Appy days

Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 01:04 pm

The BBC reports:

Fifty-five million years ago the North Pole was an ice-free zone with tropical temperatures, according to research.

Polar bears didn’t exist 55 million years ago. Presumably because they’d all been drowned.

An international team has been able to pin-point the changes that occurred as the Arctic transformed from green house to ice house.

Let me guess: did proto-primates sign the Kyoto Treaty?

“This time period is associated with a very enhanced green house effect,” explained Appy Sluijs, a palaeoecologist from Utrecht University in the Netherlands, and the lead author on one of the papers.

“Basically, it looks like the Earth released a gigantic fart of green house gases into the atmosphere – and globally the Earth warmed by about 5C (9F).”

Big old farty earth is the ecological enemy! The enemy of itself!

Appy Sluijs points out that the data reveals that some of the climate models used to detail the Arctic’s history got things wrong, and as they are the same models that predict our future climate they may need adjusting.

Let the adjustments commence!

ENVIRO UPDATE. Al Gore has a fear of steam.

ENVIRO UPDATE II. Dave S.: “NOOOOOOOOOOO! Not the climate models! They’re infallible!

(Via Larry T. and J.F. Beck)

Posted by Tim B. on 06/01/2006 at 10:49 AM
    1. Appy Sluijs and the Fart of Doom! I love science!

      With respect to adjustments, might we not start by hitting the “mute” button on Al Gore?

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 01 at 11:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. GIgantic fart? Spare me the technical jargon why dont’cha!

      Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 06 01 at 11:04 AM • permalink

 

    1. You mean it’s NOT all George W. Bush’s fault? Quiggy will be apoplectic.

      Posted by JerryS on 2006 06 01 at 11:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. The thing is, I do believe that human activity has an effect on the environment and that some of the recent increase in temperatures are due to that activity.

      But whenever you talk with a global warming fundamentalist, and you mention medevial climate optimum or the Little Ice Age, they get all crazy.

      Posted by Room 237 on 2006 06 01 at 11:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hmmmm.

      Earth farts?

      ROFLMAO!

      Posted by memomachine on 2006 06 01 at 11:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. So here we are worrying about SUVs and burning coal when all it really takes is one tremendous fart to cause global warming.

      Now all I want to know is where do I go to stay clear of the blow-hole? I’m thinking it’s gotta be in France.

      Posted by Dorian on 2006 06 01 at 11:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. Interesting link. I hadn’t seen the poster before, but it seems to suggest that steam causes hurricanes. Or maybe nuclear power does. Which doesn’t really figure, since we haven’t built a nuclear power plant in the U.S. in, oh, how many decades?

      Love the advisory at the bottom of the poster: “A global warning”. They should have added, “NSFH” (Not Safe For Humanity).

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 01 at 11:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. Wait, let me get this straight.
      North Pole=Tropical Paradise.
      Then comes “greenhouse gases” (Gaia Fart).
      Then the North Pole cools down??

      So if we want to stop global warming, the lesson is to create MORE greenhouse gasses.

      Posted by JohnO on 2006 06 01 at 11:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. Say what you will about Bill Clinton, but at least he didn’t fear steam heat.

      Yeahh….
      I’ve got ::cling cling:: fsssss steam heat.
      I’ve got ::cling cling:: fsssss steam heat.
      I’ve got ::cling cling:: fsssss steam heat.
      But I need your love to keep away the cold.

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 06 01 at 11:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. I thought it was cows that did all that farting.  Silly me.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 06 01 at 12:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. Appy Sluijs points out that the data reveals that some of the climate models used to detail the Arctic’s history got things wrong, and as they are the same models that predict our future climate they may need adjusting.

      NOOOOOOOOOOO! Not the climate models! They’re infallible!

      This is about the third time in as many months that I’ve heard that Ender’s sacred climate models don’t seem to model much. But hey, let’s base some trillion-dollar policy and lifestyle changes on them,  OK?

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 01 at 12:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. #11 Dave:

      I had the same reaction when I found out there’s no Santa Claus. (Whoops! Stoop Davy and Wronwright already knew that, didn’t they?)

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 01 at 12:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. it looks like the Earth released a gigantic fart of green house gases into the atmosphere 
      I knew this would happen. Everytime Gaia swallows a mouthful of Indonesia its the same thing. She just can’t handle spicy food.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 01 at 12:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. This is about the third time in as many months that I’ve heard that Ender’s sacred climate models don’t seem to model much. But hey, let’s base some trillion-dollar policy and lifestyle changes on them, OK?

      Hey! They’re as scientific as Marx’s science of history! I’m sure their predictive power is just as good, too!

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 06 01 at 12:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. Has anyone noticed that the 100-foot-diameter hurricane fed by the deadly steam is rotating clockwise? It’s you Aussies who ought to be cringing in fear, not Al Gore.

      Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2006 06 01 at 12:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. And environmental Azollas won’t save us now? Oh, no! HELP! HELP! There aren’t enough green Azollas in the world to save us!

      [BTW, isn’t “gasses” spelled “gases” even in British-English and not just here in North America?]
      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 06 01 at 12:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. Photoshop fun with Al Gore. Via Wizbang.

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 01 at 01:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. But how could there be climate change without the evil internal combustion engine? My faith is shattered!
      TX Bob, #13, post of the day. LMAO.

      Posted by Latino on 2006 06 01 at 01:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Basically, it looks like the Earth released a gigantic fart of green house gases into the atmosphere …”

      Presumably that was when MILFy Mother Earth was still in her infantile phase…

      Posted by PW on 2006 06 01 at 01:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. Why would Gorezilla fear steam, him being full of hot air?  This is puzzling…..

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 01 at 01:29 PM • permalink

 

    1. Why would Gorezilla fear steam, him being full of hot air?  This is puzzling…..

      The water content. Remember what happened to the Wicked Witch of the West—that wasn’t hot air that did her in, it was the water.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 06 01 at 02:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. Why would Gorezilla fear steam, him being full of hot air?

      Competition.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 01 at 03:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. Who knew that if you didn’t have all the facts that any computer model might not actually mirror reality?  I think you guys are just expecting too much.  Just because the models don’t reflect all the facts doesn’t mean they don’t make for hours of fun prediction.

      Pfui, next thing you’ll be telling me is that the entrails of a goat can’t tell me if I ought to invade Mesopotamia.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 01 at 03:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. (FINALLY someone mentions a goat!)

