Irony

The New Scientist (“new” in most magazine titles meaning “socialist”) has yet another whole issue aimed at slamming climate skeptics.  You might start to think they felt threatened or something.

I found the cover hugely ironic:

The implication I guess is that climate skeptics are somehow trying to silence real scientists.  This is enormously ironic.  With a couple of exceptions, including the unfortunate legal crusade by the Virginia AG against Michael Mann, it is climate alarmists rather than skeptics who have generally taken the position that the other side of the debate needs to be silenced.

By the way, as I said in the intro to my last video, I have chosen to embrace the title of denier – with one proviso.  Being a denier implies that one is denying some kind of proposition, so I am sure thoughtful people would agree that it is important to be clear on the proposition that is being denied.  For example, I always found the term “climate denier” to be hilarious.  You mean there are folks who deny there is a climate?

I don’t deny that climate changes – it changes all the time.  I don’t deny there is global warming – global temperatures are higher today than they were in 1900, just as they were higher in 1200 AD than they were in 900.  I don’t even deny that man is contributing somewhat to the warming, not just from CO2 but from effects like changes in land use.  What I deny is the catastrophe — that man’s actions are leading to catastrophic changes in the climate.  I believe many scientists have grossly over-estimated the sensitivity of temperatures to CO2 by grossly overestimating the net positive feedback in the climate system.  And I think much of the work assigning consequences to even small increases in global temperatures – from tornadoes to hurricanes to lizard extinction – is frankly crap.  While I think the first mistake (around sensitivity) is an honest error, some day scientists will look back on the horrendous “science” of the consequences of warming and be ashamed.

It strikes me that a real scientific magazine that was actually seeking truth would, if it wanted to dedicate a whole issue to the climate debate, actually create a print debate between skeptics and alarmists to educate its readers.  If the alarmist case is so obvious, and its readers so smugly superior in their intellect, surely this would be the most powerful possible way to debunk skeptics.  Instead, the New Scientist chose, in a phrase I saw the other day and loved, to take a flamethrower to a field of straw men.

For those who want to watch the straw men go up in smoke, The Reference Frame has an index to the articles in this issue.

  • Garry

    New Scientist has been flogging the AGW straw man for a long time. Here’s a sampling of article from the December 2, 2000 issue (that’s not a typo, from the year “two thousand”). Even 10 years ago, they loved “carbon,” carbon sequestration, and carbon trading, all of which are joyously touted in the articles below:

    #
    Title:Time to come clean.(Hague climate talks)(Brief Article)
    Detail:168.2267 (Dec 2, 2000): p3. (833 words)

    #
    Title:A broken pact.(talks between U.S. and Europe)(Brief Article)
    Detail:168.2267 (Dec 2, 2000): p4. (1018 words)

    #
    Title:Grim prospects.(environmental law conference)(Brief Article)
    Detail:168.2267 (Dec 2, 2000): p5. (317 words)

    #
    Title:Glad to be green?(attitudes on global warming)(Brief Article)
    Detail:168.2267 (Dec 2, 2000): p6. (497 words)

    #
    Title:Why the world must stop and count its carbon.(Brief Article)
    Detail:168.2267 (Dec 2, 2000): p6. (280 words)

  • shills

    ‘It strikes me that a real scientific magazine that was actually seeking truth would, if it wanted to dedicate a whole issue to the climate debate, actually create a print debate between skeptics and alarmists to educate its readers.’

    It strikes me that if a denier really cared enough about climate change skepticism to create a blog for it, he might also have the time to submit a paper on it.

    I know you’d love a debate because that can portray the argument as even sided, which it is not.

  • Wally

    Good lord shills, have you not realized Meyer is mostly posting “news” and/or other’s research while providing some criticism and analysis? He isn’t doing his own basic research here, at least not much of it.

    “I know you’d love a debate because that can portray the argument as even sided, which it is not.”

    Please, prove this claim would you? Or are you just trying to incite the crowd as all trolls do?

  • Waldronic

    Ironic? Why yes. Although I suspect a better word for Mr. Meyer’s blog and the entire deniosphere is ‘hyporcritical.’

    It would seem that Mr. Meyer wants to cast stones but is incensed when someone else does. As I’ve posted before, discrediting works both ways. And I know this makes denialists like Mr. Meyers, Wally, ADiff and the rest of the tribe – who propagate a good deal of accusatory but unsubstantiated propaganda – rather mad when they are under the microscope. It’s the old maxim: Preach hate and you get hate back.

