I’m not really do either. I would suggest that you read what I said again and give it some more thought, but past experience would suggest that that is entirely pointless, so I won’t bother suggesting it.
Ken, Tiny said:
“They’re funny and honest enough to say what they think, not what they think they ought to say. All of them care enough to engage with the issues . . . . ”
I read this as people being honest enough to say what they think about the issues, not their opponents. Of course both sides hurl insults at each other occasionally. Regrettable but true. You chose as your example of being honest enough to say what you think as follows:
“Personally, I do think that a great many of the “skeptic” talking points are essentially suggestions of a world-wide conspiracy. I do think that many who comment here and write posts here could justifiably be regarded as “climate science deniers”, or as promoting science denial.”
Which basically is denigrating and insulting. That’s all I was saying. Perhaps you can come up with other honest thoughts which don’t involve insulting your opponents?
ATTP, so I imagined the post where you debated whether scientists should give up flying and wrote “However, I’m not sure about the whole idea that climate scientists should be setting some kind of example.”
“I don’t know. That I’m willing to tell you something of a possible risk associated with continuing to increase our emissions doesn’t mean that I’m responsible for getting the ball rolling when it comes to actual emission reduction.”
“I think you misunderstand the way I think. I think we should be doing something. However this is a global issue and this is a societal issue. I have no problem with individuals doing what they can. I do. However, the resposibility does not lie with me or with anyone who happens to be presenting the evidence that increasing our emissions carries risks. The responsibility ultimately lies with us collectively and, through us, with our policy makers.”
You knotted yourself by wanting ‘us’ to respond to CO2 but not ‘you’ specifically.
No, but if you can’t tell the difference between “climate scientists” and “believers in AGW” then I can’t help you. I don’t have any great interest in re-starting that discussion.
This has nothing to do with me. Furthermore, I was simply illustrating what I might say if I was expected to say what I thought; I wasn’t suggesting that it would be good to do so; if anything I was suggesting that it probably would not be.
My comment was a response to Tiny who appeared to be describing people on this site. His suggestion was that they’re honest and say what they think. Given that much of what is said on this site is denigrating and insulting, I was suggesting that being honest enough to say what you think may not be something to be proud of, or be something that would be regarded as constructive. If you think much of what i said here is not denigrating and insulting, then we have a very different view of what is denigrating and insulting.
To avoid confusion, this sentence should be
There appear to be three distinct parts to Clive James’ poem.
The first three discuss the failed prophesies of climate catastrophes. For a complex subject, with many different factors interrelating in complex and maybe chaotic, making bold predictions based on the theory that come true would at least demonstrate the competency of the proponents.
The next part is about the failed prophesies of the climate sceptics on the demise of the alarmist view, like a house of cards. In the final part James offers an explanation. It answers a need for the alarmists.
Geoffmprice just gets funnier and funnier. This, in particular, caught my eye ““well AGW is clearly happening [on the significant scale claimed by physical science]”. This has to be the climate science joke of the year so far. I do get bored of the folks who claim that the shape of the Mannian hockey-stick has been replicated many times – that is just so obviously untrue that it is baffling why they keep trotting it out.
And it seems he is also a literary critic, although obviously as ignorant of the priciples of English rhyming as he is of climate science.
“we have a very different view of what is denigrating and insulting.” I’ve read your posts and others’ comments on YOUR site and I think you’re the pot who calls the kettle black.
“I don’t have any great interest in re-starting that discussion.” No, of course you haven’t. Warmists are masters of do as I say, not as I do. That’s what I mean about honesty. Matching your behaviour with your beliefs. You want pesky deniers to do as they’re told. No.
manicbeancounter, Clive James is right, AGW isn’t going to go away as an issue any time soon. Partly because nobody knows how much effect CO2 has and partly because there’s more going on than genuine concern about warming. There’s an element of the scary movie, where people look for something to be scared about but the biggest part is the desire to lecture the rest of society about how bad we all are. That’s a push button that no longer works but they keep jabbing it anyway.
How? I’ve said nothing about my site, my posts, or what I have said. I was commenting only or your suggestion that the commenters here are honest decent people, while others with whom you seem to disagree are not. Whether or not posts and comments on my site are denigrating or insulting has no bearing on whether or not posts and comments here are denigrating and insulting. You appear to be moving the goalposts.
Nope. What a bizarre thing to suggest.
It’s not bizarre at all, ATTP. Your whole schtick, back from the days you were stalking Anthony Watts, is all about getting your opponents to shut up.
If it were not the case you wouldn’t be censoring your own weblog or calling people idiots, deniers, etc.
In exactly the same way that it is part of your worldview that any scientist who differs from your conception of the consensus cannot be competent and is in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, it is part of your world view that your opponents on climate change by definition cannot be decent or honest.
You can prove me wrong, of course. Open up your weblog. Write a post acknowledging the honesty and decency of a skeptic or lukewarmer. You don’t even have to say they’re right–just find one you think is honest and decent and point them out.
Oh, noes–instead you write of William Happer that he’s not competent (as if in some universe you’re capable of judging that–every post you write about physics has errors that your readers have to correct).
The lights in the sky are stars. Stick to that, ATTP. Your glasses are the wrong prescription for this debate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You may want to ponder the irony of your final sentence.
Then again, I may just go back to my reading. You talking about irony is like David Cameron talking about helping the poor.
“If you think much of what is said here is not denigrating and insulting, then we have a very different view of what is denigrating and insulting.”
Not even you can logically defend that statement Ken. Even working on the basis that it might be PERCEIVED as being denigrating and insulting ‘much of this site’ could never be construed as such. I wouldn’t even describe ‘much of’ your own site as being denigrating and insulting, even though regular commenters there often behave like a bunch of attack trolls. At least, that’s how I remember it. I must admit, I don’t bother looking nowadays. But that’s beside the point. Cliscep is most definitely not about being denigrating and insulting, it is a about being challenging, and there is a vast difference. If those whose ideas are being challenged here do perceive the bulk of material on this site to be denigrating and insulting, then I’m afraid that just reflects very poorly upon those people and the quality of their argument, not this blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kevin, the most interesting bit of the poem from the sceptic perspective is the last bit. I think he’s probably correct that climate hysteria is not going to collapse any time soon. The goalposts will continue to be moved to fit the doomsday cult that’s been firmly installed in the middle-class academic left mind since the 60s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thomaswfuller2, what do you mean by “If it were not the case you wouldn’t be censoring your own weblog” and “open up your weblog”?
All blogs “censor” to some extent, if by censoring you mean remove content that conflicts with their comment policy. Roy Spencer “censors” comments. Blogs like Paul Homewood’s censor heavily. Ditto Euan Mearns and Watts. Montford censors to some extent. I imagine all blogs do. I have even had a comment here “censored”. There are “skeptics” who do comment at ATTP regularly and doubtless quite irritatingly who are not “censored”. What is your point?
Write a post acknowledging the honesty and decency of a skeptic or lukewarmer.
Can you suggest a few examples to choose from?
Jaime, I spent some time at ATTP’s site and came to the conclusion we see things (not just climate) in a fundamentally different way. We describe something and they read something else and the same applies in reverse. Sceptics are from Mars, warmists are from Venus sort of thing. Both sides are pre-programmed to be slightly hostile with the other side, even if we’re not aware of it. Slightly hostile turns into very hostile quite easily with misunderstanding.
eg the issue of walking the walk, seems to be of little importance to warmists. In their mind getting everyone to act is the goal and individual action is pointless. They’re caught up with the idea that big business (esp oil) or governments are at fault where in reality it’s people. Lots and lots of people. Even businesses are people.
