tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post2844897553789149625..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Denier weirdness: Anthony Watts is working through SkepticalScience denier memesSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32765098511591028842014-02-01T17:14:23.373+11:002014-02-01T17:14:23.373+11:00Anon wrote.
"Do you have some evidence that ...Anon wrote.<br /><br />"Do you have some evidence that Lindzen has ever made the argument that since climate has always been changing, we are not causing it?"<br /><br />What, apart from the quote which YOU provided? (Yes, he just gives all those examples of previous natural climate change to try and fool you )<br /><br />But what about this.<br /><br />"The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century."<br /><br />And this quote was just before the quote YOU provided on the 'hot-spot'. <br /><br />So what he is saying is that we are not causing it, it's all natural variation. Just the usual climate changing, just like it always has.<br /><br />But talk about being blind to the obvious!! Should be added to the HotWhopery for sure. We have all heard the 'climate has always changed' line hundreds of times to try and say that the recent rapid climate change is natural. That's why it's #1 on SkS. To try and say otherwise, as you did, is taking ludicrous to the extreme.<br /><br />Anon wrote.<br />"That is almost as good as saying that current warming is 10x that of any warming ever in the history of the Earth."<br /><br />Classic straw man. If you actually read the posts, no one is claiming that. I said in the last million years, not 4.7 billion years.<br /><br />But if you actually do the math,10x is actually conservative.<br /><br />For the last million years, the natural climate change rate is about 1C per 1,000 years, or 0.01C per decade. (It takes about 5,000 years to go up or down about 5C). Natural climate change is normally very slow.<br /><br />http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/iscurrent.pdf<br /><br />http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/98037539.pdf<br /><br />Since 1951, the rate has been about 0.12 C per decade, which is 12x the natural rate.<br /><br />http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2013/07/coastal-antarctic-permafrost-melting-faster-than-expected/Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9600971874200742252014-01-31T22:59:30.506+11:002014-01-31T22:59:30.506+11:00Grieg says:
"And there is plenty of evidence...Grieg says:<br /><br />"<i>And there is plenty of evidence for past climate change, and plenty to say that it is irrelevant to the current situation.</i>"<br /><br />and I asked for:<br /><br />"<i>References please.</i>"<br /><br />to which Grieg responds:<br /><br />"<i>There are thousands of references to studies that demonstrate that climate has changed in the past, and not one of them is a study of human-induced GHG forcing (ie without an associated climatic trigger). If you think there is such a study, perhaps you can provide a link?</i>"<br /><br />which is a complete straw man, typical of Grieg's <i>modus operandi</i>.<br /><br />You see, I did <b>not</b> say or imply that there were studies of human involvement in "past climate change". I <i><b>did</b></i> ask for evidence that occurrence of "past climate change" is "irrelevant to the current situation".<br /><br />See the difference?<br /><br />The thing is, there is much from the paleoclimatic record that informs current climatology and the impact of human fossil fuel conbustion. The forcings due to volcanoes, asteroids, CO2 fluctuations, changes in insolation, changes in vegetation cover, changes in ocean circulation - all of these leave evidence in the paleo-record and help to reconcile natural agencies' influences in the current climate trajectory, and to identify the signature of humans.<br /><br />This was a part of my point in response to Grieg's orginal and now deleted post, and there was further purpose to my challenge but without the post the context is lost and the issue is not worth pursuing. This should be sufficient though to show that Grieg is still persisting with his thimble-rigging - which would hardly come as a surprise to the objective readers here...Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51362431550049424602014-01-31T21:50:08.121+11:002014-01-31T21:50:08.121+11:00I've created the HotWhoppery for dud comments....I've created the <a href="http://hotwhopper.com/HotWhoppery.html" rel="nofollow">HotWhoppery</a> for dud comments. Duplicates will be deleted.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68701127221565668612014-01-31T21:43:46.517+11:002014-01-31T21:43:46.517+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6974308185912278482014-01-31T21:12:49.808+11:002014-01-31T21:12:49.808+11:00Greig