    But this, “It strikes me that if a denier really cared enough about climate change skepticism to create a blog for it, he might also have the time to submit a paper on it,” is completely unfair, Shills. How do you expect Mr. Meyers to actually research a write paper when he has a full-time job, a family, a novel he’s trying to sell, and a blog? Hell, he doesn’t even have time to read the posts on his blog! What can you expect?

    What’s happening, folks, is that the scientists are fighting back in the same medium that the denialists have been using for several years now. Something that apparently makes the deniosphere pretty irate. See below if you dare, tribe:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc&feature=player_embedded#

  • Shills

    Wally,

    Haven’t you seen his video, or his layman’s guide to global warming? He seems to have some ideas he wants to communicate about the science. If they are not his own ideas, he doesn’t ref. them much.

    ‘Please, prove this claim would you? Or are you just trying to incite the crowd as all trolls do?’

    which claim?

  • Shills

    Waldo,

    ‘is completely unfair, Shills. How do you expect Mr. Meyers to actually research a write paper when he has a full-time job, a family, a novel he’s trying to sell, and a blog?’

    I see your point. But he has managed to write a 90 page publication, make a feature length video , and do at least one media interview on this subject. Obviously he has done a lot of reading on the subject and feels confident enough to do what he has. If he has the time for all this, why can’t he submit a paper?

  • Shills

    To clarify Waldo. the 90 p. publication I refer to is not the novel he wrote.

  • Wally

    Shills,

    Everything I’ve seen is very well referenced where needed, not really sure what you think you’re seeing.

    “which claim?”

    Wow, that stupid huh shills? The claim located right above, the one that I quoted… You know…“I know you’d love a debate because that can portray the argument as even sided, which it is not.”

    You made a claim, prove it.

  • Waldally

    Sorry Shills, I was being factious about Mr. Meyer’s work.

    Mr. Meyer has absolutely no intention of submitting his ideas to peer review because, despite everything, Mr. Meyer is a highly intelligent man and knows full well nothing he produces would survive professional scrutiny. The blog is a relatively safe haven, particularly if one does not read the comments.

    I have often wondered if the deniosphere attracts frustrated science types who would like to take part in a scientific debate of some kind but lack viability. There are any number of posters here who make claims to being engineers or scientists or researchers that, when questioned or their claims examined, appear to be anything but and generally disappear after said examination. I suspect the blogosphere allows people to feel like they are taking part in a vast scientific exercise as if they really were government or university researchers. Kind of sad, really.

    And what do you expect, Wally? Shills made what I think is a fairly accurate albeit generalized comment about the deniosphere – the “proof” you are looking for is all over these threads. CS and its associates love the idea of “debate” because they can produce a good deal of “information” which, on first glance, appears legitimate. Look back at the C3 comments on the “Bad Idea” thread – perfect example that.

    Don’t sweat it, Shills, to simply be pedantic about unimportant things is one of Wally’s tactics on these threads – I’d just ignore him.

    Cheers.

  • ADiff

    As usual the ‘defenders’ of catastrophic Global Warming aren’t defending the science, not only because they simply can’t, but also because to them it’s not about science, it’s about ideology. The need to try to marginalize and silence the critics of one’s viewpoint instead of answering the mounting evidence that’s the only ‘denier’ that matters, merely makes clear GCW’s advocates are ideologists defending a political position which, to them at least, has assumes the role of a Religion in their view of themselves, and the Universe.

    Meyer’s is a commentator and analyst; a reporter of developments increasingly contrary to most, if not all, of the speculative predictions of dangerous warming, putatively from increased CO2 levels, and various speculative catastrophic impacts therefrom. All of these predictions are being decisively disproved by a mounting volume of reputable and through scientific studies. Yet, for various reasons, a large community of politically motivated advocates for these dire ‘the sky is falling’ predictions, clings to them and tries to defend with rhetoric and sophism, using every propaganda ploy and logical fallacy ‘in the book’ a premature speculation increasingly discredited because of their emotional attachment to its political usefulness in pursuit of their statist, and yes, socialistic, agendas.

    Sorry guys, this tale’s just about spun out. The ‘threat’ of Global Warming is rapidly evaporating, and any consensus that it calls for some kind of drastic action is losing favor in accelerating fashion.