CO2 reduction theory suffers from comparison with wealth distribution. While a wealthy person might have a large share of money their share of CO2 is much smaller. In terms of infrastructure and public services, it’s no more than anyone else. In fact, you could argue that their ownership of land means they have their own personal carbon sinks. By allowing carbon offsets or applying a carbon tax you are essentially loading all the action on the poorest. Sooner or later someone has to have less. Warmists balk at it being them.
Now all that is clear to us but somehow it’s opaque for warmists.
Tiny, By allowing carbon offsets or applying a carbon tax you are essentially loading all the action on the poorest
A carbon tax and dividend policy, with the dividend paid equally per-person, seems more likely to be beneficial to the poor – who use less energy, being poor, and thus would receive more than they pay.
Paul at 11.35am,
You are quite right about the last bit being the most important. This is my interpretation of why this is the case.
Like many fellow poets, Clive James uses poetry to allow multiple interpretations. In prose he uses coded language, along with mockery and his humorous tales of his battle with cancer to retain his position of the only regular Guardian columnist who rejects the entire climate change agenda. His piece on the absurdity and hypocrisy of the Paris Climate change conference is a prime example.
In this context consider the last three lines of the poem
A literalist interpretation could be that James is able to see inside the alarmists heads, to interpret their thoughts better than they themselves. But this would ignore the first part of the poem about past prophesies not coming true. There is no real world evidence to support the doomsday just the opinions of “scientists” with no demonstrated competency in their field. Yet demonstrated competency is the mark of a true expert.
Even worse if you looked up the definition of climatology most of these “scientists” have no academic training in the subject, yet express opinions about other fields outside of climatology or their own scientific discipline. These include (but are not limited to) ethics, public policy, economics, logic, etymology and law. Yet when these opinions conflict with the established expertize in those fields, those of the “scientists” prevail.
So the goal posts have just not been moved. The alarmists are making sure that there is no game to play. No facts or interpretations can exist outside of this opinion. There is even a course people can take to inoculate themselves from the real world.
This whole edifice would not exist without baseless opinions. This edifice is the world that Clive James says will cease to exist without the doomsday fantasists.
Raff I’ve asked you before what the basic allowance would be and you have no idea. Reason – your plan falls apart when figure are applied. Another warmist flaw.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Willis Eschenbach has a good post on the relation between energy use and poverty. In Western countries though, it seems fairly obvious that higher energy costs are driving more and more people on low and modest incomes into the energy poverty trap.
Yes Tiny, there does seem to be a fundamental psychological divide between CAGW and/or mitigation sceptics and those who promote the idea that we are facing an imminent global catastrophe unless we act now to save the planet. These differences are irreconcilable in my opinion. This is why Clive James says:
“Talk of apocalypse might, by and by,
Die down, but the deep anguish will persist.
His death, and not the Earth’s, is the true fear
That motivates the doomsday fantasist:
There can be no world if he is not here.”
The deep anguish will persist even if, due to advances in scientific understanding and/or Nature continuing to not behave as predicted, and/or more immediate catastrophic events taking precedence, Thermageddon hysteria does abate in the coming years. On the other hand, the planet may continue to rapidly warm in line with the models (after catching up with them of course), the poles may continue to rapidly melt etc., with virtually no physical explanation other than AGW to posit as the cause. In which case, warmists are going to be even more angry with us sceptics – furious, in fact, that we wrecked the world by doubting their dodgy science, which miraculously turned out to be correct. But the way things are looking, that does not seem likely. Either way, one group is going to be pretty p***ed off with the other. But, as James notes, if the world does NOT fall apart then the catastrophists’ world surely will.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tiny, I don’t remember you asking that, but anyway, why should there be a basic allowance at all?
“Both sides are pre-programmed to be slightly hostile with the other side…”
I am glad I am programmed to be hostile to ATTP.
(To respond to your comments near the top.)
It is quite common in debates for one side to hear only their own civility (marred perhaps by the occasional overstep in the direction of sharp but honest/accurate observation), yet to be spectacularly sensitive to the transgressions of tone of the “other” side. It’s part of the interesting social phenomena around polarizing topics (see ingroup/outgroup social psychology.)
I won’t claim excessive virtue, but I don’t think you will be able to cite an example of snark on my part that was not in response to prior “insults” (to use your term). I am also aiming my comments at the quality of arguments and not at people or personalities, in contrast to the many responses here including your own.
“taken issue with the pseudonym of one of the contributors”
You do realize that this was in response to a snarky message from tinyCO2 in which he shifted the field from discussion of facts/arguments to a personal critique, speaking of how “the likes of Raff and Geoffmprice” are obsessive people with social problems, etc. Again, such tone is only invisible to you because it is coming from “your own” – if I were to adopt the same tone it would become instantly visible (and outrageous) to you.
(And tinyCO2’s name is obviously a walking argument about the ‘too weak’ effect of CO2, as explicitly argued by Jaime and countless others, which I think is perfectly fair to challenge *as* an argument. It is not making fun of someone’s name – he chose the alias to initiate debate and (strictly IMO) he should be happy to defend it, if it is in fact a good moniker.)
“parachuting into non-compliant climate blogs, shotgunning a few lines of generic criticism and insults and then wandering off in search of their next target”
Well I think you all should decide whether I am more contemptible for my persistence and length of detailed responses/citations or for my “shotgunning a few lines of generic criticism” and wandering off.
Ironically, it so happens that the behavior you describe is exactly how I came to be visiting this blog. Paul Matthews “parachuted” onto my blog to “shotgun” a generic criticism (“there is so much here that is completely wrong”) but oddly “wandered off” without attempting to substantiate his comment, other than a passing handwave at (what else) climategate. Yet, I have a genuine interest in how someone comes to believe that information I am citing is “completely wrong” – if nothing else, it is a way to harden/sharpen my understanding of facts.
“I see a vigorous skeptic weblog with some smart people writing and commenting.”
Who says I disagree (aside from the dispute over our conflicting claims to the long-used term “skeptic”)? I think folks like yourself and Jaime appear highly intelligent. That’s *exactly* what makes our difference of opinion rather fascinating to me.
“I suggest you look more closely at the writings of trolls that have preceded you”
In turn, are you able to hear how this sort of denigrating term, and the personal nature of your insult, is of a different category/character than my comments aimed at strength or lucidity of arguments and claims?
[PM: The comment I put at Geoff Price’s blog, which I had forgotten about, is here. As anyone can see, I did substantiate my comment, by referring to the emails in which Keith Briffa abused his role as a journal editor. Unlike Mr Price, I tend not to spend hours writing long-winded comments at other blogs.
Since Mr Price seems to be so ignorant of the issues raised by climategate, perhaps we should run a refresher course on that. Alternatively of course, he could learn about climategate by reading Tom Fuller’s excellent book on the subject. ]
I suppose I should address a couple of more points from your challenge:
“making facile and unflattering comparisons between climate skeptics and anti-evolutionists”
We’ll have to agree to disagree here, I consider this fair game, though it is completely fair to explain why it is not. You can understand from my point of view that I genuinely perceive common mechanisms and arguments at play in these respective movements (both against accepted mainstream views in major fields of science.)