      Posted by tree hugging sister on 2006 06 01 at 03:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. #23: Pfui, next thing you’ll be telling me is that the entrails of a goat can’t tell me if I ought to invade Mesopotamia.

      So, what’s your gut instinct on this, Stoop Davy?

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 01 at 04:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. Gaiaia moves its bowels in mysterious ways.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 06 01 at 05:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. 25 It’s baaahaalderdash!

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 06 01 at 05:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. Why would Gorezilla fear steam, him being full of hot air?  This is puzzling…..

      The water content. Remember what happened to the Wicked Witch of the West—that wasn’t hot air that did her in, it was the water.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 06 01 at 10:11 AM • permalink

      [snip]

      Competition.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 01 at 11:00 AM • permalink

      We have a tie for first place!!!!!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 01 at 06:20 PM • permalink

 

    1. Don’t wish to nit pick (well, OK I do) but exactly where / what was the ‘north pole’ 55 million years ago?

      Do they mean the end of the then globe’s rotational axis?  Or the point on the crust corresponding to the crust presently at the present north pole (ie accounting for, er, Continental (and Oceanic!) Drift).  Also, given the fact that the earth’s north and south poles have swapped over countless times, how do they know that the “north pole” then was not actually the “south pole”?

      And then, from the BBC:
      Fifty-five million years ago the North Pole was an ice-free zone with tropical temperatures, according to research

      followed by:

      and globally the Earth warmed by about 5C (9F).

      From frozen to tropical in only 5 degrees.  I guess in merrie England about 3 deg C is “tropical”

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 06 01 at 06:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. Via Right Wing News, the NYT‘s take on the same story. Actually, it’s a little bit better as it quotes a dissenting voice. (And it’s not a ‘registration required’ link.)
      http://tinyurl.com/oz34t

      “Almost all climate experts agree that the present-day gas buildup is predominantly a result of emissions from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests. [Funny how vulcanism doesn’t make the list; and I’ve read at junkscience.com that 95%-98% of CO2 is natural.]

      “Some scientists familiar with the research said that while there were still questions about the precision of this method at temperatures like those in the ancient Arctic Ocean, it was clear that the area was warm.

      “…vast mats of an ancient cousin of the Azolla duckweed that now cloaks suburban ponds. [Oh, no. Ducks are involved too.]

      “Julie Brigham-Grette of the University of Massachusetts, an expert in past Arctic climates who was not connected with the new studies, cautioned against giving too much significance to the single sample, and particularly the single stone from 45 million years ago.”

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 06 01 at 07:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. Tim, polar bears actually DID evolve 55,000,000.  Sadly, the ferocious prehistoric saber-toothed polar bear proved to be a forgotten accident of evolution, as the species was dragged to the seabed by the weight of its massive tusks…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 06 01 at 08:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. How much carbon was in the atmosphere at peak?

      This may give us a way to estimate how much oil and coal there is to found underground.

      Posted by aaron_ on 2006 06 01 at 11:01 PM • permalink

 

    1. Al Gore’s film poster seems to be saying that industrial smoke *creates* galaxies and maybe black holes too.

      Is this a New Agey weird horror fantasy, or a ‘cool’ scientific investigation?

      You guess from the promo.

      Posted by Barrie on 2006 06 01 at 11:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. Can’t wait for the peer revue on dear Appy.  Really I can’t.

      Posted by yojimbo on 2006 06 02 at 02:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. Guys, can we get past the politics already.  This is a scientific debate.

      I dare anyone to find a peer-reviewed article on this topic in a scientific journal that does not say that global warming is occuring through human activity.

      No luck?  Thought so.  I’m always amused by Bjorn Lomborg wannabes on the right who believe they have greater insight into atmospheric science than people who have studied it their entire lives.

      Posted by Hal on 2006 06 02 at 04:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. I thought Hal was turned off in 2001? Who goofed THAT up?

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 02 at 05:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. Yes, Hal, and what category do you place Al Gore:  Politics or science?  And his arguments, are they political or scientific?

      And doesn’t naming Bjorn Lomborg defeat your argument.  One doesn’t need to cite wannabes when there is the work of the actual person of Bjorn Lomborg to refer to.  Of course, he isn’t the only source one may cite for arguments against the methods of the environmentalists.  And it is the methodologies that are in question here.

      The way you formulate your challenge is disingenuous.  If the models are wrong, one may not validly offer the data as proof of anything.  One may peer review the data from now to doomsday and find no invalid internal logic, but if the information in your induction is false, your deductions formed from that information will be false.

      Their are plenty of scientists who say that the models are insufficient for the task set for them.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 02 at 06:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. You know where the meteor was supposed to have hit 65 million years ago and killed all the dinosaurs, down there at the Yucatan peninsula – Chicxulub crater or something?  Well now they’re saying that might have been an earth fart of a sort.  Not a blow in but a blow out.

      I don’t think anyone knows enough about anything to do with the ancient climate, or anything ancient for that matter.  They should all just shut up.

      Posted by Janice on 2006 06 02 at 06:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. Saltydog, I brought up Lomborg because he’s already been debunked as comprehensively as Michael Moore.

      We could argue about the models for ages.  I just felt obligated to point out that there’s 99.9% consenus on this issue in the scientific community (and the rest are funded by the fossil fuel industry).

      Gore can look after himself.  I doubt he’s using this as a presidential springboard.  There’s no chance he’d win the nomination – although the dailykos kids seem to love him.

      Posted by Hal on 2006 06 02 at 06:38 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hal,
      Is your post intended as ironic or are you really that stupid?

      Do you have a link for your 99.9% consensus? A link to something other than a commenter on the DailyKos?

      You may be indirectly referring to this study:

      “The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.

      The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

      Dr Oreskes’s study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government’s chief scientific adviser.”

      http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-05-12/magazine.htm

      Well, did you know about this study?

      Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents – and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.


      Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication – but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been “widely dispersed on the internet”
      .”

      So his study was rejected not because it was wrong, but because it was so well known as not to be newsworthy.

      Hal, I am beginning to suspect that you are as stupid as you believe us to be. I can certainly see that you are as ill-informed as you seem to believe people who disagree with you to be.

      Oh, and pre-emptively, if you are going to accuse Dr Peiser of being in the pay of the oil companies, please provide the evidence.