    All that’ll be left of ‘Global Warming’ before too long is just a Dog & Pony show by the politicians, anodyne enough not to threaten, but presented for the benefit of those moronic ‘true believers’ who’ll cling, in gradually dwindling numbers, to the ‘True Faith’.

    And in the end the Losers will be Academia’s public credibility, the reputation of ‘Science’ for objectivity and political secularism, and the Environmental Movement in general.

  • Paul A

    “All of these predictions are being decisively disproved by a mounting volume of reputable and through scientific studies.”

    Care to name some of these studies? Please note, for my purposes the most reliable scientific studies are those that are peer reviewed. Works of pop science and blog ‘science’ don’t have much value.

  • Doug

    The credibility of Climate Science within other scientific disciplines was never that high anyway. Well done ADiff for setting it out exactly as I see it. Thank you.

    Only thing I would add is that credibility has a lot in common with virginity. Once you have lost it – you cannot get it back.

    I would only differ on one small point and that is true scientists have felt for some time that the shenanigans with the data and code and the hiding of data etc is an embarrassment to science in general.

    So yes the consensus is evaporating, but the ground swell is more than that. It is just a matter of time.

    The Trolls can flag up and wiz round all the sceptic sites under the sun – but it matters not a jot. Because a troll is a troll and a believer and someone who asks questions is a scientist and a scientist is by definition – sceptical.

    Faith has no place in science – Climate Science is too politicised and influenced by proponents of the Catastrophe theory. I almost wish Exxon were paying me to write this and be of a sceptical mind – but I can assure everyone that no one pays me anything for my having a point of view.

    Contrast that to the Public Funding of Climate “Research” and you can see where the gravy train is running.

  • On every single topic I know anything about, the NS has always shown itself inaccurate if not misleading (sort of the print edition of BBC’s Tomorrow’s World). Glad to see they haven’t changed a bit…

  • hunter

    Defending the idea that we are experiencing a climate catastrophe due to CO2 is endless entertainment provided by the true believers for free. Now how great is that?

  • Shills

    ‘ Well done ADiff for setting it out exactly as – I see – it. Thank you.’

    Cute.

    ‘The Trolls can flag up and wiz round all the sceptic sites under the sun – but it matters not a jot.’

    Denier sites, not ‘sceptic sites’ to be accurate. Most skeptical groups support AGW science I think. And if my trolling doesn’t matter a bit, well then okay, at least the world outside of these blogs seems to be acting (kinda) against global warming.

  • All of these claims and counter-claims lack a grounding in facts, which are quite simple. The “hockey stick” is falsified by the divergence of recent tree-ring proxies with the instrumental record, and the divergence of tree-ring proxies with geological and botanical evidence during the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Ages. Simply put, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny during the entire 1300-year period it purports to depict.
    Obviously, if it’s been warmer naturally in the past, there is no compelling evidence that current warming is not natural.

  • Waldinger

    ****”because to them it’s not about science, it’s about ideology”

    You are correct, ADiff, we are worried about your ideology. In fact, the only reason that blogs such as this one exist is because of your ideology. The only thing fueling blogs such as this one is ideology.

    The rest of ADiff’s post and the ones that follow are more of the same generalized, unsupported, inaccurate commentary that is so familiar by this time. By the way, ADiff there is very, very little actual “science” on any of these posts or their commentary. Most of thee “developments increasingly contrary” come from pretty dubious sources. Mike, Doug, and Maritzio all make unsupported statements about the state of climate science – none of which they prove in any way – and this certainty only exists if one stays safely in the deniosphere.

    I was thinking about going back through the blog and tallying which posts have any “science” in them, where the “science” comes from, and which are simply propaganda. That might be interesting at some point.

    Thus we might question this comment:

    ****”decisively disproved by a mounting volume of reputable and through scientific studies”

    Share some? Post some links.

    And, while you’re at it, discredit this (some interesting points about Lindzen):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc&feature=player_embedded#

    As I posted earlier, the deniosphere is now experiencing some of its own medicine, and the deniosphere does not like the taste of it at all.

  • Boros

    Breaking News

    Download complete APA explanation for all the GW hoopla — Amazing stuff!

    http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change-booklet.pdf

  • Doug

    Oh deary deary me.

    Glad that I annoyed a believer!

    “Shills:
    ‘ Well done ADiff for setting it out exactly as – I see – it. Thank you.’