Meanwhile in the climate scientific communi...Greig<br /><br /><i>Meanwhile in the climate scientific community there is considerable debate about climate sensitivity and rate of warming as this is critical to policy, and plenty of room for "real scepticism" of alarmist claims and calls for panic.</i><br /><br />No there isn't. You just made this up. And to prove that you are confablulating, I challenge you to produce some quotes from the scientific mainstream (not isolated, fringe contrarians) backing up your claims. Specifically that there is - within the scientific mainstream - a position that TCR may be so low that no policy response is necessary. <br /><br />In this context I also reject your use of the terms "alarmist" and "calls for panic" as dishonest framing.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56025167252735913872014-01-31T21:06:06.193+11:002014-01-31T21:06:06.193+11:00What a weird collection of "old alarmist meme...What a weird collection of "old alarmist memes"! I can't find any of these in the literature. Are they a distorted version of the position of "alarmists"? Are they a collection of conjectures on the opinion of "alarmists" that overuses the word "evil"? Are they original or are they taken from another source? <br />On another issue relating to other comments along the lines of "Of course we face numerous unquantified risks from AGW, and these are to be balanced against the benefits of warming and cheap energy. Policy will be set against cost/benefit analysis of all factors." For me, there is an irony here. Arriving at the "benefits from warming" based on a cost benefit analysis involves using Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) which inform policy makers. I thought that skeptics abhorred models. Perhaps, skeptics are prepared to overlook the limitations of integrated assessment models of climate change in the cause of confirmation bias. Perhaps they overlook the parts of IAM reports that state that global warming will become a net cost to the world, justifying cost-effective climate action. Random, hey?George Montgomeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042191140401441348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66487268077869070372014-01-31T21:02:59.689+11:002014-01-31T21:02:59.689+11:00He is not saying that past climate change proves m...<i>He is not saying that past climate change proves man is not at fault. He is saying that evidence that man is not at fault is the lack of the GHG signature. </i><br /><br />Basic error. The tropospheric "hot spot" is supposed to occur with <i>any type</i> of warming - GHG-forced or otherwise. You have got this completely wrong. Also note that the observational data is messy and incapable of unequivocally demonstrating either the presence or absence of said "hot spot". BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6706373180977836522014-01-31T15:22:44.895+11:002014-01-31T15:22:44.895+11:00It shouldn't surprise me (but it does) how a p...It shouldn't surprise me (but it does) how a person could read so much nonsense into my straightforward post. Talk about extremist.<br /><br />But then that was coming from someone who doesn't believe we can learn anything from past climates.<br /><br />Given teachers might find this thread useful as a clear thinking exercise, I've published Greig's response. For one thing, it's a great example of confirmation bias (among other things). For another thing, this isn't the top article any more and in any case, the thread has already gone awry with denier nonsense of all sorts.<br /><br />PS Moderation is on again temporarily, while I'm otherwise occupied.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36574783923004087132014-01-31T14:59:43.612+11:002014-01-31T14:59:43.612+11:00Ah yes, back to the topic of memes, and here we se...Ah yes, back to the topic of memes, and here we see a whole swag of the old alarmist memes are wheeled out:<br /><br />“Developed countries must jump first, it’s all the fault of rich Westerners and we need to feel guilty”<br />“Investment in (code for wasting money on) renewables makes them cheaper, we can save the world with ideologically-driven capitalism”<br />“Deniers can’t be concerned for poor people, because deniers are evil”<br />“Deniers love coal, even though it kills people, because deniers are evil”.<br /> “Developing countries are already using heaps of renewables” (less than a fraction of 1% of fossil fuel capacity, but never let quantification get in the way of an alarmist meme)<br />“Australia and the USA are evil coal users, but the developing world aren’t”.<br />“The developing world will suffer most from climate change, and it’s all the fault of deniers and rich Westerners, because they are evil.”<br />“How can we save the world with so many evil deniers, we need to burn the heretical deniers at the stake, because deniers are evil”.<br /><br /><i>BTW I don't recall ever coming across anyone before who believes we cannot learn anything from history. </i><br /><br />BTW, I don't recall ever coming across anyone before who is so utterly incapable of understanding plain English, or so determined to twist meaning to make a trap for fools. The simple and indisputable point being made is that learning from the paleoclimate record is fraught with challenges of interpretation, just ask Michael Mann, Al Gore (error#4), Rosenthal&Lindley … etc …<br />Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37778971977260767902014-01-31T14:34:42.553+11:002014-01-31T14:34:42.553+11:00Greig, you've dragged this way off topic. But...Greig, you've dragged this way off topic. But I will say this. <br /><br />There is a very weird (and most unpleasant) tendency of science deniers to suddenly express concern for less developed and undeveloped nations suffering extreme poverty. Deniers act as if it's climate policies that prevent them from developing. It's not. The contrary is more likely to be the case.