      Posted by moptop on 2006 06 02 at 07:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hal @ 35:
      I dare anyone to find a peer-reviewed article on this topic in a scientific journal that does not say that global warming is occuring through human activity.

      Christ Hal, for a start, get with the program, man!!  Don’t you know its not “global warming” any more, but CLIMATE CHANGE – this takes account of those embarrassing patches of global cooling that inconveniently surface from place to place.

      double dare Hal to find a peer – reviewed article that discriminates between warming caused by human activity and that which occurs naturally.  Huh? says sharp-as-a-poker Hal, re the latter.

      Think about the decline of the last glacial period which began c20,000 yrs ago (depending on where you are) and continued until… well that depends!  What was the cause of the decline of the last glacial period, Hal?  Er,… “global warming” ??  Caused by […………] (I’ll leave Hal to fill in this latter space)

      Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 06 02 at 08:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. Heh, I see I’ve touched a raw nerve

      Moptop, I never said anyone is stupid, just misinformed.

      I agree that there are many climate skeptics out there – a few of whom are actually qualified climate scientists.  I just hate the way that so many conservatives decide automatically to jump on the anti-environmentalist bandwagon without taking a hard look at the facts.  This should not be a political debate.  Science is not a left-wing conspiracy

      And if you want evidence of scientific consensus how about the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India?

      http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222

      Posted by Hal on 2006 06 02 at 08:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. 41, I know there have been periods of warming and cooling, milankovitch cycles etc etc.  The evidence is still overwhelming that the present period of warming is abnormal.

      Posted by Hal on 2006 06 02 at 08:31 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hal,
      Your 99.9% statement marked you as stupid. The fact that you have taken it back is encouraging on that front.

      You pointed me to a rehash of a political report. The IPCC refuses to even recognize that the little ice age was a global phenonena. As far as I can see, the whole purpose of your linking to it was to bring the authority of the UN into the argument. The UN which spent the entire run-up to the Iraq war trying to preserve the Oil-for-Food gravy train that sanctions became instead of actually trying to prevent the war. That UN.

      All of those numbers that are in your links, and the pdf? Based on computer models that have gotten nothing right so far. Not troposheric warming, nothing. None of the actual climate numbers appear to be based on any measurements but the output of these models. The fact that we have been coming out of a significant cooling event since around the 18th century is not even mentioned?

      Ever hear of the midaevil warm period? Warmer than today, prior to the cooling which peaked in the 17th century.

      Mary Shelly wrote the novel Frankenstien when she and her then more famous husband, and another romantic poet spent the Summer enduring over a month of straight rainfall and cold. The novel is full of imagry of encroaching ice. Why? Because it was getting so cold then. Glaciers were encroaching on European villages.

      It has been warming ever since. Glaciers in Alaska began retreating in that period.

      The models have not proven themselves. Full stop. You are asking Mankind to abandon the most successful economic model so far, and the only model proven capable of feeding populations on the order of those alive today, based on the output of a computer model, which, if run backwards, puts us in an ice age in the 30s.

      Here is another article for you to read. It explains why the polemicist on your side have stopped calling it warming, and started calling it climate change. It is because the warming stopped in 1998.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet;=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

      Your models, which the US is supposed to spend trillions based on, did not call that one either.

      Posted by moptop on 2006 06 02 at 09:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. ummm… 55 million years ago the North pole wasn’t at the North Pole.

      Posted by nofixedabode on 2006 06 02 at 09:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. “Science is not a left-wing conspiracy “

      True enough, but the editorial decisions of newspapers and the political assessments of the interests of nations are not science either.

      Posted by moptop on 2006 06 02 at 09:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hal,

      I don’t think anybody is disputing the fact that the Earth is getting warmer. All you need to prove this is a bunch of scientist running around with thermometers (very dangerous, by the way). According to the good doctor Sluijs however our efforts to thwart man-induced global warming will all be in vain if the Earth simply let’s another one rip.

      It’s interesting to me how global alarmists are at liberty to create one fanciful mechanism after another to explain past warming trends while those with cooler heads can’t suggest other possibilities might exist for these warming trends.

      Dorian

      Posted by Dorian on 2006 06 02 at 09:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. Um – Lomborg was debunked? Where? Are you talking about the “official” debunking in American Science magazine that was, unfortunately, utterly pathetic and barely even made scratches on Lomborg’s various theses? I read it – quite pitiful. Talk about a bunch of huffing and puffing from a group of clearly alarmed eco-warriors. Despite this, all the enviro-priests rushed to quickly reassure the frightened faithful that it was indeed a thorough and terribly convincing debunking – despite the fact it was pitiful – and they all moved on, safe in the knowledge that, yes, Lomborg was debunked good. Well, if it helps you sleep at night…

      By the way, Hal, here’s a rather elegant case against Greenhouse hysteria. Enjoy.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 06 02 at 09:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. nofixedabode,
      I was wondering about continental drift myself, but I can’t see how the cartoon you presented actually addresses the question of where, in relation to the north pole, the core cited in the article came from. Maybe you can show me how the good professors have blundered since it appears so obvious to you that they have?

      Posted by moptop on 2006 06 02 at 10:15 AM • permalink

 

    1. PS – I see you’ve succumbed to the obvious “consensus” conspiracy, Hal. Thing is, there’s quite a strong “consensus” against the “consensus” you mention. (Is it possible to have a polarised consensus, folks?) This appears to be a rather disingenious ploy by the bishops of the environmentalist movement to end debate prematurely (lest their dirty little secrets come to light). No doubt they’re hoping if they unilaterally (and arrogantly) declare the battle won, a critical mass will believe them and create a political imperative to start laying down some really heavy legislation. Then our greeen visionaries can start getting on with the real job of converting the world into to some imagined arcadian wonderland – enforced by the (incrementally growing) proxy violence of the state.

      I can’t do that, Hal.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 06 02 at 10:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hal? Hal? Are you there? Given your certainty on the issue, I am sure that you have considered it in some depth, and therefore have ready answers to our objections.

      Or have you come to your conclusion based on your reading comprehension skills rather than your critical thinking skills.

      One enables you to understand the points that the writer of an article is making. No doubt you are good at understanding the points that the press push on climate change.

      The other enables you to consider those points in the context of logic and your own scientific understanding. I see a complete lack of any indication that you understand the fundimental issues being discussed here. Sorry.

      Posted by moptop on 2006 06 02 at 11:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. Guys, can we get past the politics already.  This is a scientific debate.