    Cute.

    ‘The Trolls can flag up and wiz round all the sceptic sites under the sun – but it matters not a jot.’

    Denier sites, not ’sceptic sites’ to be accurate. Most skeptical groups support AGW science I think. And if my trolling doesn’t matter a bit, well then okay, at least the world outside of these blogs seems to be acting (kinda) against global warming.”

    Once again we see the spittle spluttering swively eyed believers having to attack.

    As for the “world outside these blogs” – do you read what is happening or do you just refer to the AGW mutual admiration society?

    Oh and yes – thanks – I am kinda cute! ;0)

  • Shills

    ‘Sup Dougie,

    I wouldn’t call my response an ‘annoyed’ ‘attack’, more a correction.

    Not sure whatcha readin’, but instead of telling me, I strongly recommend you refer all the AGW experts to it so they can get wind of what you smart guys have come up with.

  • ron from Texas

    A Diff was right. It is typical rhetoric from the alarmists. They can’t prove their soi-disant “scientific” theory so they attack the person who dares to be a skeptic. Childish sandbox shenanigans like “Well, why aren’t you doing research, or this, or that, or 9 other things? The answer, people like him, or even myself, we have to work for a living to afford the socialist state that you want.

    Instead, why don’t you prove the basic tenets of your theory. But you can’t use “what ifs.” You have to use hard data, thermodynamics, basic laws of science and logic. I predict that you will not be able to and will engage in more polemic, usually addressed at anyone who does not accept corrupted computer games, I mean, models as scientific “proof.” As time goes by, it will be revealed that you are simply socialists looking for any way in to advance your political agenda. When this avenue closes off, you will find something else and the whole dance will start up again.

    I’ve been following these debates for over 2 years, now, and not a single person has been able to prove CAGW. They can calculate all they want and it depends on which formula you are using but not one single shred of proof, not one actual documented causal link. But I have seen 2 years of name-calling and character assassination on those who would dare to question the holy writ of CAGW.

  • Waldo definitely not from Texas

    Oh Ron,

    ****”Instead, why don’t you prove the basic tenets of your theory.”

    Certainly, Ron, you realize that there is a mountain of evidence.

    But just in case you haven’t run across this in your two whole years of research: http://www.ipcc-data.org/

    Or go to any library, public or university, ask the librarian for access to Ebscohost. Look up global climate change. You will find plenty’o’evidence there. You won’t do this, I know. But please don’t make egregious statements like the one above unless you first do even a little research. Or do, let the cyber-world see your thought process and your frank but unintended admission of ignorance.

    Is it “proven?” Don’t know – my best understanding is that, like all theories, scientists are pursuing the evidence and drawing conclusions from that. And the scientists, at least, are convinced. Bloggers who are supporting a socialist state (funny one that)? Not so much. That’s why I fall in with the scientists.

    And this: “Well, why aren’t you doing research, or this, or that, or 9 other things? The answer, people like him, or even myself, we have to work for a living to afford the socialist state that you want.”

    Cry me a river, Ron. We all have jobs (at least most of us, I suspect) and if you are too busy working to look up the evidence that is clearly out there, free, and only a mouse-click away, then suspend your opinion. If you don’t have the time to research a subject, let the professionals handle it.

  • Doug

    “Shills:
    ‘Sup Dougie,

    I wouldn’t call my response an ‘annoyed’ ‘attack’, more a correction.

    Not sure whatcha readin’, but instead of telling me, I strongly recommend you refer all the AGW experts to it so they can get wind of what you smart guys have come up with.”

    No – you are annoyed – why else would you bother? And you are clearly attacking anything that you see as disagreeing with your “belief” – heck! – you even see yourself as some sort “power” able to “correct” my heretical thinking ;0) – if it were not so tragic it would be funny.

    As for the “experts” – that is EXACTLY what is happening from now on. No more hiding behind pseudo religious belief systems where rather than publish the data we are expected to take someone’s word for it because “The scientists have spoken” – Remember that philosophy? – I do – it was mind numbingly puerile then as it is now.

    So if you want your belief system to prosper – I would be careful what you wish for – because everything your AGW “experts” produce now is going to be the subject of proper scrutiny. Not the Mutual Admiration Society Hockey Stick Club that combined secrecy with bad statistics.