<br /><br />Climate policies of developed nations have no impact on the ability of any other nation to build coal plants. It doesn't affect the costs of doing so or the decisions to do so. It's a furphy and immensely hypocritical to suddenly feign concern as if climate policy had any impact when it doesn't. <br /><br />What does have an impact is the extent to which developed nations invest in clean energy technologies, which has brought about a very rapid reduction in the price of these technologies, thereby allowing undeveloped nations to go straight to them. This is happening in many parts of Africa and Bangladesh and elsewhere. People have access to electricity for the first time using clean tech, bypassing all the expense and other ills of going through the stage of dirty technology first. <br /><br />Coal isn't just bad from a climate perspective, it's bad from a health perspective and air quality in general.<br /><br />Oh I do detest this sort of hypocrisy and the false linkages that deniers make.<br /><br />The irony is that it's because China in particular invested so heavily in the manufacture of solar technology that it's become so cheap. Yes, some chinese manufacturers have done some environmental damage along the way. But no-one is squeaky clean in that regard. Look at my home state with its brown coal. Look at the USA and its coal mining obscenities of the past.<br /><br />The one thing that China, India and all nations agree on is that we've got to somehow reduce CO2 emissions worldwide. It's not easy, it won't be all smooth sailing. If we don't, though, there is almost universal agreement that climate change will hit the poorest nations, the most economically vulnerable nations, hardest of all. So hard that many couldn't recover - with wide repercussions throughout the world as a whole.<br /><br />(BTW I don't recall ever coming across anyone before who believes we cannot learn anything from history. Just goes to show there's still some new surprises, even at my age.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30768022405909862902014-01-31T14:11:48.155+11:002014-01-31T14:11:48.155+11:00In this thread alone there are numerous examples t...<i>In this thread alone there are numerous examples to illustrate the risks we are facing, </i><br /><br />Of course we face numerous unquantified risks from AGW, and these are to be balanced against the benefits of warming and cheap energy. Policy will be set against cost/benefit analysis of all factors. Overriding all of this is the massive momentum building to raise the world’s population from poverty, the push for higher cost energy technology is standing in front of a freight train.<br /><br /><i>while you'll gamble the future of human society on the slim chance that we'll all survive the next few decades and centuries relatively unscathed without lifting a finger to reduce emissions and mitigate climate change.</i><br /><br />Where have I suggested gambling anything – your argument is with the developing world and the scientists, economists and engineers who are advising the world’s governments. They are the target of your venom, you are shooting the messenger.<br /><br /><i> the evidence as cited in this thread and in the science, shows very clearly that if we do nothing there is going to be a swag of bad consequences. </i><br /><br />Fair enough.<br /><br /><i> Then in the very same point you go and argue by assertion that developing nations would rather adapt to being inundated by rising seas, flash floods, droughts, famines, wildfires, and disappearance of their water supply - than have the world switch to clean energy. </i><br /><br />I don’t have to argue by assertion about the energy policies of the developing world. You know that they are continuing to build coal and gas infrastructure at many times the rate of low emissions alternatives. And you know there are <a href="%E2%80%9D" rel="nofollow"> no substantive plans nor mechanisms (through international agreement)</a> to avert that.<br /><br /><i> (I wonder if you've ever tried to argue that the relatively clean air we enjoy now would have happened without any action, such as the environmental regulations of the sixties and seventies and beyond? Or that CFCs would have stopped affecting ozone all by themselves with no action on the part of the world.) </i><br /><br />All were based on sound economics and engineering capabilities, and on multilateral agreement – which in climate change we don’t have. Not because of sceptics or deniers, but because renewable energy is expensive, and the developing world will not be swayed in their pursuit of low cost energy. And even if the West went to zero emissions tomorrow, it would not change the policy of the developing world – they are not seeking leadership (or any such white middle-class anglo-saxon elitist notion).<br /><br /><i> You might not be able to see parallels between the changes we are now facing and events of the past, but there are a lot of clever people in the world who can. </i><br /><br />You might not be able to see <b> the lack of </b> parallels between the changes we are now facing and events of the past, but there are a lot of clever people in the world who can.<br />Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77497346755266284302014-01-31T11:56:44.632+11:002014-01-31T11:56:44.632+11:00Anonymous is busy practicising Gish tactics.