Are you claiming that ‘anti-evolutionist’ is an insult? If so, you would seem to be throwing the likes of anti-mitigation movement leaders like Roy Spencer under the bus. There are quite intelligent people who reject evolution, and provide reasons why they do so. And specifically, Jaime’s line of attack around “no true empirical evidence supporting the theory” *really is* a core argument that anti-evolutionists also lean on, and as a result I think it is completely fair to challenge him to differentiate his use of this logic (why it is actually different or more relevant on this topic, if in fact he is more sympathetic to the mainstream view in biology than that in climate science.)
“have said that those who label themselves skeptics are not skeptics”
This is a dispute over semantics, not an insult.
As one other point, my “entertainment and gossip” comment is perhaps overly sharp, I did not really mean that as a purely bad thing. I enjoy both of those things (the Mann/Steyn sideshow is in this category and many blogs cover it). I did genuinely enjoy the feminist glaciology post as an item in this genre, etc.
If you think the site is about challenging unwarranted confidence in mainstream AGW, per Jaime’s framing,
then my question is why there isn’t more substance focused on the physical science criticisms – i.e. less repetition and assumption of “failed theory” and more attempts to show, compellingly and in depth, exactly how (what) theory has failed, and what it means.
tinyCO2: “A bunch of sneering, arrogant idiots who are so starved of companionship they spend their time irritating others”
just checking whether the transgression of tone is visible here to Mr. Fuller? Guessing that one is clear enough, but honest question under the circumstances.
What a fool Geoff Price is. He claims we won’t be able to find unprovoked snark from him. And that he’s aiming at arguments rather than people. Yet we only have to look at his first comment on this thread to see a snarky comment aimed at people, “you guys are hilarious”. Is he a liar, or just very stupid?
“A lot of climate sceptics base the doubts on the validity of the CAGW warming theory on the discrepancy between the predictions derived from the theory and the real world”
You claim this, obviously. Frequently and loudly. But this is the crux of the dispute – supporting your claims of discrepancies in detail, and why they mean what you claim they mean. And why you discount the extensive validation of the various components of mainstream theory, compiled over decades and centuries.
Finding imperfections in modeling is trivial and tautological (by definition of the word “model”). Do these discrepancies mean something significant about understanding of earth’s energy budget and the warming trajectory toward 2100, and why?
Per above I have not found many who demonstrate obvious depth interest in the details of such doubts. It usually appears relatively shallow, with critics rarely able to actually articulate theory accurately or explain specifically valid predictions or tests. Or show real depth interest in what climate models are, what they do and don’t claim to do, or what would be involved in testing different types or aspects of models in a rigorous way.
Peer reviewed studies which actually do this – and such things as IPCC summary assessments – are just blankly ignored, as far as I can tell. It’s usually just handwaving about “pause” (with apparent belief that some significant point is proven by literally pointing to the fact that scientists used the term!) or trotting out Spencer or Cato web charts. Am I being unfair? Can you point to something stronger or a depth defense of such charts (e.g. peer-reviewed study demonstrating why they are apple-to-apple comparisons and what is being tested, or similar rigor?)
“For the sceptics it is the real world and other possible theories, or other value systems.”
Philosophically, as you say. But surely you see how the idea that mainstream science is *not* interested in “the real world” and that in contrast you, per your self-assessment, have a superior commitment to and understanding of this, comes off as a tad circular here? (To perhaps date myself), where’s the beef?
Obviously, in my view it is precisely the inability of critics to support their views with arguments rooted in physical theory and observations that is the source of *my* skepticism here.
“A secondary difference is that the “scepticism” of the alarmists is just a defense mechanism to defend against different opinions and beliefs. The emphasis on getting belief statements from scientific societies, and on consensus opinion are examples.”
It is not inherently “skeptical” to aggressively reject the views of experts in a complex field. To question it, of course, but that is simply the core of scientific method. In science and logic, you are judged on the *quality of your questions*. Believing that shallow objections undermine a well-supported theory is not a demonstration of skepticism but a *failure* of it.
“A secondary difference is that the “scepticism” of the alarmists is just a defense mechanism to defend against different opinions and beliefs. The emphasis on getting belief statements from scientific societies, and on consensus opinion are examples.”
It is easy to believe that this furor about the scandalous illegitimacy of using consensus in guiding policy (or its use as a heuristic for assessing resilience of theory to expert questioning) on your part is simply tactical, and not actually principled. If the world were flipped upside down, and your view was aligned with the dominant scientific consensus, yet crazy environmental activists demanded carbon mitigation anyway, I *strongly* suspect anti-mitigation partisans would miraculously discover an appreciation for scientific consensus.
To quote Bertrand Russell, a sort of godfather of (traditional definition) skepticism: “I am prepared to admit any well-established result of science, not as certainly true, but as sufficiently probable to afford a basis for rational action.”
“What a fool Geoff Price is”
Oh look, it’s Paul. The quality of discussion is surely trending up.
“you guys are hilarious”
Which was in response to the two starting comments that mainstream climate science is a “scam” with “no visible foundations”, “just another religion”, entails “extreme” views, that those who put faith in this “demand the establishment of a Marxist New World Order” and so on, all dripping with (obviously intended) provocation and insult for others. Mind you this is obviously common, I didn’t choose to wax martyr about how awful they were for saying these things, I just pointed out that such claims seem wildly and comically out of line with reality as I know it.
If you mistook this to argue that Scottish and Jaime are inherently hilarious people and nothing they say should be taken seriously, I can understand your misunderstanding, but… I didn’t. I think it is pretty clear that I was responding to these provocative statements (or anyway, I have so clarified.)
[The point is that you claimed that “I don’t think you will be able to cite an example of snark on my part that was not in response to prior “insults” (to use your term). I am also aiming my comments at the quality of arguments and not at people or personalities, ” a blatant falsehood, as illustrated by your first comment on this thread. ]
At any rate, I think the contrast is pretty telling. “sneering, arrogant idiots who are so starved of companionship they spend their time irritating others”, “what a fool”, accusations of “extremism”, “scam”, “Marxism”, etc. are all reasonable, civil modes of interaction, but to say “you guys are hilarious” is a collapse of decorum so severe that it shakes the very foundations of civil society and indeed perhaps questions our shared commitment to civilization itself vs. naked barbarism…
Oh wait, what was Paul’s first comment in response to my arguments in the earlier “falling forward” thread?
“Geoff Price, is your career perhaps in stand-up comedy?”
I’m sure we’re all in a state of severe shock at Paul’s apparent hypocrisy. We’ll recover.
[Unlike the dishonest hypocrite Geoff Price, I don’t claim to be polite, so there’s no hypocrisy. I’m quite happy to call a dishonest hypocrite a dishonest hypocrite. I have updated andthenthereshypocrisy to say that there’s now a rival. And who said anything about shaking the foundations of civil society? That seems tobe another of your fabrications. Perhaps you’ve been drinking too much.]
Geoff Price said: “Which was in response to the two starting comments that mainstream climate science is a “scam””
Actually, the comment you are inaccurately referring to said that climate alarmism was a scam, not that mainstream climate science was a scam. Odd that you should be confused between those two things.
I would personally recommend you spend more time trying to understand what climate sceptics are actually saying than placing your own incorrect reading at the drop of a hat. How can you possibly hope to construct a meaningful counter argument if you haven’t understood their position in the first place?
I suspect that the trolls frequent this fairly new sceptic blog because the name is very clearly descriptive of what the blog is about. They want to be out there ‘socking it to the deniers’ in case some of the faithful or the agnostics visit and then start singing from the wrong hymn sheet. Topics, and people like Clive James, that get much wider attention in the MSM only increase the imperative for such rearguard action.