    So yes – I am happy to wait. a) because I think the real climate (no pun intended) will do what it wants and prove over time that the models used by those who “believe” are over egging the problem and b) proper sceptical scientists are now looking at the data and will let the rest of us have the true picture. Something we all know we have been denied thus far.

    All I have to do is wait – I will make my mind up when the science is proven not based on models designed by those with a political agenda. I do not want a belief shoved down our throats by the likes of Hansen who is clearly politically motivated. In contrast what you have to do is wait and hope that the likes of Hansen have got it right. If they have – fine – if they are proved to have been working to an agenda and that past data is suspect – why they hell would anyone want to put faith is such so called “EXPERTS”?

    All they are “expert” at is fooling people and securing grant money to keep them on the gravy train.

    Those that support them (literally) without question are those that need some sort of catastrophe to make their life “whole”. This is a well documented fact that some people really do need to have such focus in their lives. The fear of AGW=Catastrophe provides that focus.

    Meanwhile – the rest of us just sit back and wait for the climate to do its thing (as it seems to be at the moment ;0) – and keep a sceptical mindset that ensures the hype does not overcome reality.

  • Charlie

    “Skeptics trying to silence real scientists”? Let’s begin with a bit of news. Al Gore is a politician-opportunist… not a “real scientist”.
    Then add the unfortunate fact that a lot of “real” scientists at universities (and the UN) have been bought (rented?) and lured into “adjusting the data” so they can get grants for “more studies are needed”. Dear readers, it’s all about money, power, and politics. Now that the truth is out, “real” scientist have sullied their reputations by fighting the facts rather than agreeing to go back and start all over again. Is it possible that “real scientists” are now trusted less than politicians and used car salesmen?

  • Waldie

    ****”All they are “expert” at is fooling people and securing grant money to keep them on the gravy train.”

    ***”the unfortunate fact that a lot of “real” scientists at universities (and the UN) have been bought (rented?) and lured into “adjusting the data” so they can get grants for “more studies are needed”. Dear readers, it’s all about money, power, and politics.”

    Prove either of these comments please? These are both very easy accusations to make. But can you substantiate it?

  • shills

    Dougie,

    ‘No – you are annoyed – why else would you bother? And you are clearly attacking anything that you see as disagreeing with your “belief” – heck! – you even see yourself as some sort “power” able to “correct” my heretical thinking ;0) – if it were not so tragic it would be funny.

    Nope. the stuff you have said is regurgitated all the time on these blogs. I don’t get annoyed about it any more. Just correcting ya. However, I still like ‘attacking’ your likes but I haven’t actually attacked you. But then, we might just be playin’ with semantics yo?

    Never said I was a ‘power’.

    you say: ‘ I will make my mind up when the science is proven not based on models designed by those with a political agenda’

    Lol. sounds like you’ve already made your mind up.

  • Wally

    Shills, I see you returned to the tread here, but haven’t cared to actually attempt to support your claims as asked. So can we all agree you’re just a troll…?

    Further, can we all just ignore this fool and like “minded” friend now?

  • Shills

    Wally,

    You want me to show that the science around AGW is generally one sided? No need brother. So many denier arguments are predicated on it. Like the idea that the experts are suffering from group-think, the peer-review system not publishing alternative ideas, the funding system not funding alternative ideas etc.

    you say: ‘Everything I’ve seen is very well referenced where needed, not really sure what you think you’re seeing.’

    perhaps you could show me where Meyer’s ref. list is for his layman’s guide?

  • Waldy

    ***”can we all just ignore this fool”

    And then please, Wally, post something about how GW scientists are trying to “silence the skeptics.”

    By the way, Shills, Wally tries his “you’re-just-a-troll” tactic when he’s frustrated.

  • Doug

    Oh deary deary me II

    I say:-

    “I will make my mind up when the science is proven not based on models designed by those with a political agenda”

    Shills responds:-

    “Lol. Sounds like you’ve already made your mind up.”

    Both feet, straight in – never even sees the irony or aware of it. (but given the Americanisms if I make the assumption that shills is from the USA then seeing as how our friends across the pond rarely do ;0)- perhaps it is understandable)

    But if not – it is amazing Shills – given the subject of the post.

    Why is it that those that “believe” whilst they obviously must be derived from the same gene pool as the rest of us, they insist of providing us with evidence that they we produced from the shallow end? Such that they are not “deep thinkers” and need simple beliefs and faith and the ability to refer us to their “Gods” to make them happy. When we sceptics have faith in our own ability to make our mind up and do not need the crutch of “belief”.