Th...Anonymous is busy practicising Gish tactics. <br /><br />The article is about a general denier meme that the "climate has changed before" therefore [insert whatever denier conclusion you want - whether it be "it's not our fault" or "it won't be bad" or "we can't stop it" or whatever dumb "argument" they want to pursue - sometimes even "therefore the climate isn't changing now"].<br /><br />Meanwhile, Anonymous plays word games, tosses out herrings hoping one of them is a pretty colour and will distract an inattentive reader's attention from the main point, and tries to defend the indefensible. Ludicrously, in this case, where Lindzen is indeed trying to claim "it's not because of humans" [xyz].<br /><br />Anonymous is suffering a delusion that his or her comments reflect science and that disallowing comments of the nature "climate science is a fraud" means I am anti-science.<br /><br />I left Anonymous' comments just in case a teacher wants to use them in a clear thinking exercise. There are enough for that purpose now.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32625938192194281402014-01-31T11:30:31.547+11:002014-01-31T11:30:31.547+11:00That's cute, Greig. In this thread alone there...That's cute, Greig. In this thread alone there are numerous examples to illustrate the risks we are facing, while you'll gamble the future of human society on the slim chance that we'll all survive the next few decades and centuries relatively unscathed without lifting a finger to reduce emissions and mitigate climate change.<br /><br />Cute too is where you resort to an "argument by assertion" retort, ignoring the fact that all the evidence as cited in this thread and in the science, shows very clearly that if we do nothing there is going to be a swag of bad consequences. Then in the very same point you go and argue by assertion that developing nations would rather adapt to being inundated by rising seas, flash floods, droughts, famines, wildfires, and disappearance of their water supply - than have the world switch to clean energy.<br /><br />(I wonder if you've ever tried to argue that the relatively clean air we enjoy now would have happened without any action, such as the environmental regulations of the sixties and seventies and beyond? Or that CFCs would have stopped affecting ozone all by themselves with no action on the part of the world.)<br /><br />As for past climate change not being relevant - perhaps you are confusing the cause of climate change with the effect. If you were able to move beyond the cause of the rising CO2 and think - ok, what happened in the past when CO2 suddenly increased. What happened in the past when seas rose rapidly? What happened in the past when oceans suddenly had a pH drop? What happened in the past when glaciers dried up? What happened in the past when West Antarctic ice melted? True, there are probably very few if any times in the past when CO2 rose as rapidly or when temperatures rose as rapidly as they are now - but that doesn't mean there is nothing to learn from the past that will help us now. On the contrary, it makes it even more imperative that we learn whatever we can.<br /><br />You might not be able to see parallels between the changes we are now facing and events of the past, but there are a lot of clever people in the world who can. You might not be able to learn from history and pre-history, but hopefully there are enough people of influence who are able to do so.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40725133067090055772014-01-31T09:46:31.880+11:002014-01-31T09:46:31.880+11:00And Then Theres Physics states:
I would argue that...And Then Theres Physics states:<br /><i>I would argue that the scientific evidence supports - very strongly - that changes to our recent climate are predominantly anthropogenic.</i><br /><br />Fair enough, and I am not sure why you should think that I am suggesting otherwise. I think that most of those that you call "denier" agree too ie those who argue "the climate has changed before" are not trying to shed doubt on whether AGW is real, but rather to identify that whether change occurs naturally or otherwise, it is still something the planet deals with. Or to put it another way: simply because humans are causing the change does not necessarily mean it is bad, and we are compelled to immediately stop.<br /><br />Sou says: <i>There is no scientific debate of any consequence at the broad level.</i><br /><br />Ah the old "the science is settled" meme, gotta love that one. Meanwhile in the climate scientific community there is considerable debate about climate sensitivity and rate of warming as this is critical to policy, and plenty of room for "real scepticism" of alarmist claims and calls for panic.<br /><br /><i>One of the big reasons funding is provided to study past climates is to apply those learnings to our present predicament. It's extremely relevant.</i><br /><br />Of course, but noting that most climate scientists acknowledge that the current circumstance of relatively large anthropogenic forcing doesn't occur in the paleoclimate record, therefore we are limited in our ability to confidently use that data meaningfully for our current situation.