      No it’s not, Hal.  Gore is a politician diving into a scientific debate for political purposes, and attempting to whip up popular support for this movement.  I agree, his chance of getting the Democratic nomination for President is slight, but Gore is not known for being an intelligent man…..merely an energetic one.  There’s a difference.

      This should be a scientific debate.  But it’s become political….and mores the pity for that.

      I see that other commenters have already responded to your statements with counterpoints and questions.  For myself:

      I agree that there are many climate skeptics out there – a few of whom are actually qualified climate scientists. I just hate the way that so many conservatives decide automatically to jump on the anti-environmentalist bandwagon without taking a hard look at the facts. This should not be a political debate.  Science is not a left-wing conspiracy

      How do you know that conservatives haven’t taken a hard look at the facts?  Becasuse we haven’t jumped on the environmentalist bandwagon?  Because we are skeptics?  Well, then….

      I know there have been periods of warming and cooling, milankovitch cycles etc etc.  The evidence is still overwhelming that the present period of warming is abnormal.

      You are skeptical of the evidence against global warming/cooling/whatever?  Did you bother to consider the implications of the historical and geological evidence, before rejecing them because they don’t match what we think are the current climate trends?

      (BTW, what’s “abnormal” about current climate trends?  How does this current period match against past events?)

      When you talk about about conservatives who “…automatically to jump on the anti-environmentalist bandwagon…”, I see more than a little projection from you.

      So far, most of your arguments have been based on assertions (e.g., Lomborg was debunked) and dismissing of counterevidence.  Try some facts and solid analysis instead.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 02 at 11:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. The always valuable Daily Ablution has a lengthy commentary on Lomberg and his foes.

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 02 at 12:29 PM • permalink

 

    1. 42 Hal

      Heh, I see I’ve touched a raw nerve

      Sounds like “Heh, my obnoxious rhetoric has been annoying; therefore everybody secretly knows I’m right.”
      (Looking for the “ignore” button … damn this format!)

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 06 02 at 12:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. I just hate the way that so many conservatives decide automatically to jump on the anti-environmentalist bandwagon .

      Hey, if this is a dig at my upcoming dude whaling cruise, I’ll have you know that it’s been approved by the Maritime Administration*.

      * Of Paraguay.

      #45: ummm… 55 million years ago the North pole wasn’t at the North Pole.

      That was Wronwright’s doing; he loves to tease polar bears.

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 02 at 12:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. One of the reasons that the environmental movement has become so annoying in recent years is that they are always talking about what we should do to stop global cooling warming climate change.  That’s a completely pointless conversation.  What they should be talking about is what we can do to adapt to climate change, if it is coming.  Offer up some reasonable solutions, be helpful, and stop jumping up and down, wailing hysterically about how we’re all gonna die if we don’t become good little agrarian communards.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 06 02 at 01:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. By the way, paco, it would be gentlemanly of you if you’d drop the hint in wronwright’s ear to stop moving lakes and poles around.  The birds have been doing a kamikaze number on my deck lately, and I know it’s that whole magnetic shift thing (not to mention I took the bird feeder down).

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 06 02 at 01:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. Well said, Rebecca.  I’ve yet to hear one enviro-cultist suggest something helpful.  It always comes down to “Reduce your environmental footprint!”, usually made by some dweeb pounding away at his/her computer in a heated residence, between sips from that cup of Starbucks latte sitting next to the half-eaten Big Mac™ hamburger, while listening to the latest music on cable.

      Some of these people do practice what they preach, to a certain extent, such as recycling.  But I do that as well, so what’s the big deal?  Use mass transit?  I ride a bike to work most days….how is that?  Other (responsible) people do their part as well.

      If these enviro-cultists really want to set a trend, they need to abandon that urban life style, and move into a mud hut out in the wilderness.  No power, no metal tools, no medicines, no food.  Have at it, folks, and don’t forget to write.  We’ll spot you pencil and paper to record this for posterity.

      I’ll still think they are nuts, but at least they won’t be hypocritical.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 02 at 01:57 PM • permalink

 

    1. #57: Yeah, I wish he’d stop fooling with that stuff, too. When I lived in Phoenix, the surfers used to make an awful lot of noise on Sunday mornings.

      Speaking of Phoenix – or rather, the nearby community of Sun City – I noticed that most of the folks there had plastic owls on their roofs. I think this is intended to scare other birds away, so you might think about investing in one of those. Either that, or go back to feeding them. One problem I always had with bird feeders was that they attracted squirrels, which in turn attracted cats, so we constantly had one of these “Trials of Life” episodes going on in the backyard.

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 02 at 02:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. If the Earth is warming because of what man has done, why are Mars, Jupiter, and possibly Pluto also warming? Doesn’t that suggest there’s an external cause for at least some of the warming? If so, doesn’t that call into question our ability to do anything about it?

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 06 02 at 04:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. If the Earth is warming because of what man has done, why are Mars, Jupiter, and possibly Pluto also warming? Doesn’t that suggest there’s an external cause for at least some of the warming?

      It’s Bush.  Him and his secret nucyular waste disposal program.  They really ARE loading it into rockets, and shooting them into the sun, which is now contaminated, so it’s extra extra hot, AND radioactive (which it wasn’t, during the previous administration).  Reason nobody notices all the extra rocket launches is because he does them at night, when we can’t see them.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 06 02 at 04:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. Remember the missing Flight 77, the one that DIDN’T hit the Pentagon?  Bush did that, too.  Fffp, zing!  Right into the sun.  Oh that bastard!

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 06 02 at 04:49 PM • permalink

 

    1. Saltydog, I brought up Lomborg because he’s already been debunked as comprehensively as Michael Moore.

      James Waterton already handled this, but I’d just like to add – BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

      Hey, Hal, watch me debunk Einstein’s Theory of Relativity:

      “Nuh-uhhh!

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 02 at 05:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. #63: Hey, Hal, watch me debunk Einstein’s Theory of Relativity:

      “Nuh-uhhh!”

      Priceless, Dave, priceless!

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 02 at 05:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’ll keep this quick as I can.

      Bjorn Lomborg actually agreed that climate change through human intervention was a real phenomenon.  He simply argued that the costs of cutting emissions outweighed any benefit.  However his cost-benefit analysis hinges on a number of assumptions that are demonstrably false – such as the assumption that if money weren’t being spent cutting emissions it would automatically be spent on a limited set of other environmental issues.