    The psychology of unquestioning belief is very much evident with these believers. We are in the presence of “missionaries” – not trolls!

    ;0)

  • Shills

    Dougster,

    Well snap man! I don’t get it. What Irony have I missed?

    FYI. I’m not from the land of the free. I’m a sun lovin’ larrikin with a gut full of ‘roo meat and a mouth full of expletives.

    And seeing as you might like psychology you should check out this from the American Psyc. Assoc.

    http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change-booklet.pdf

  • Wally

    Shills,

    So I guess when I make a claim in the future, and you doubt its factuality, I’ll just say there is no need to bother proving it because of some very general reasons. Will that make you happy?

    And shills, a little hint for you. In science no one cares how many people believe some, its the quality of the data and analysis that matter. So if you had 10,000 Manns and Jones, but just 2 Pielke and Lindzens armed with better data, better analysis and better logic, and have a one sided debate favoring the 2 over the 10,000. So no, your nonspecific support for you argument along the lines of “well skeptics wouldn’t argue for group think if it weren’t one sided” is not sufficient. That kind of argument assumes group think = one sided debate. This is not true, and not true for rigged peer review and granting either.

    But by all means, feel free to make up some other BS or crawl back into what ever hole you came from only to come up to make more blind claims.

    And as for the references, was there a specific part of that document you are unsure of? While he doesn’t have a references page, he does reference in the text. So again, what are looking at, specificly?

  • Dougster

    Wally – “In science no one cares how many people believe some, its the quality of the data and analysis that matter.”

    Well said that man!

    And Shills – thanks – I like the “Dougster”, and I am sure therefore that you won’t mind my nom de plume for you – “Shillyboy”.

    LOL!

  • ADiff

    Paul A.,

    Apparently you’re new to the site…. If not, you’re being disingenuous and dishonest. But I’ll assume the former for now. I’ve listed literally dozens of such references on this site in past. Rather than just post a huge list of redundant references, I’ll recommend you buy a copy of “Climate of Extremes” ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/1933995238 ) which is extensively and meticulously referenced to literally dozens of recent scientific publications on the topic of correlations between observed behaviors of various phenomena and the (apparently purely speculative) predictions of Dangerous Anthropomorphic Global Warming (DAGW) hypotheses. That one work will give you plenty to chew on.

    You also might want to review just the references in Mr. Meyer’s various presentations available on this site.

    All this assumes you actually want to take a look at the basis for the statements, and aren’t just throwing that out as another form of rhetorical dodge, for which I’m willing to credit at this point.

    It’s a good read and the referenced sources highly enlightening, although many are also quite technical. Enjoy!

  • ADiff

    I should also be noted again, I believe, that (at least for many of us here) it isn’t about whether or not there’s been a general warming trend, or that at least some of it appears attributable to increasing CO2 levels (the degree of which is still arguable, of course)….it’s the failure of observed data and detailed studies to show ANY trend consistent with the accuracy of the dire, ‘end of the world’, predictions of DAGW proponents, about droughts, increasing sea-level rise, dramatically increased ice cap melting, wild fires, increasing storm/precipitation/variability &etc ad nauseum….but quite the contrary, that none of these thing’s normal historic patterns appear correlated to warming or CO2 in any detectable way. Has there been warming? Yes, it would certainly appear so, since the end of the Little Ice Age. Is the rate accelerating, or rapid enough to represent a threat of any kind? No, except in some very limited special cases, having to do with threatened populations of some wildlife constrained by development from adaptive behavior. So the real bottom line is there is no crisis, no emergency, no impending disaster, no reason for extraordinary action.

    As far as the CW is concerned, it always takes it a while to catch up with changing developments…and when it does it can be counted on to react as if it were the original discoverer of something new and unprecedented…..as always.

    So my advice to DAGW advocates would be: try not to get run over by the bus when it leaves the station. Most will (as do the majority who more-or-less always follow the latest CW) just gradually adjust their views accordingly, but there’ll be a few who just can’t let go of something so closely aligned to the socio-political cockles of their hearts, so to speak…and will fight the changing CW to the bitter end.

    But like Mr. Zimmerman said: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows…”

  • Dougster

    ““You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows…”

    I thought that was Bob Dylan!”