And, of course, aTTP knows he can’t get a good argument at his own blog because of the moderation policy.
“Climate alarmism” is generally used as a description of the calls for mitigation policy, which are echoed by mainstream scientific organizations like the national academies and the IPCC. If you would like me to find examples of people applying the term “climate alarmism” to these mainstream views in large numbers it would not be hard to do so. If you intend some subtle distinction I think the burden is on you to be clear in your remarks, just IMO. Words have context.
Honestly sounds to me like something of an ‘out’, i.e. you can always claim what you really mean by “alarmism” is some extreme statement made by some non-scientist well out of the range of what is claimed in an IPCC/NAS type summary, in order to excuse your polarizing language. Then shift back to labelling the mainstream view “alarmist” with full intention of foolish Chicken Little associations in your next comment…
(Btw, I avoid “denier” out of courtesy to the fact that you all perceive the term to be a Holocaust reference or otherwise denigrating, but it is too much to scrub your own language of “fool”, “troll”, “alarmist”, “Marxist” etc.? I suppose I have beaten the ingroup perceptual thing to death at this point.)
“And, of course, aTTP knows he can’t get a good argument at his own blog because of the moderation policy.”
Despite his continual verbal abuse, I think I owe an appreciation to Paul for allowing my comments to post (at least) on this thread. Always a pain to write something up and find the mod is just killfiling contrary commentary (which I doubt is the case in whatever Michael is citing, but still is certainly common enough in the climate blogosphere.)
Climate alarmism typically refers to OTT pronouncements from activist groups, such as Greenpeace, UCS, FoE etc., as well as some quarters of the media and some politicians. This includes a small number of activist scientists but hardly represents the scientific mainstream. Your attempt to blur the lines here simply shows you are responding to strawmen rather than the actual arguments put forward.
And FYI the IPCC is never policy prescriptive, so is not supposed to be “calling” for policies at all.
“Blur the lines”
What lines? “Some” politicians and scientists. Perhaps those who use these terms are making use of blurred lines?
“This includes a small number of activist scientists but hardly represents the scientific mainstream”
Joint science academies’ statement from 11 largest nations: “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.”
NAS and Royal Society: “Citizens and governments can choose among several options (or a mixture of those
options) in response to this information: they can change their pattern of energy
production and usage in order to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and hence the
magnitude of climate changes; they can wait for changes to occur and accept the losses,
damage and suffering that arise…”
American Geophysical Union: “Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes… While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.”
Geological Society of America: “global climate has warmed and human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species.”
American Meteorological Society: “There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming… The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. … Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.”
etc. etc. Are these consistent positions “alarmist” or not?
Are you claiming anti-mitigation skeptics do not routinely refer to such positions as “alarmist”?
Fair enough on IPCC mission and statements. The position on the facts articulated by the IPCC – “alarmist” view or no?
Wow Geoff Price, your comments are comedy gold man. I hadn’t paid attention to your stuff before.
“Wow Geoff Price, your comments are comedy gold man”
Huh. You appear behind on the thread Shub – the local conceit is that comments like “comedy gold” represent outrageous hate speech. The idea apparently is that anti-mitigation partisans hold themselves to a higher standard. I know it seems silly but it can help the team if you keep up and present a unified front as much as possible.
Yes, lots of such taunting. Just seems to be an odd but consistent avoidance of backing it up with more substance.
Some friends got me to a play a game of Arkham Horror couple of months ago. I had a bum on a motorcycle with a shotgun, a machete, and some whisky to maintain sanity if I recall. The yog sothotherian alarmists turned out to be onto something in that case unfortunately, as the world actually ended.
Shub, indeed. Some people think we should delete these comments, but sometimes it’s better to leave these people to make complete fools of themselves:
“You guys are hilarious.”
“I don’t think you will be able to cite an example of snark on my part that was not in response to prior “insults” (to use your term). I am also aiming my comments at the quality of arguments and not at people or personalities”.
OK Geoff, you genuinely don’t know the difference between science and policy. Amazing.
And yes, those press releases you cite are not science but opinion pieces written not representing the views of the entire society but just a handful of people who write them. Many have been quite controversial, not even keeping the small committee of authors happy, e.g. AGU:
Or generating complaints from membership, e.g. an earlier Royal Society press release:
But based on your inability to differentiate between science and policy, means I can only agree with Paul’s assessment of your reasoning ability.
“And specifically, Jaime’s line of attack around “no true empirical evidence supporting the theory” *really is* a core argument that anti-evolutionists also lean on, and as a result I think it is completely fair to challenge him to differentiate his use of this logic (why it is actually different or more relevant on this topic, if in fact he is more sympathetic to the mainstream view in biology than that in climate science.)”
You really are labouring under two gross misapprehensions here and I think one could quite justifiably be described as ‘denigrating and insulting’, even if you do claim to be attacking the argument.
I really cannot see how you can logically justify comparing my assertion that, and I quote, “the evidence for an overwhelming human fingerprint on modern global warming and associated regional climate change is empirically non-existent” with the “core argument” that anti-evolutionists rely upon. That is quite the most bizarre argument you have come up with on here – that I know of – and there are a goodly few, it must be said. It’s especially bizarre implying that I have some religious-like conviction which is deeply unscientific when I provided you with sound scientific and logical reasons why your three ‘examples’ of this empirical anthropogenic fingerprint were dubious/not valid. In the end, you were left arguing for the inclusion of just one of your quoted examples, and we came to no agreement that indeed that one example was definitive and unquestionable.
I’m loathe to psycho-analyse people, but it really does seem you jumped on the much loved (especially amongst warmists) anti-science = anti-climate science = anti evolution theme and couldn’t resist the opportunity to use it ‘at the right moment’ to supposedly ‘disarm’ your opponent, not specifically their argument (which you have – and continue – to fail to do). Are you so deeply under the spell of Ms Oreskes and her like?
The second misapprehension you are labouring under has to do with a name – Jaime. It’s not gender specific. I’m not ‘him’, I’m ‘her’. A far lesser and more understandable transgression than above, I have to say!
Mr. Price, I think most of the ‘blurring of the lines’ comes from your side of the net.
As a lukewarmer, I accept the physics underpinning the global warming controversy. I understand the globe has warmed. I do not contest that man is responsible for some of it–half or more sounds fine as a good guess until we know more. My stake in the ground for sensitivity is well within the IPCC range.
People on your side of the fence have been calling me denier, delayer, pimp, scumbag and much more. Not just commenters, operators of ‘respected’ internet venues. I have been compared to Jack Abramoff, Madoff, Judas Iscariot and many more. My employer has been called to let them know what a horrible person I am based on my stance on global warming.
Now a new round of euphemisms are trotted out–mitigation skeptic, which you have discovered, luckwarmer, etc. All to reinforce a political position.
There is a narrow consensus on climate change among climate scientists. 66% believe as I do, that half or more of the current warming is caused by man, a finding from surveys of climate scientists by climate scientists. Learned societies sign up for that in droves and activists within and without those organizations revise and extend the remarks, adding that it is a crisis and that we must follow the dictates of the NGOs policy prescriptions.
Those that are considered non-compliant are awarded denier status, no matter what they have done in the past or what their actual beliefs consist of. Now Barack Obama is labeled a ‘denier.’ Now Andrew Revkin is labeled a ‘denier.’ Well, now I’m in good company.