      I think we can all agree on the following:

      1.  C02 concentrations are increasing at an unnatural rate due to human intervention (polar ice cores show a cyclical pattern then a sudden spike following the arrival of humans)

      2.  The earth is warming (10 of the hottest years in the last 14 since humans began making records)

      3.  The mechanism by which elevated levels of CO2 can result in increased warming is well known.

      4.  The majority of scientists belive the problem is real and something should be done about it.

      Global warming and cooling is subject to numerous seperate internal and external forcings as well as a variety of threshholds and feedback mechanisms.  This provides plenty of room for skeptics to muddy the issue.  However it is instructive to point out that support for human-induced climate change is steadily increasing rather than decreasing among scientists.

      The volcano argument has been debunked.  Volcanoes do produce huge amounts of greenhouse gases but they also inject huge amounts of dust into the atmosphere which results in a slight cooling effect.  This is why a number of mad climatologists have suggested injecting dust into the stratosphere as a means of negating the impact of global warming.

      Posted by Hal on 2006 06 02 at 08:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. I think we can all agree on the following:

      We’ll see.

      1.  C02 concentrations are increasing at an unnatural rate due to human intervention (polar ice cores show a cyclical pattern then a sudden spike following the arrival of humans)

      No, we don’t agree on this.  What we see is a warming trend that started around the end of the Little Ice Age.  There’s evidence of some anthropogenic influence, but there’s also evidence of natural influences as well.  CO2 is considered to be a green house gas, but is by no means unique.

      There has been an increase of CO2, but it’s actual effect can’t be fully assessed.

      2.  The earth is warming (10 of the hottest years in the last 14 since humans began making records)

      Yep.  No argument.  The data shows a temperature increase.

      3.  The mechanism by which elevated levels of CO2 can result in increased warming is well known.

      Nope.  There is considerable (and legitimate) argument against and for.

      4.  The majority of scientists belive the problem is real and something should be done about it.

      Science is not about consensus….it’s about the scientific method.  Something that enviro-cultists like you oh so conveniently ignore.

      Hal, you are merely pointing environmentalist talking points, most of which are actually unproven or irrelevant assertions.

      Seriously, now……is that you, Ender?  Are you back under another name to regurgitate your Mother Gaia™ psuedo-religious dogma?

      If not, Hal, you are not being original at all; you are merely regurgitating old Mother Gaia™ psuedo-religious dogma.  Sounds like you didn’t get the latest talking point memo.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 02 at 09:23 PM • permalink

 

    1. Seriously, now……is that you, Ender?
      ————————————————

      Nup, I just get sick of armchair climatologists.

      Posted by Hal on 2006 06 02 at 09:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. Nup, I just get sick of armchair climatologists.

      Ditto.

      This is why a number of mad climatologists have suggested injecting dust into the stratosphere as a means of negating the impact of global warming.

      And this is a partial answer to your question of why people on the Right oppose the global-warming crowd. See, we’re conservative. That means we’re sober and don’t go stirring things up. We don’t believe that you should do something just to do something, because you could make things worse. Or make a non-problem a problem. Contrast this with people who want to put dust in the atmosphere to cool things down and possibly make it 1816 all over again. Wouldn’t that be fun?

      It’s one thing to have an effect on the environment as a small by-product of normal activity. It’s another to deliberately fuck with nature based on hubristic climate models and a willful blindness to historical record.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 02 at 10:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. Nup, I just get sick of armchair climatologists.

      Unless you are a bona fide climatologist, Hal, irony meters around the world just exploded.

      Also, I see you ignored my response to your post.  That’s interesting because ignoring inconvenient facts is a sign of someone who is not objective (as in “subjective”) about a problem.

      That’s OK, though…..I get sick of Mother Gaia™ worshippers posing as experts, and pushing their worn-out and refuted schtick as some new and unbeatable form of Scientific Truth™.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 02 at 10:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. Y’know, there must be some intelligent worshippers of Mother Gaia™ out there.  They all can’t as stupid and unimaginative as Ender, Hal, and the other twits coming here to preach to the heathen.

      On the other hand, maybe they all are that stupid and unimaginative.  That would explain much.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 02 at 10:04 PM • permalink

 

    1. #70: They all can’t as stupid and unimaginative as Ender, Hal, and the other twits coming here to preach to the heathen.

      Paco say throw ‘em missionaries in pot, boil ‘em half a day, stir by ‘n by, season to taste.

      Posted by paco on 2006 06 02 at 10:47 PM • permalink

 

    1. The_Real_JeffS, your arguments sound similar to those used by an advocate of intelligent design. In science there is always uncertainty.  Hypotheses can never be conclusively proven – the chances of them being incorrect just steadily vanish into statistical insignificance.  What has been interesting in recent years has been the way that several prominent skeptics have publicly changed their stance in the face of mounting data.

      Posted by Hal on 2006 06 02 at 11:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. Say what, Hal?  You say global warming is a human caused threat to the planet.
      I say climate change is not a proven threat, and that most of your “arguments” are actually disproved assertions offered as “truth”.

      You say that you dislike armchair climatologists.

      I point out that you are a Mother Gaia™ worshipper, ignoring counterpoints, and devastating irony meters everywhere.  I also describe you as “stupid and unimaginative”.

      Your witty response?  My arguments are similar to “Intelligent Design”, and whaddaya know, skeptics changed their minds climate change!  Hallelujah, brother!

      I hereby retract my earlier use of “unimaginative” to describe you.  In it’s place, I post these direct questions to you:

      1.  Are you a bona fide climatotologist?

      2.  Which skeptics changed their minds?  Links, please.

      3.  Explain where the scientific method allows for the acceptance of a hypothesis through “statistical insignificance”.  (Hint:  A hypothesis may have a reliability computed statistically, but statistics is generally a measure of our ignorance of the outcome—it’s not a definitive answer in and of itself.)

      Note to other Blairites:  Shall we have a pool on how many comments it’ll take Hal to answer these questions?

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 03 at 12:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. Oh Jeff, he’s never going to answer a direct question with a direct answer.  Hal likes to sound like he knows something, but he doesn’t want to do the work of actually learning about his subject.  All of his arguments are falacious at one point or another; he either resorts to argument from intimidation, or argument from authority.  He misuses technical terminology, sees no difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and mere assertions, dismisses scientific standards of proof with the back of his subjectivist’s hand, and he ignores what constitutes a valid scientific methodology.  In other words, he is ignorant and proud of it.