<br /><br /><i>The "bad" of rapid climate change outweighs any "good" by a very large margin. </i><br /><br />Argument by assertion, and otherwise meaningless statement. The old alarmist "climate change is bad, bad, bad" meme, restated. <br /><br />Also this fails to take into account that any attempts to reduce emissions that results in higher energy costs has very bad implications for the world's poor. Avoiding climate change may be worse than adapting to it. At least that is what the developing countries seem to have decided.<br /><br />Bernard J says: <i> References please.</i><br /><br />There are thousands of references to studies that demonstrate that climate has changed in the past, and not one of them is a study of human-induced GHG forcing (ie without an associated climatic trigger). If you think there is such a study, perhaps you can provide a link?<br /><br />Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28845568584083520462014-01-31T05:51:34.362+11:002014-01-31T05:51:34.362+11:00The point is that LIndzen did not say that the fac...The point is that LIndzen did not say that the fact that climate has been changing is proof that it isn't our fault. He points to other reasons to suggest that it isn't our fault. His statement is not an example of what SKS is trying to state is their climate myth number one. Lindzen may very well be wrong, or he might be right. But he is not making the argument that past climate change proves that current climate change is not man's fault.<br /><br />Sou, you are just wrong in that assertion. Delete my comments if you want to, but that just proves how anti-science you really are. You do it by not quoting Lindzen's complete sentence:<br /><br />"Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface."<br /><br />He is not saying that past climate change proves man is not at fault. He is saying that evidence that man is not at fault is the lack of the GHG signature. Again, maybe he is wrong, and maybe he is right. But he is CERTAINLY not making the argument of which you accuse him.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50104068386278878592014-01-31T03:21:03.476+11:002014-01-31T03:21:03.476+11:00Anon.
You are trolling again:
Well is Lindzen ma...Anon.<br /><br />You are trolling again:<br /><br /><i>Well is Lindzen making that implication in the quote? As I already said it would be false to say that the fact that climate has always been changing is proof that we are not causing it. But it is also false to say that since climate is changing, we must be causing it.</i><br /><br />We can see that GHG forcing is capable of changing climate by looking at paleoclimate behaviour from the slow, overall cooling trend ~50Ma - Holocene to the major Cenozoic hyperthermals and even deglaciation under orbital forcing. Your claim is therefore false:<br /><br /><i>But it is also false to say that since climate is changing, we must be causing it.</i><br /><br />We are very clearly causing it by rapidly increasing the atmospheric fraction of GHGs. <br /><br />* * *<br /><br /><i>And that cited article does not prove that current climate change is unprecedented in the last 65 million years. </i><br /><br />Large and geologically instantaneous fluxes of GHGs result in hyperthermals. So you may be correct: we could look to the PETM, ETM-2, MECO etc as precedents for what is likely to happen if emissions continue to increase and CO2e reaches the 1000ppm range. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56455191777379926992014-01-31T03:19:08.016+11:002014-01-31T03:19:08.016+11:00Enough with dumb denier play-acting, Anonymous. A...Enough with dumb denier play-acting, Anonymous. And enough with the rhetorical questions. There are enough pointers in the comments for you to follow this up for yourself. I have a very low tolerance for your games.<br /><br />In regard to Lindzen, since you were able to follow my <a href="http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm" rel="nofollow">link to the SkS article</a>, it shouldn't have been beyond your capability to follow the link SkS gave to the <a href="http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria/" rel="nofollow">Lindzen article</a>, where he wrote:<br /><br /><i>The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that <b>this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature</b> is .... </i><br /><br />He's as woefully wrong there as in the article cRR Kampen referred to, in which Lindzen managed to weave multiple conpiracy ideations including references to Stalin, Nazis, Lysenko and eugenics. Plus his very dumb charts. You'd think he got Alec Rawls or David Icke to write that article for him. Not at all something you'd expect from a professor from MIT.<br /><br />Shades of <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2012/12/denier-memes-communist-socialist.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>.<br /><br />Any more silliness from you will be deleted. If you plan on being an apologist for Richard Lindzen's nonsense, you'll have to do it elsewhere.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1869853931357679402014-01-31T03:15:27.370+11:002014-01-31T03:15:27.370+11:00Lindzen pushes it e.g. here: "While some scie...Lindzen pushes it e.g. here: "While some scientists claim to be able to distinguish natural from human-caused changes, the reader is challenged to tell which of the records in Figure 7a and 7b is natural variation (1895-1946) and which is presumably anthropogenic (1957-2008)." <br />How suggestive. Don't ever think of pink elephants.