“Geoff, you genuinely don’t know the difference between science and policy”
Typical deflection to avoid answering simple questions. We were discussing your contention that the distinction between “climate alarmism” and “mainstream climate science” is obvious. Refusal to answer simple questions is never a good sign.
Let’s just simplify to one question. Is the summary of evidence as provided by (say) the IPCC “alarmist” or not? (Are you confused about whether the WG1 “Physical Basis” report addresses science or policy issues?)
Of course you disagree with the positions taken by the science academies and organizations, that isn’t news, they are in contradiction to what you believe. The existence of dissenting voices within organizations does not prove something is “not mainstream”, indeed the very term “mainstream” implies the existence of other streams. Mainstream per dictionary refers to what is the “dominant trend in opinion”, and the fact that the science organizations and institutions across disciplines and countries endorse a consistent view on significant anthropogenic warming *by definition* answers the question of what the “dominant trend” is.
It would be simpler if you conceded this obvious point, “manned up” to the fact that you are arguing against the mainstream and just back up your claims well (given that consensus is in fact not proof of anything on its own), but you do not and so we have to deal with even more convoluted discussions.
Let me know if you missed the question above.
Geoff, anyone could answer to specific points but you have managed to pile up such an impressive mass of vaporous piffle that it is hard to know where to begin. Solid work, really.
Mr. Fuller, I don’t have anything to do with your prior interactions, nor certainly with anyone who involved your employer which I find contemptible. It sounds like you may be falling into the trap of thinking in terms of group rather than individual behavior and accountability. The stakes and therefore passions are high on this topic and I am sure you are aware that abusive behavior flows in “both” directions.
That’s an awful lot of evasion. Are you willing to answer simple questions?
You appeared to argue that accurately predicted changes in outgoing and downwelling longwave radiation are *not* empirical evidence in support of anthropogenic global warming. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
“Let’s be clear, “global warming” (and more especially, associated regional climate change) is NOT radiative gas transfer theory, or the demonstration thereof that such an effect exists in the atmosphere via an analysis of line by line absorption spectra at particular wavelengths over a short period”
Your claim that there is no empirical evidence hinges on this assertion that the normal evidence you would expect to collect (spectra changes, thermometer readings, and so on) is all not relevant. If you take this away, then you have to deal with that evidence, right?
Instead of restating your ridiculous summary of the discussion, can you answer these points directly? What is your actual claim, and how really is it that you imagine you ‘won’ this part of the discussion and explained the main evidence for AGW away?
If that is too direct, feel free to take back up any of these painful (clearly factually or logically incorrect) claims you made along the way:
* how there is an “insignificant contribution to the global greenhouse effect from CO2 alone”
* how the troposphere hasn’t warmed (because that half of the expected vertical fingerprint isn’t there)
* how “the sources and sinks and annual exchange of natural CO2 completely dwarf the contributions to atmospheric CO2” and that this means something damning about AGW (rather amazing)
* how “nature is overwhelmingly in control of water vapour concentrations” (also a really great one)
* how the Feldman study “ignor[ed] … the influence of solar variability” (so many to choose from… pretty fond of this one too)
* how that observational-based ECS estimates are at odds with paleoclimate and model-based
* how AGW claims “‘inevitable’ runaway global warming”
And hey Shub, since you are struggling to figure out how to contribute, this works fine as a suggestion for you as well – feel free to jump in and help Jaime out on any one of these items.
Geoff, I didn’t bother giving examples of alarmism vs. science because anyone with any kind of scientific education (or a sceptic of any kind) should know the difference already. Since you seem to be having difficulties, here is some basic examples to get you started:
1. A scientific study. This is a paper I’ve discussed with people before. You will notice it is very dry, quantifies things, speaks of difficulty in making predictions etc., and makes no demands on public policy. This is *science*:
Click to access Barnes_2013_GRL_w_supp.pdf
2. Climate alarmism. This is a discussion of someone called “Sir Bob Geldof” telling a convention of climate nutbars that without action, climate change will result in the extinction of mankind by 2030. This is *alarmism*:
Please note that despite the Boomtown Rats front man’s rant being utterly devoid of reason and scientific credibility, the independent can’t actually bring itself to be overly critical of him. Oh dear.
Now these are extreme examples to aid the hard of thinking in beginning to partition “science” and “alarmism”, since you appear to be entirely unable to differentiate between the above examples without considerable help from me in pointing out which are which. Perhaps you can use google to find some more examples yourself, and we can decide if you have understood enough to move on to the advanced level.
You’re just spinning madly round in circles, repeating the same old tired arguments ad nauseum from the last thread and not addressing the specific issues raised on this thread. It seems you cannot justify your comparison of my ‘fingerprint’ statement with me being some kind of Bible bashing loon who doesn’t believe in evolution, nor can you validate 2 out of 3 of your ‘examples’ of an empirical anthropogenic fingerprint, plus you are furiously running around barking up various different trees in an attempt to validate the third example. And you accuse me of being evasive!
Please tell me (minus “the impressive mass of vaporous piffle” – H/T to Shub) :
1. why observed stratospheric cooling is irrefutable evidence of a CO2 anthropogenic global warming fingerprint.
2. why observed tropospheric warming which fails to match up to almost all models is an irrefutable empirical fingerprint (in combination with 1. above) of man-made CO2 global warming.
3. why model runs with and without anthro forcings are an EMPIRICAL fingerprint of anthro CO2 global warming.
When you’ve done that – or admitted that you cannot do that – we can move the conversation on maybe and stop circumambulating.
You write over 600 words of drivel at 10.57am, with only vague references and assertions. Your lack of ability to comprehend was demonstrated by your calling people here deniers based on a name-calling press release from a bunch of dogmatists. To understand an issue you need to look beyond the prejudice and actual understand the subject. When name-calling it helps to use a dictionary, as I did on 19 Mar 10.46am. You just seem to be a troll with literary diarrhea.
And in what will shock absolutely no one, the simple questions go answered.
Jaime, I think you should address the main evidence before obsessing over something like stratospheric cooling. Of course it isn’t an “irrefutable evidence of a CO2 anthropogenic global warming fingerprint”, nor claimed to be (by anyone). As I said, it is a unique fingerprint of greenhouse-driven warming vs. other sources of warming, and it is an empirical validation of theory that was predicted before it was observed.
“and not addressing the specific issues raised on this thread”
LOL… such as? My God. “Specific” issues no less.
I think I should concede that the vitriol-to-discussion levels generally (and/or evasion-to-discussion levels) have gotten out of hand and take the gentlemanly ‘encouragement’ to wander off.
If anyone has a recommendation for a ‘climate skeptic’ site that you think *is* a good place for position debate (i.e. people who like to have it) I’d be interested to hear. Seems strange if such a thing really doesn’t exist.
(Yes, by all means lob parting spitwads.)
Geoff, all your questions can be answered with a few words: wrong, inconsequential, or, exaggerated. You can use these interchangeably for the ‘questions’ you have.
AGW proponents have a theory to sell. It is a tired technique to morph theories into questions which others are supposed to answer as it leaves you in a stronger position – of one asking questions, which is easier, instead of providing answers, which is tougher.
Radiation measurements are nonsense when it comes to the theory of anthropogenic global warming at the *scale and pace* we are interested in having blog discussions about. As soon as you see someone throwing this around you know you are dealing with a BS artist.