      Don’t bother challenging him.  He’s put in the effort of memorizing his facts and he doesn’t want to be bothered with the critical thinking required when trying to integrate new information.  I suspect that he doesn’t know how.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 03 at 12:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. The_Real_JeffS, your arguments sound similar to those used by an advocate of intelligent design.

      And yours sound like those of creation scientists – pseudoscientific religion/pseudoreligious science.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 03 at 01:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. From the Lefty Dictionary:

      CONSENSUS: A number of people agree with you.

      UNILATERALIST: A number of people do something you disagree with.

      In Leftyland, some can mean all, and many can mean lone.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 03 at 01:33 AM • permalink

 

    1. moptop- Why the rudeness? Insecurity? Poor social skills? Delusions of superiority? Nothing else to lead with?

      Posted by nofixedabode on 2006 06 03 at 01:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. Oh, and Hal, don’t forget the Greenpeace strategy, as outlined in a guideline memo accidentally made public:

      “In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world’s worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE].”

      (yes, that is 100% true. Greenpeace issued a statement saying it was a poor choice of joke, or some such.)

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 03 at 01:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. Mother Gaia™ worshipper?  And I’M supposed to be unimaginative?  you righteys crack me up.

      For the record, I’m no radical environmentalist.  I’m just a rationalist – I believe in evidence and logical conjecture.  Sometimes this favours the left, other times the right (I’d say the ratio would be about 60:40)

      In this instance, I’m witnessing a sort of right-wing herd mentality; this idea that because elements of the left have raised an issue it is your duty to unite in downgrading it – with the help of a Michael Crichton novel and not much else.

      The_Real_JeffS,

      1.  No I’m not a climatologist although I am a scientist.  yourself?

      2.  John Christy is an example of a prominent climatologist who has demonstrated a change in his views as the evidence has accumlated:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Scientific_literature_and_opinion

      David Attenborough is a naturalist, not a climate expert, but he was a prominent skeptic until relatively recently:

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2189536,00.html

      3.  The whole point of comparing global warming with evolution was to point out that there are knowledge gaps in both theories that are attacked by opponents for ideological reasons.  In the near future, there is no way of definitively and unambiguously quantifying the extent of anthropogenic-induced climate change.  However, by any standard of proof the evidence that there is a danger far outweighs the evidence that there isn’t a danger.

      This is fun, keep it coming.

      Posted by Hal on 2006 06 03 at 01:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. “armchair climatologists”? That is *rich*! Hal, since you’re clearly the big expert – and so keen on debunking – perhaps you might like to debunk the link I provided earlier, Mr Bona Fides. Here it is again, just in case you missed it.

      However, looking over the scientific analysis the link provides, I suppose your expert eye would quickly mark the authors out as armchair climatologists. Much easier to dismiss it as wrong and move on briskly – just like you did with Lomborg.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 06 03 at 02:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hah! Hal utterly NAILED IT! “Logical conjecture” is a marvellously apt description of the science climate change doomsayers field as fact.

      A spectacular own goal, Hal. Absolutely priceless.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 06 03 at 02:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. I like climate change. I say, the hotter the better. Cold weather is so…. cold.  And water is so much nicer than ice.  This is a good thing.

      BTW: watch out for Hal…

      Dave Bowman: What’s the problem?
      HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
      Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?
      HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 06 03 at 02:11 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hottest 10 of last 14 years since humans have measured global temperature—except that humans never have measured global temperature.

      People who say that it is agreed by all that global temperatures have risen about 1 degree in a century (and practically everybody does say that, whatever their attitude toward anthropogenic global warming) have to explain to me just how they know what the global temperature was in 1906.

      There were no measurements in that year above about 70 degrees N, none below 50 degrees S, almost none in interior Africa, Amazonia, very few in Siberia.

      Astoundingly enough, in 2000, there were no significant measured surface temperatures in interior Africa, about a third of Amazonia, much of southwest Asia, a huge area around the Tibetan Plateau, most of the area above 70 N and most of the area below 50 S.

      In other words, the ‘finding’ that the globe is warming was done without the benefit of any data from the three coldest places on Earth.

      There were (and have been since 1979) satellite measurements that covered the whole globe, but they have been recalibrated THREE times (up twice, down once), and there’s no reason to think they are accurate.

      The globe may be warming, it has been for at least several thousand years, with occasional retrograde cooling, but if the next ice age were already under way, we have no system of mensuration that would detect it.

      Global warming is a hoax, hal.

      Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 06 03 at 02:33 AM • permalink

 

    1. Ok, guys its been fun, I’m going out now to take acid and worship my pagan gods.  I’ll take Jeff’s silence as an admission that his line of reasoning is unsustainable.

      Posted by Hal on 2006 06 03 at 03:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. Well, there you go, Jeff.  Hal says he’s a rationalist.  Since he’s so smart, being an unspecified-type scientist and all, I’m sure he understands that Rationalism (capital R) is based on the premise that reality can be understood without reference to the evidence of the senses; which reality is unknowable if your rationalism is of a Kantian variety (as is all rationalism today).  This is what leads him to say things like he “believes in” evidence (evidence of what?) and “logical conjecture” (and I do thank him for the laugh that gave me).  It also explains how he can reduce reality to statistical factoring.

      When he can say that he believes in reason applied to the evidence of the senses, then he will have some actual facts to discuss.  But don’t hold your breath.  Doesn’t really matter.  He’s having a good time.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 03 at 03:11 AM • permalink

 

    1. Okay Hal, see you later. It has been fun, you’re right – it’s always amusing to witness an implosion of that magnitude.

      Folks, Mr “Logical Conjecture” has left the building.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 06 03 at 03:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. Hal, you are just a little impatient here.  I have to answer your requests immediately?  Think again.  I ain’t here for your immediate gratification.  Thank God.

      For the record, I’m no radical environmentalist.  I’m just a rationalist – I believe in evidence and logical conjecture.

      Rationalists believe in reason over experience or authority.  How does evidence fit into your philosophy?  This might explain your cherrypicking.

      1.  No I’m not a climatologist although I am a scientist.  yourself?

      You owe people a lot money for those broken irony meters, given your earlier sneering at “armchair climatologists”.  Arrogance and condescendation don’t go well with a scientific debate.