    ;0)

    Great posts Adiff – well done – and thanks.

  • Justa Joe

    Waldo definitely not from Texas:

    Certainly, Ron, you realize that there is a mountain of evidence.

    I think Ron meant valid evidence not IPCC garbage.

  • Justa Joe

    In several years when CAGW is well and truly a universal laughing stock the climate cranks will have moved on to the next cause célèbre and will be DENYING or at least down playing that they ever were on the CAGW bandwagon.

    Then we’ll see some real denying.

  • Waldoe

    ****”Pielke and Lindzens armed with better data, better analysis and better logic”

    Actually, the more one looks into Lindzen the more one realizes he is cherry-picking and preaching his own brand of true believers (look at the link I posted above). Pielke is far more complex and tends to critique the science, not disavow it.

    ****” think Ron meant valid evidence not IPCC garbage.”

    How do you know it’s garbage, Joe? How do you know more than the IPCC scientists? Are you one of Wally’s new super-scientists, Joe? The single outlier who somehow generates better data and logic than the mass of world renown scientists of the IPCC? Clearly you are no mere Joe-the-Plumber!

  • Shills

    Wally,

    Your 10,000 vs 2 thing is missing the point. The debate is one sided in terms of expert supporters, despite/ before consulting the evidence–I’m not saying numbers = truth, merely that the numbers are one sided. And if you can’t see that then no one can help you.

    No reference list Wally!!? You think this is ‘well referenced’!? His in-text stuff barely exists and you know it. I’m not gonna waste time with your disingenuousness. I’d rather just wait for the time when one of your buddies releases a paper or two to support your denier theories. Still waiting…

  • Shills

    I should clarify. From prev. post. So I don’t get accused of pushing G. posts back. I mean papers that cast serious doubt on current AGW theory. And such a finding would prob. get a lot of attention in the scientific community and in the media, so it will be hard to miss.

  • Justa Joe

    “How do you know it’s garbage, Joe? How do you know more than the IPCC scientists?” – waldoe

    Have you been in a cave for the last year or so, or are you intentionally playing dumb? Even your fellow climate cranks are criticizing the IPCC. The IPCC is having to retract over inflated claims, revise, and review their report(s) almost daily. The IPCC has even had to establish an “independent” panel to dredge through the accumulated garbage. Much of the crap they’ve been publishing comes right out of wild eyed environmentalists pamphlets. Also don’t give me the IPCC are scientists BS. They’re basically an instrument of “environmental” groups.

    Selective Science Boy, Don’t go around calling out people for not being scientists. Your idiotic point is moot because there are plenty of scientists that disagree with CAGW. Go back to your paymasters and tell them your blog counter-attack is failing miserably. Tides foundation funding might be better spent elsewhere on softer targets.

  • Waldjoe

    ****”Have you been in a cave for the last year or so, or are you intentionally playing dumb? Even your fellow climate cranks are criticizing the IPCC. ”

    Actually, Joe, I’ve been here on CS, learning a good deal about climate science and getting a good healthy dose of denialist mentality. What I might suggest is that you step out of the deniosphere. Opinions about the IPCC and the various people and agencies in question are not quite so dire once one steps out of the cyber-deniosphere.

    Could you be specific about which scientists and which challenges you are posting about? Let’s take a look at where you get your info from.

  • Wally

    Shills,

    But who cares is the numbers are one sided? We want the correct answer, not the popular answer. So, if you can’t see that numbers of catastrophic AGW supports vs. skeptics is besideds the point, no one can help you.

    “No reference list Wally!!? You think this is ‘well referenced’!? His in-text stuff barely exists and you know it.”

    Look, you need to bring up something specific, otherwise this all just hot air. Even better would be to go through his entire text and find the total number of claims requiring references and the percent that are actually referenced. Anything short of that is just you spewing your inflamatory unsupported BS.

    And you have to love the irony. You’re critical of Meyer’s supposed lack of references, but you haven’t reference a damned thing on this thread despite requests. You a hypocrit sir.

  • Shills

    Wally,

    you say: ‘So, if you can’t see that numbers of catastrophic AGW supports vs. skeptics is besideds the point, no one can help you.’

    it is relevant to my point. In terms of how the public interpret these things. Which is all I was ever talking about.

    You say: ‘Look, you need to bring up something specific, otherwise this all just hot air.’