How exactly will addition of CO2 to the atmosphere impact the evolution of a global average temperature at multi-decadal scales? What is the range in natural variability in climate states at the multi-decadal and multi-centennial scales? What is the natural emergent behaviour of the climate system under simultaneously acting putative ‘forcing’ agents (as opposed to a simplistic, wrong conceptualization of ‘energy in the system = increased temperatures’)?
There are no answers to these questions from paleoclimate, or climate modeling you can throw at someone in a blog discussion and call it quits.
“Jaime, I think you should address the main evidence before obsessing over something like stratospheric cooling.”
Geoff introduced stratospheric cooling – he said it was observational evidence of a CO2 anthro fingerprint. As has been demonstrated, most or all of the observed stratospheric cooling has been caused by ozone depletion caused by CFCs and/or natural processes. Suddenly, I’ve been ‘obsessing’ about strat cooling and it’s no longer ‘main evidence’.
Well, my last post didn’t appear, I’m not sure whether there was a problem with my browser or whether it was consigned to the spam bin (I don’t usually post much here and the sudden burst of posts with links may have upset the spam catcher)
I see Geoff has already set up a flounce, anyway. No big surprise. Geoff, when I first responded to you I pointed out that you weren’t actually responding to real climate sceptic positions, but ridiculous caricatures of sceptic arguments; I provided evidence of your reasoning errors.
You complain that I evaded your questions. Indeed, I deliberately did not put any position forward. Yet despite this, without any evidence, you put forward claims about what I think, such as this one:
“Of course you disagree with the positions taken by the science academies and organizations”
I’ve said nothing that would allow you to make this claim, yet you can’t help yourself – you just make up opinions of sceptics and then argue against them, whether the sceptic makes a claim or not.
You ask which websites you should go to. I suggest you don’t bother. What you do – make up caricatures of sceptic arguments, and then argue against these absurd straw men – you could do locked in a room without an internet connection, all on your lonesome. The net contribution to humanity, and the climate debate, would be about equal.
The best place to find great sceptic articles is actually the scientific literature. But for that, you’d need to have sufficient background and training in science to be able to read and understand the articles. And that isn’t going to happen any time soon.
[Spence, wordpress puts comments with more than one link into moderation. Your comment is up now.]
It is a pity that this thread below such a thoughtful poem has been coarsened by Geoff Price, but at least we are having a bit of fun with him. He reminds me a bit of a chap I knew in a workplace long ago. We called him the gusher, and folks when in bored or playful mood would compete to get the torrent going over lunch. Kudos points were gained by doing it with innocent sounding remarks rather than by any of several well known triggers. But when folks had work to discuss or merely sought a congenial lunch break, he was given a wide berth. I reckon he must have thought we were all vexatious or ill-informed types!
GeoffMPrice, nope, my name is nothing to do with the effect of CO2. Boing. You can make all the fun of it you like… but it refers to my CO2 footprint. It’s a bit of an exaggeration, and should really be SmallCO2 but Tiny was my favourite Clanger.
As pointed out, you started the snark with “You guys are hilarious. And fascinating.” Or are you pretending it was a compliment? Raff and ATTP have form so can give as good as they get. You are not here to understand or merely discuss, your comments make it clear you’re here to snark. Own it.
It seems your justification for coming here is for a return visit from Paul, fair enough but it doesn’t explain why you’d waste your time here rather than helping the cause somewhere more productive. Come on mate, the planet is at risk and you’re having a cat fight with sceptics? Surely the end of the World demands something more grownup? Or is the truth just that you like to bitch at strangers and don’t give a damn about CO2?
Shade shows his sadistic side. Not such a nice chap after all…
This thread demonstrates nicely, as Spence says, how the critics of climate change sceptics “make up caricatures of sceptic arguments, and then argue against these absurd straw men”. They also make up caricatures of sceptics themselves – or at least come to the debating table with a pre-formed notion of what their opponent is and what motivates them, informed by the likes of people like Oreskes , Cook and Lewandowsky. When they’re not doing the above, or even whilst doing it, they like to patronise and insult those with whom they disagree. Nothing good can come of these exchanges. Only increasing scientific knowledge and the continuing observation of the real world will settle this debate once and for all. Amen. Praise be to Gaia. 🙂
Mr. Price, Lucia Liljegren is not a skeptic but her blog The Blackboard usually hosts a robust conversation involving the whole spectrum of opinion on climate change.
Quite a remarkable thread really. I don’t think anyone has even attempted a constructive exchange with Geoff, despite his comments appearing quite measured (by which I mean he has avoided any serious snark or insults, not that his comments are necessarily correct). Instead there has been insult after insult. There’s also a definite sense that those throwing out the insults either think they aren’t doing so, or they are but it’s justified because it’s true, or it’s because someone else was rude to them in the past; a sense that somehow Geoff (and me, I guess) are responsible for all unpleasant things that have been done and said by anyone you decide is on our side, even if we don’t know who these people might be, what they actually did, or would agree with them if we did. So, I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly with this
No, Raff, it was more kindness than anything else. Here was a boorish, and arrogant oaf who treated others with various degrees of disdain and even contempt. A bit like yourself, aTTP, and GeoffMPrice. But we spoke with him, just as a different we is willing to speak with you and your chums here from time to time. We are neither powerful nor all-knowing, and we may yet learn something from you other than insights into your various personalities. So, you have been welcomed here, and given space to share your thoughts. Patience has its limits, and we are not saints, but we do want to listen to many views as, in the memorable allusion of Geoff Chambers on another thread, we watch the juggernaut of CO2 alarmism trundle over us while we nip at its heels and poke our feeble sticks at it.
I just hunted down Geoff’s ‘allusion’, and it was more interesting and nuanced than I had recalled:
ATTP, this thread is not nearly as remarkable as your two recent threads on ending climate antagonism. I’ve never seen such unanimous agreement on the concept that antagonism can only end when skeptics shut up.
echo… echo… echo…
What has my comment got to do with me and my blog? Also your interpretation of the threads on my post appears largely inconsistent with what was actually said, but that’s not really a great surprise. I appreciate that misrepresenting what others has said is a quite an effective tactic (since you can then argue against what you claim they said, rather than what they actually said) but it’s not hugely constructive; again, not a surprise.
ATTP, you write, “I appreciate that misrepresenting what others has said is a quite an effective tactic (since you can then argue against what you claim they said, rather than what they actually said)”
I know. We all know. You do appreciate that.
And you’re illustrating it again, which – I assume – was not intentional (but I can’t really tell).
Ah, and then there’s Ken.
No Ken. Until Geoff actually *listened to a sceptics argument* and responded to those instead of caricatures of sceptic points, no constructive discussion was ever going to be possible. Arguing with Geoff is a bit like arguing with bizarre absolute guy:
There really is no value in it, even on a level of discussing generalities. And specific technical discussions would be pointless as well – can you imagine me trying to discuss my favoured climate model (Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics) with someone like Geoff? Actually, you don’t have to imagine it – just recall the time I tried to discuss it with you, and you got yourself in a terrible mess because it was clear you didn’t even understand the basics of what I was talking about. That was the meltdown you had ending with you banning Paul for correctly pointing out what a boundary problem actually was on your blog after you got it wrong. Yeah, there really is no value at all in going through that again with Geoff.
Oh and thanks to the moderator for digging my comment out of the spam bin! Much appreciated.