      Me?  Just an engineer.  I never claimed otherwise.  And I sneer at radical environmentalists because they never accept the possibility that they might be wrong.

      Given your inability to deal directly with salient points raised by other people (as saltydog put it “All of his arguments are falacious at one point or another; he either resorts to argument from intimidation, or argument from authority. ”), I conclude that you can’t accept the possibility of being wrong as well.  By inference, you are a Mother Gaia™ worshipper.

      Who happens to be a scientist.  In name, anyway, since you apparently don’t believe in the scientific method, just “logical conjecture”.  Must be pretty inconvenient, having to deal with facts and all, eh?

      2.  Good!  You answered with two names.  And I can point you to other learned people who disagree with you.  What does this prove?  Nothing.  Remember, there is no consensus in science!  Naughty little Hal, you aren’t paying attention, are you?

      The physical evidence, presented in an unbiased form, is what matters.

      3.  The whole point of comparing global warming with evolution was to point out that there are knowledge gaps in both theories that are attacked by opponents for ideological reasons.  In the near future, there is no way of definitively and unambiguously quantifying the extent of anthropogenic-induced climate change.  However, by any standard of proof the evidence that there is a danger far outweighs the evidence that there isn’t a danger.

      Let me get this straight.  There is not enough evidence for “…definitively and unambiguously quantifying the extent of anthropogenic-induced climate change.

      Yet, “by any standard of proof the evidence that there is a danger far outweighs the evidence that there isn’t a danger.

      Emphasis is mine.  The non sequitor there boggles the mind.  There are knowledge gaps (which only serve ideological needs), but by any “standard of proof”, there’s a danger.

      How can I say this….?

      Oh, yes: “I’m not impressed.”  Saltydog is right—debating with you is pointless.

      But that should be immaterial, as I trust that you will be throwing your computer away tomorrow, in the first step of reducing your ecological footprint.  There being a danger and all, y’know.

      As for me…..I’ll adapt with the changes.  I don’t see a danger, I see an unknown quantity, and I refuse to panic over it.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 03 at 03:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. Heh, saltydog!  You beat me to it, and said it better.  Mr. Logical Conjectutre Rationalist misses the point at all levels.

      Robert Heinlein once wrote that most scientists are button sorters.  Hal is living proof of that.

      James, “implosion” is right.  I wonder if Hal didn’t create some sort of new phenomena when he finally went “pop!”.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 03 at 03:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. What a day. Sheesh, glad to get back to the control room…

      What the hell?
      Every one? EVERY ONE??

      What have you maniacs been DOING?  I’ve only been gone a day!

      EVERY bloody irony meter broken! Do you know how far we are over the VRWC HQ ‘Nexus of Evil’ global sensornet and control room maintenance budget?

      <sounds of rummaging, swearing and imprecations>

      Troll baiting.  You lot have been troll baiting again. Only this time you got a rolled gold live one and his spectacular derangement has blown up all the frigging irony meters.

      Sigh.

      OK, I can’t sic Paco or Andrea on to you ‘cause troll baiting is allowed by the Dark Lords. But I want some of you over here tomorrow to help replace all these bloody meters.

      And no more getting the troll to a #69 on himself! It’ll overstress the sarcasm-o-matic sensor grid.

      MarkL
      canberra

      Posted by MarkL on 2006 06 03 at 04:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. Heh, saltydog! You beat me to it, and said it better. Mr. Logical Conjectutre Rationalist misses the point at all levels.

      Thank you for the kind words.  I see you didn’t snap too near quick enough.

      Robert Heinlein once wrote that most scientists are button sorters. Hal is living proof of that.

      Makes me worry about the beans he’s in charge of, though.  Even the lowly bean requires some respect.

      James, “implosion” is right. I wonder if Hal didn’t create some sort of new phenomena when he finally went “pop!”.

      Being a phenomena in his own mind, he made not a ripple outside his own reality.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 03 at 04:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. Damn!  Caught red-handed.  Crap!

      Mr. MarkL Sir,  I’m standing here with shoulders rounded from the burden of my guilt, and I’m digging my toe in the sands of contrition as I most humbly beg your pardon for baiting trolls.  I know there is no honor in it, Sir, especially when it is this easy.

      Sir, may I hand you a screwdriver?

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 03 at 04:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. Thanks, saltydog. Pass a No 4 wrench, mate and oh, grab yourself a beer. Gonna be a long night…

      MarkL
      canberra

      Posted by MarkL on 2006 06 03 at 06:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. If support for the alarmist theory is growing all the time, how did Hal’s 99.9% consensus manage to devolve into a mere majority in the short time between #39 and #65?

      Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2006 06 03 at 07:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. Good catch, Paul.  Hal’s hyperbole (which he flung around recklessly) simply bit him in the ass.  Not surprising, given his faux intellectuism.  Ace of Spades recently commented on this on this phenomena, after a series of really stupid (and often vile) attacks on Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom:

      The left, to a man, considers itself to be educated and enlightened. It matters not how little actual schooling a particlular leftist may have had, nor how unintelligent the person might be. They all consider themselves intellectuals of sorts. If they dropped out of college after one semester, they just think of themselves as autodidacts whose genius could not be stimulated by the ossified and bourgeois teaching of the academy. If they’re just plain stupid or crazy—like, say, Charlie Sheen—they indulge in farcial conspiracy-theorizing, reassuring themselves that they are intellectual because they know things others do not. They are one of the chosen few brave enough to see past the web of lies and glimpse the arcane truth behind, say, the implosion of the World Trade Center (a SEAL team planted those charges, you know?).

      This conceit, usually wholly undeserved, of practically every leftist in the world is what makes leftism so intoxicating for the intellectually insecure, and what makes leftists so easily led and manipulated. It’s an attractive doctrine for those who wish to conceive of themselves as intellectual and brilliant, for it provides an instant short-cut to the equivalent of an MIT education. If you simply believe these things we tell you to believe, you are one of Us, one of the Intellectually Elite, one of the Cultural Vanguard. Just as giving oneself to Christ, and believing in His power, and accepting the need for and gift of His redemption, instantly makes one “saved” and enters one’s name in the Book of the Heaven, so too does accepting leftist tropes and core beliefs make one one of the Secular Elect.

      Now, Hal was not vile.  But certainly he gave himself the appearance of being more educated and enlightened with his “I’m not a climatologist, but I am a scientist, you betcha!” schtick.  Us mere plebes of science had no place being “armchair climatologists”, and so only his opinions mattered.