    Hmm, nah. I think it would be obvious to just about anyone who compared Meyer’s stuff to a proper essay.

    You say: ‘You’re critical of Meyer’s supposed lack of references, but you haven’t reference a damned thing on this thread despite requests.’

    I don’t feel the need to ref. stuff which is prob. common knowledge to most peeps keeping up with the stuff, esp. like you.

  • Dougster

    How typical of a missionary “believer”!

    Shills states:-

    “I don’t feel the need to ref. stuff which is prob. common knowledge to most peeps keeping up with the stuff, esp. like you.”

    So here we have the true arrogance of someone who truly “believes” – who clearly thinks the rules, apply to everyone else but not, of course, to them.

    So what to do, when confronted with such faith?

    Use the reference sources they want to ignore. Previous posts identify reference sources and indeed they are available. Such as :-

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/1933995238#reader_1933995238

    And one I would recommend that has a wealth of reference sources clearly published, obtainable and verifiable.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Illusion-Climategate-Corruption-Science-Independent/dp/1906768358

    ………………….

    Is there anything more pathetic than someone of a dubious faith demanding that those sceptical of that “faith” provide proof and references, but when asked to do the same responds:-

    “I don’t feel the need to ref. ……….”

    Scared Shilless that their chickin little world is collapsing around them more like.

  • Shills

    Dougster,

    No one ref. common knowledge. A lot of what Meyer writes is not common knowledge. The rules apply to me just the same, you are just missing the difference.

    Those books you link to are prob. one step in front of Meyer in terms of referencing. That’s fine. But why don’t they publish these ideas through peer-review? And that has been my argument here from the start of this thread. Why doesn’t Meyer or those others publish something through peer-review?

  • Dougster

    The Climategate emails showed just how corrupt the peer review process had become within Climate reseach “circles”. A long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

    Other emails illustrate how those within the peer review “circle” embarked on a campaign to discredit peer-reviewed journals that dared publish studies which contradicted the man-made global warming hypothesis. To me these emails illustrate that the peer-review process is/was completely corrupted.

    Warmists can invoke “peer-reviewed studies” until they are blue in the face, but the fact is that the entire foundation of the argument has been debunked now it is proven that an inherent bias to censor unfavorable studies from appearing in such journals has been in place.

  • Shills

    Well, Dougster. If all the corruption is so plain to see, and has been since months ago, then why aren’t heads rolling? And if these corrupted journals have been caught out, wouldn’t they be playing nice now, under the gaze of watchdogs and the like? Maybe you fellas can submit a paper without fear now?

  • Dougster

    That is indeed happening. But we do need totally independent watchdogs – not interchangeable Poachers/Gamekeepers.

    However, we all want proper stats and proper peer review. Peer review works well only if those doing the peer review are open and honest. The evidence is clear that many in the field of Climate Change Science were politically biased to one end of the spectrum. Hence we sceptics not being that bothered about the Hockey Stick Club peer process and so taking our thoughts and data straight to the ultimate peer group.

    As for any “fear” factor re publishing – the fear was never there, never an issue. The truth will always out. And the barmy thing is that when you have Alarmists stating that Global Warming will fry us and that the Himalayan Glaciers will be gone by 2035 – and then these predictions do not happen, or are seen to be hyped up, those of a sceptical scientific mindset come to the fore, whereas the Alarmist spin falls away.

    As for the IPCC – it is a flawed politicised quango that needs the politicians and NGO’s out and true scientific discipline in. To say that the IPCC produces Peer reviewed science is daft when you look at what they passed off as being peer reviewed when in fact it was nothing of the sort.

    Like I say – it is only a matter of time. And sadly you Alarmists have to wait and hope for a catastrophe to pin your hopes on. Because unless we have some sort of climate calamity – you are all out of credibility.

    I became a sceptic when people scared of having to live in the real world wanted some doom laden prophecy to enable them to opt out and blame others started to politicise science to make their own gravy train.

    Whereas we realists can look at what is really happening and ponder the ratcheting down from Global warming to Climate change to Climate destabilisation.

    What will we have next Climate variability?

    Or will it all just boil down to the world becoming more like us Brits – being obsessed with the weather.

    Climate Change? – Always has done.

    Should we use resources better? – of course we should.

    Should we focus solely on restricting CO2 with all its associated costs to indigenous people and the developed world as well? – no because the models used thus far assume the worst case scenario and were written by people with a vested interest.