Having tried to discuss this with you, I agree that it is pointless. Think about this for a moment. Largely anonymous online person (you, in case that isn’t obvious) promotes a climate model that is almost certainly wrong and probably violates the basic laws of physics, but somehow thinks they know better than actual experts. So, yes, there isn’t much point in discussing such a topic with such an individual. It’s possible that they may turn out to be a polymath who has noticed something that vast numbers of people who spend decades working on this topic have missed, but I wouldn’t be willing to bet on it. I’m being quite serious when I suggest you think about this for a moment. Maybe you have immense confidence in your abilities and genuinely believe that you are somehow cleverer than huge numbers of people who have spent careers working on this. On the other hand, you could consider what such a belief might imply.
You might want to consider the irony of this
I think you may be exaggerating slightly (shock, horror, what a surprise). As I’ve pointed out here before (and can’t be bothered finding it again) I think I was a little too generous to Paul in that instance. Technically it is true that in hydrodynamics the term “boundary conditions” has quite a precise meaning. However, in this context the way in which I was using it is essentially the same as is used by many who work in this field. I was referring to the conditions that constrain/bound the system. You can read this if you want to learn more. I did actually point that out in my response to Paul (which most people choose to ignore; again, shock, horror, what a surprise) but I also realised that actually attempting to have a serious discussion with Paul is entirely pointless.
This is essentially the point I was getting at in my earlier comment. It’s fairly clear that most here are simply not interested in having any kind of discussion and find all sorts of reasons to simply dismiss what others are saying. That’s fine and I’m not suggesting that you do otherwise. However, what’s slightly strange is that most seem to be unwilling to even acknowledge that they’re doing so. What’s also strange is you somehow seem to think that you have this amazing open comment policy. That’s great, apart from the fact that anyone who posts a comment that doesn’t toe the party line here is simply dismissed or insulted, or both. I find that rather disingenuous.
[PM: It seems that you still don’t know what a boundary condition is. It is not something that has a precise meaning “in hydrodynamics”. It has a clear meaning in throughout mathematics and physics. That’s why I was amazed at a physicist making this mistake.
Technical discussions would indeed be pointless, with someone who doesn’t seem to understand basic terminology that is taught to first-year undergraduates.
And again you make a fool of yourself by claiming that we are the ones not interested in discussion, when we allow you to comment here while you’ve banned me and others from commenting at your blog.
You are the one who is not interested in having a discussion. As illustrated by your latest comment to Tom, accusing him of doing ‘it’ again, without saying what ‘it’ is, when all he was doing was quoting you.]
In what way does “having a precise meaning in hydrodynamics” preclude it from having a precise meaning in mathematics and physics? Your response appears illogical. Also, if you read the link that I provided you might discover that there are numerous conditions that constrain/bound the long-term evolution of our climate, which is what I was trying to discuss. In fact, you could read this too, in addition to the Steve Easterbrook link. There are many people who presumably amaze you; I guess they’re all wrong. On the other hand, you could continue picking on a single situation a year or so ago to illustrate your amazement at my supposed mistake, while entirely ignoring the point that was being made. Pedantry at its best.
You’re rather missing my point (what a surprise). Allowing people to comment on your blog does not imply that you’re interested in having a discussion; especially as the norm here is to simply insult and dismiss those with whom you disagree. Yes, I have banned certain people, but those are people who appeared to not be interested in having any kind of constructive discussion (this probably being a case in point) and with whom I suspected I was no longer capable of having a constructive discussion. What continues to amaze me is why people who seem to think so poorly of me seem bothered by me having banned them. If it bothered you so much, why not behave in a manner that makes me think I was wrong to do so, rather than in a manner that makes me think it was entirely justified. As I’ve already mentioned, you seem incapable of having a discussion with someone with whom you disagree without smearing them in some way, so why would I possible want to have you commenting on my blog?
No, this isn’t all he did. He then editorialised in a way that mis-represented what I was saying. This is obvious, so why would you suggest otherwise? The question is rhetorical, obviously.
OK, will try putting tags in here, if I mess them up I will repost!
Here Ken, as usual, you do the usual thing of omitting key information which shows your claim to be unsupported. Yes, I am largely anonymous. That is true. I promote HK dynamics as the only correct way to understand the earth’s climate. This is also true. And I don’t expect anyone to go researching a whole topic just because some anonymous person on the internet says it is true. After all, there’s a lot of dross on the internet; just look at your site, for starters.
The key piece of information that you omit is that even though I am an anonymous person promoting this online, I am most certainly not the originator of the model. The model originates from the peer-reviewed literature, where it is extensively described by eponymous authors.
Of course, it is entirely possible that those eponymous authors, and their reviewers, entirely missed why the model should be “almost certainly wrong and probably violates the basic laws of physics”, as you wrote. Peer review isn’t perfect. In which case you are at complete liberty to write an article and submit it, explaining exactly which laws of physics it breaks. Given your competence on the topic though, that simply isn’t going to happen.
What on earth are you talking about? In *any* field that requires solution of differential equations, the term boundary conditions has a very specific meaning. The idea that a field which uses differential equations would redefine it to mean something else in addition to its normal meaning is nuts. Can you imagine the confusion it would cause?
The single most obvious boundary condition in a climate model is the *ground*, which is a Dirichlet boundary condition. The things you listed really aren’t boundary conditions at all in a meaningful circulation model (with the sole exception of insolation, which is – note Paul’s comment doesn’t pick this out, so Paul is right here). So Paul is absolutely correct that your claim about boundary conditions is wrong.
So you list two blog posts to “prove” other people make the same mistakes as you – oops sorry – is in use by other people in the way you used it. I searched the first article by Easterbrook for albedo to see if he uses this one – and the word albedo doesn’t occur. He also doesn’t really spell out boundary *conditions* much, instead talking about boundary *values* (the results from the model constrained by boundary conditions) – these are different things, and do not support your usage of boundary *conditions*. So Steve’s article certainly doesn’t support your contention that your usage is correct.
As a side note, Steve’s article is incredibly sloppy, again by omission. He waffles about boundary values, boundary conditions and chaos, and then goes on to declare that the long term averages become stable in climate due to the boundary conditions. But this claim is only true if the system is a Markovian process. It is absolutely not true if the system is a Hurst-Kolmogorov process. His omission of this point undermines his entire article, because for long term averages to be stable he needs a Markovian process, yet all of the evidence points towards climate being a Hurst-Kolmogorov (fractal) process. Oops.
The RealClimate article you link to doesn’t help either. This article is less sloppy on technical terms in comparison to Steve’s article, but still doesn’t support your contention. Again, albedo doesn’t make the list as a boundary condition. The article is much more vague and mealy-mouthed about long term averages, it kind of hedges its bets by hand-waving about how boundary conditions are constantly changing (oh dear). Unsurprisingly, the need for the climate to be a Markovian process to have meaningful long term averages is not discussed. No surprise there then!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes I know. I didn’t say anything otherwise and this doesn’t change my point. There’s lots of peer-reviewed literature out there. Choosing a bit of it that suits your narrative doesn’t suddenly make your view credible. You’re still promoting something that is almost certainly wrong and that may well violate the basic laws of physics while mocking and insulting anyone who appears to disagree with you.
These might be just blog posts, but they are written by people who are noted experts in the field of climate modelling.