      Hal’s conceit was nauseating in the extreme.  He actually made a couple minor points, but that conceit, along with a heavy condescending attitude, cancelled that out.

      Hal may actually have a scientific college education, and may actually work in some sort of research.  But his inability to openly discuss facts with us (beyond asserting that his opinions are the only ones that matter) highlights either his ignorance or insecurity.  Possibly both.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 03 at 09:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. Have you noticed that it was as though one were having two separate conversations simultaneously?  Hal would say something, it would be answered and questions would be asked, but when he talked again, it was as though he never heard what was said.  Someone would try to get him back on track, he’d go off on another tangent.  You could see that whole sentences had zoomed over his head every time he posted.

      And if he is a scientist of any stripe, the world is in danger.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 06 03 at 12:34 PM • permalink

 

    1. Saltydog –

      Hal would say something, it would be answered and questions would be asked, but when he talked again, it was as though he never heard what was said.

      True to form, true to form.  His methodology reflects exactly that of the enviropriests when they declare the debate on climate change is over. It obviously, clearly, evidently isn’t, but they figure that as long as they ignore their detractors it might as well be. Hal’s merely cut from the same cloth.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 06 03 at 01:36 PM • permalink

 

    1. #83 – game, set, match.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 03 at 01:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. Have you noticed that it was as though one were having two separate conversations simultaneously?

      That tactic is what makes me think Hal is the same guy posting under a lot of different nicks in different threads.  It looks like there’s a whole army of Gaiaboys arguing, when really there’s only one.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 06 03 at 03:08 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Insecurity” or “delusions of superiority”? Those are my only choices? Yeesh, how about sick of posters making up numbers to support arguments?

      Posted by moptop on 2006 06 03 at 03:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. The ton!

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 06 03 at 04:16 PM • permalink

 

    1. Plus one!

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 06 03 at 05:14 PM • permalink

 

    1. Plus two. Ace of Spades post is worth reading. EP and I have been discussing leftism on and off for a while,a nd the view of it is not pretty. Hal (like the ‘Deborah’ I recently demolished over at Andrew bartlett’s blog) is a BDS/HDS sufferer, as we have come to define such people. They are perect representations of people blind, because they will not see.

      MarkL
      canberra

      Posted by MarkL on 2006 06 03 at 10:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. “Insecurity” or “delusions of superiority”? Those are my only choices?

      Pretty much. Uncalled-for rudeness is a defense mechanism employed by the inadequate when out of their depth. Usually used by teenagers or poseurs.
      Yeesh, how about sick of posters making up numbers to support arguments?

      Not that this excuses your incivility, but you will please provide examples of this “… making up numbers.”? Remember to include links in support of your argument. Thanks.

      Posted by nofixedabode on 2006 06 03 at 10:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. A descriptive media cliche for that last post would be “the remnants of a renegade force”.

      Bit of a damp squib, however. Funny lot, the congregation of Climate Change. We have one non-climatologist lecturing us about “armchair climatologists”, and now this guy labelling others “inadequate” and “out of their depth”, despite having contributed nothing substantive to the discussion.

      As well as being excessively gullible, these Climate Change believers seem to have a problem with self-perspective.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 06 04 at 04:48 AM • permalink

 

    1. “I just felt obligated to point out that there’s 99.9% consenus on this issue ” —Hal

      And the links supporting my refutation in are in my post.

      Did you read any of my posts before embarking on your psycho babble jihad? It would appear not to be so.  I like a good argument as much as anybody, but at least get your ducks in a row before starting one.  Talk about poseurs.

      Posted by moptop on 2006 06 04 at 07:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. #105 was addressed to NoFixedAbode. In case anybody cared.

      Posted by moptop on 2006 06 04 at 09:07 AM • permalink

 

    1. You justify your rudeness to me because of Hal’s post? You really are a jerk!

      Posted by nofixedabode on 2006 06 04 at 01:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. …psycho babble jihad?

      Isn’t that a bit over the top, even for a troll?

      Posted by nofixedabode on 2006 06 04 at 01:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. nofixedabode, I’ve just had a look at the exchange you consider so rude. Got news for you, buddy – he wasn’t rude to you.

      nofixedabode, you are a prissy little twerp who is attacking a rudeness strawman because you’ve exhausted all other avenues of argument available – which admittedly must be quite limited for someone like yourself, if the lack of intellectual prowess displayed here is indicative of anything.

      Now THAT’S rude.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 06 04 at 01:43 PM • permalink

 

    1. James Waterton-

      moptop’s first post directed to me (#49) was rude, condescending, dismissive and insulting. Unnecessarily. It was meant to be so, and I fail to see how you can read it as otherwise. Unless, of course, you are also baiting.

      I made no argument, posted no numbers. I simply linked to a site discussing the history Pangea, which included a graphic map that moptop dismisses as (or confuses with) a cartoon.

      ”… prissy little twerp” That’s a subjective evaluation. I’ve been called worse by better.

      ”…attacking a rudeness strawman…”  It’s not a strawman if it’s real. It is.

      ”… because you’ve exhausted all other avenues of argument available…” Again, I made no argument until moptop turned his attention on me. The tone of his message to me was not one designed to further the discussion. I asked why.

      ”…which admittedly must be quite limited for someone like yourself, if the lack of intellectual prowess displayed here is indicative of anything.” Unlike the agile, incisive and persuasive reasoning you display here. And you brilliant use of the ad hominem attack must’ve ranked you at the top of your debate team!

      Posted by nofixedabode on 2006 06 04 at 02:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. of

      Posted by nofixedabode on 2006 06 04 at 02:16 PM • permalink

 

    1. Have you noticed that it was as though one were having two separate conversations simultaneously?

      Good observation, saltydog.  And I think Rebecca nails it—we has us a troll with lotsa sock puppets.  Must be the only way the twerp can win an argument…..by debating with him/herself.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 04 at 06:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. It’s not Ender – not nearly enough specific-but-entirely-ungermane scientific factoids.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 06 04 at 08:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. Hah! You call

      Maybe you can show me how the good professors have blundered since it appears so obvious to you that they have?

      that rude? I stand by my entirely appropriate and deserving ad hominem attack on you. You are a prissy little twerp, and your ‘defence’ at #110 merely confirmed that.

      Posted by James Waterton on 2006 06 05 at 12:52 AM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.