<br /><br />Then he dumbs down the reader with the following sekt talk: "So, is there any use for the global and annually averaged temperature anomaly? It is probably relevant to the response to global forcing like that due to increasing well-mixed greenhouse gases and solar variations. However, if there is a change in the global temperature anomaly, it is not possible to attribute it to global forcing. Thus, it is difficult to use the mean anomaly record to identify whether there is a problem."<br /><br />(cf Bob Carter, whose mission seems to be to have everyone forget about the concept of average, much like Singer wants last half century to be forgotten, and Curry who stopped living in 2002 or so re Arctic ice, ...).<br /><br />Libel 1: "Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions."<br /><br />Libel 2: "Despite official whitewashes, the Climategate scandal was a clear manifestation of pathology" or perhaps Lindzen does not know what he is actually saying here :)<br /><br />Note that Lindzen WAS a scientist. Today he is an old grey whiskey drinking white man lobbying for Big Coal and Max Polution.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31586964072829474492014-01-31T02:54:45.385+11:002014-01-31T02:54:45.385+11:00cRR,
Lindzen is not making that argument in your ...cRR,<br /><br />Lindzen is not making that argument in your cited article. Try again. BTW, which remarks are actionable for libel? Please be specific since you are publicly accusing a scientist of libel.<br /><br />And that cited article does not prove that current climate change is unprecedented in the last 65 million years. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87959402769284059572014-01-31T02:41:57.841+11:002014-01-31T02:41:57.841+11:00"What does this prove?" - it proves that..."What does this prove?" - it proves that the current climate change is like unique in 65 million years. It proves that the rate of change is at least ten times, likely dozens of times as large a any climate change of comparable magnitude in the past. <br />It is a shock to the system. See: http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.pngcRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19364546066801050622014-01-31T02:38:14.252+11:002014-01-31T02:38:14.252+11:00That sick argument is actually Lindzen's main ...That sick argument is actually Lindzen's main theme.<br />To be found e.g. in "Science in the Public Square: Global<br />Climate Alarmism and Historical Precedents", Lindzen 2013, which incidentally contains a number of remarks sueable for libel.<br />Some background on this paid liar: http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen .cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18197306023523921932014-01-31T02:24:57.696+11:002014-01-31T02:24:57.696+11:00Well Dave, did it really? The news article said &...Well Dave, did it really? The news article said "The climate is changing at a pace that's far faster than anything seen in 65 million years, a report out of Stanford University says." Did the paper really say that? Your two quotes most certainly do not show that. <br /><br />"...potential 21st-century global warming..." potential is not the same as "anything seen" previously, now is it?<br /><br />"We find periods of Earth's history where the global temperature change was of similar magnitude, but the rate was an order of magnitude slower." What does this prove? That there have been slower rates of change in Earth's history proves that current change has never been seen?<br /><br />This is what you find to be "proof?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73408156539930064932014-01-31T02:07:54.053+11:002014-01-31T02:07:54.053+11:00Well is Lindzen making that implication in the quo...Well is Lindzen making that implication in the quote? As I already said it would be false to say that the fact that climate has always been changing is proof that we are not causing it. But it is also false to say that since climate is changing, we must be causing it.<br /><br />Do you have some evidence that Lindzen has ever made the argument that since climate has always been changing, we are not causing it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68495557132555407452014-01-31T01:26:01.480+11:002014-01-31T01:26:01.480+11:00"...there is plenty of scientific evidence th..."<i>...there is plenty of scientific evidence that warming is bad, and plenty to say its good.</i>"<br /><br />References please.<br /><br />"<i>And there is plenty of evidence for past climate change, and plenty to say that it is irrelevant to the current situation.</i>"<br /><br />References please.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23706823715654484542014-01-31T01:20:57.253+11:002014-01-31T01:20:57.253+11:00Hmmm, I see that Sou pinged you for your trolling....Hmmm, I see that Sou pinged you for your trolling. I hope that she'll leave my quotings of you intact, so that you and the rest of the readers of the thread can see how you erred yet again.<br /><br />That is all.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.com