Try actually reading it
Hmm, so he not only refers to what I think is albedo, he also appears to use boundary value and boundary condition inter-changeably. Maybe it’s just me, but your kind of pedantry is rather tedious. Believe it or not, I’m well aware of what a boundary values and boundary conditions are. If you bothered to read any the links with an open mind, you might discover something about the conditions that constrain/bound our climate on long-timescales. That was the context of the discussion I was having. If you think that some pedantry from you and Paul suddenly invalidates the basic point, then your idea of how to have a constructive discussion is very different to my own. Are you too scared to think about this any more deeply in case it challenges your views too much?
Actually, I probably highlighted the wrong bit above. I should probably have highlighted “the amount of energy received from the Sun”, rather than the amount radiated back into space from the Earth.
I guess you could read this one too:
Oh dear, here we go again. I did read it.
Firstly, albedo is radiation reflected from a surface, not radiation emitted from a surface. Knowing that kind of helps to begin with.
Secondly, radiation emitted REALLY can’t be a boundary condition. If it is, then the climate model is seriously messed up. It’s to do with how the whole greenhouse effect works in the first place. It is kind of fundamental to what a climate model is supposed to be calculating, that the outgoing radiation responds to changes in the greenhouse gas concentrations.
Note your last link is also wrong, modern climate models don’t even treat long lived greenhouse gas concentrations as boundary conditions, this is explained in the RealClimate article you already linked (yep you linked to two articles that contradict each other – nice one!), but to treat a short lived greenhouse gas as a boundary condition would be a farce (you know, like water vapour, the single most important greenhouse gas in our atmosphere). Well okay GCMs attempts at modelling the hydrological cycle are a farce anyway, but even more so. Here’s a clue why: a boundary condition cannot be a feedback. So no, neither atmospheric concentration nor greenhouse gas concentrations are boundary conditions in climate models.
Of course, in spite of all of this, the models are nothing like the actual climate anyway, so all this is moot, but even within the bounds of modelling for modelling’s sake you’re wrong on all counts. But well done on finding links which contradict each other and are just as wrong as you are.
Oh and in my rush to laugh at Ken for his climate model where earths emitted radiation to space is a boundary condition and disconnected from the temperature of the atmosphere, I nearly forgot this nonsense:
Of course, Ken. This is how science is done. Scientists get in a room and point at each others work and say “that may well violate the laws of physics”. No analysis, no quantification, just, you know, gut feel. I mean, you don’t really need to know *which* laws of physics are violated, or why, just some laws, or something.
It really is priceless, although I often can’t decide whether to cringe or laugh each time you write something, it is so far divorced from actual scientific reasoning.
There are over 100 comments on this thread. Most of them are by, or in response to, two commentators who distract from the topic of the thread. The first part of Clive James’s poem is about predicted imminent catastrophes failing to happen. If he was talking utter rot, they would have been along to point out the evidence that contradicted what Clive James was saying. But there is no evidence. When I challenged ATTP on the very similar subject of short-term predictions by the climate community that were true he avoided the subject with vitriolic comments. Yet, if a complex subject like climatology or economics to say something meaningful about the real world, there needs to be some evidence independent of the words of the proponents. The trolling comments that distract from the post are thus a confirmation of the last three lines.
Look through the blog posts that are heavily hit by trolling. There are at least two types. One is where the evidence contradicts climate alarmism. Another is where climate alarmists are called out for have highly prejudiced opinions. The need for trolling to shut down comments confirms that climatology has long been a failed research programme. It will die out without the legions of dogmatists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting hypotheses, MANICBC. I have sometimes wondered if the trollers troll so much more when a sore point has been touched. Some deliberate experimentation would help answer this, but who could be bothered to do it? We let them have space here, but we should be sparing with our time. Unless in sportive or in sparring mood perhaps?
It is an odd hypothesis that “trolling” (i.e. comments from the likes of me or ATTP) shuts down comments. If anything it seems to encourage more. But it is probably as good a hypotheses as is likely to come from a “skeptic”.
It is unreasonable and probably illegal to expect Raff to exist on a similar level of intellectual capability.
The post was truncated. For all Raff’s rhetoric, his intellect is not up to the mark. He ought not to speak of things he does not comprehend, which, in effect, means everything on the planet that Phil Clarke and other SkS twats have not already despoiled with their thuggishness. Thuggish, brutal and laughably innefective. Clowns.
RAFF provides a good example of trolling – changing the argument.
The purpose of trolling is not to stop comments, but to divert away from the topic. From the Wikipedia article on Internet Trolls :-
This is in complete contrast to debating, by arguing for a different perspective, or pointing out inadequacies in the argument advanced.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can easily eliminate any “divert[ing] away from the topic” by not responding to comments you consider off topic. Why don’t you? There’s few enough of you that you could agree not to be diverted if you wanted. I conclude that you don’t want to.
Why do you divert from the topic of conversation? After all, if you are the side of science, why not enlighten us sceptics of the truths to which we sceptics are ignorant?
You also seem to have a completely different comprehension of what this blog is about to what I have. You seem to think it is about providing a united front. I believe it is to exchange ideas and thus further our understanding of the issues. In my view, even after much discussion a range of views can still be reasonably held. If the sceptics here agreed behind the scenes on a consensus we may eventually degenerate to the level of the Lewandowsky / Cook consensus views.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Manic please tell me where on this thread I have diverted from the topic, other than answering comments or criticisms from the true followers of the blog.
As to providing a united front, you cannot. The authors and true followers (as opposed to us “trolls”) of this blog could never write an agreed position on climate science that they could unite behind.
You diverted from the topic 27 Mar 16 at 11:12 pm. The comment was in relation to you comment of 27 Mar 16 at 5:41 pm, not the subject of the article. You are trolling to defend your trolling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A short example of trolling is provided by RAFF 18 Mar 16 at 8:39 pm
Calling people ignorant is inflammatory, and likely to start arguments, especially when the claim is not defined. So RAFF, are you trolling? Are you going to enlighten us to what the mystery X actually is?
If it is a long piece, then it could be posted here as a guest article. If not I could post it on my blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Manic, X = climate science, rather obviously.
since climate science is an area patrolled by people without obvious qualifications and notorious charlatans, what is the problem? Charlatans such as Gavin Schmidt, Jim Hansen, Stefan Rahmsdorf, Nicky Stern and rogues such as Grant Foster et al…. the world is safe in their hands….LMFAO
It is so hot in Siberia now. How wiill the mammoths survive?
that is why climate scientivists use anomalies….temps seem alarming in terms of anomalies, but they are still colder than a sceptic’s arse in Siberia. Scientivists just want to scare people. perhaps Raff will explain why? But I guess Raff struggles to exlain how his trousers stay in place. See, Raff, I am cutting you slack although you are a moron.
The definition of Climatology / Climate Science is at Wikipedia.
How does a subject that has utterly failed in its predictions qualify being a science?
A proper answer would reference those who have thought about the question, or have been successful in the subject. That is the philosophers of science (e.g. logical positivists, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos & Feyeraband) or successful scientists such as Richard Feynman & Freeman Dyson. Thomas Kuhn found that failed research programmes have a habit of turning inwards with ad hoc defenses.
RIP Clive James.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Clive James RIP indeed. Clive and I conversed briefly by email about the leak of Climategate emails. I recall one saying of his “Common sense and a sense of humour are the same thing, moving at different speeds” and have wondered if this explains the prevalence of humour in sceptical sites (and its near absence from warmist ones).
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s a lovely quote from a great man Alan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Watch an extraordinary man spin ordinary words, seemingly effortlessly, into gold.
The Guardian will of course bury his climate scepticism so deep it could reach his home Australia.
LikeLiked by 1 person