"Believe nothing you hear about smears against scientists."

In all seriousness, Rog, that means we would have to disregard a considerable amount of what you have posted. Some of your coments have been decidedly ad hominem, to say the least.

Rog said: It's the biggest and best jigsaw puzzle ever. :-)

Don't see how anyone disagree with that statement.

It is interesting how the more you look into it, the more confusing it becomes.

That is why I am not convinced that the consensus is right just because they are a consensus.

Obviously the world, for the most part, is not convinced either. Whether this is based on perceived risk versus reward or is the result of the world's Roges (or is it Rogen or Rogi) obscuring the truth for their evil reasons - I don't know.

Tangent: during one of my recent training runs, my Ipod included this tune
http://www.last.fm/music/Pink+Floyd/_/The+Nile+Song

possible theme song for Carbon Flame War thread : )

Tom, feel free to back up your vague assertion with specific examples so we can argue the justification for what I've said. I'll confidently state that I've had a lot more to say about the science than specific individual scientists.

But go ahead, refresh my memory.

For each one you bring up, I'll bring up one of the ad homs from your side of the climate divide.

What fun it will be.

" Seems it's more offensive to europeans (especially Brits) because of the association with holocaust denial."

denial is a noun that has different meanings depending on context and associated qualifiers, e.g. holocaust. No one on this thread has made even a remote association of denial with the holocaust, so I think you are making a pretty flimsy argument here, Rog, not to mention diminishing the enormous flexibility of the English language.


"That association is'n as strong in the states, so maybe you won't understand why I find it so offensive."

Now that is offensive. Do you think we're all historical idiots over here? Not to mention the enormously influential Jewish community residing in the US? C'mon, Rog, a little respect?

"So I'll ask you nicely:

Please knock it off."

In the interest of keeping the thread from degenerating into a mudslinging contest, OK. Hereafter I shall use the synonym disaffirmation. Does that work for you?

Edited by ouzel on 06/29/2011 18:17:03 MDT.

"Tom, feel free to back up your vague assertion with specific examples so we can argue the justification for what I've said."

To quote our preeminent Carbon Flame War poster: "I don't have time". They're scattered over some 112 pages and counting."

"I'll confidently state that I've had a lot more to say about the science than specific individual scientists."

Which is why I said "some of your posts". I have no problem with your postings on the science, valid or not, and I have said so on several occasions. What I do object to is your tendency to go ad hominem and condescend.

"But go ahead, refresh my memory."

Go back and refresh it yourself. And while you're at it, maybe refresh mine as to which side of the climate divide I'm on. For the life of me I can't remember. Frankly, I am not certain about climate change and the role of CO2, partly due to some of your posts. Most of my posts have had to do with decreasing Ph of the oceans, which is also a result of increased CO2 in the system but is also affected by other variables, such as temperature.

Tom, you missed the point bigtime.

Read Barry Woods comment. The two columnists in the British press were making the connection explicitly between 'climate deniers' and a holocaust denier who got locked up. The two columnists were calling for the law against holocaust denial to be extended to 'climate deniers' too.

Influential people need to be accountable for their pronouncements. This is ugly gloves off stuff.

Edited by tallbloke on 06/29/2011 18:22:26 MDT.

"What I do object to is your tendency to go ad hominem and condescend."

I only go ad hominem in return to the same coming from others. I give as good as I get and will not be bullied by people who wish to smear and denigrate.

I never intend to condescend and if anything I've said comes across that way, I apologise.

"The two columnists in the British press were making the connection explicitly between 'climate deniers' and a holocaust denier who got locked up. The two columnists were calling for the law against holocaust denial to be extended to 'climate deniers' too."

That is risible. Obviously a couple of lunatics.

"Influential people need to be accountable for their pronouncements."

Do you mean to tell me that people who write such rubbish are influential in Britain??? Tell me it ain't so, Rog. :(

"This is ugly gloves off stuff."

I'd say laugh 'em off the stage and get on with the Great Debate. Or at least confine them to Hyde Park. Certainly not worth taking off the gloves, or even putting them on in the first place, IMO. I'd wager Her Majesty's Government have worse scoundrels to place in the docket than climate skeptics. In any case, it is a shame to let them foul the atmosphere here on BPL. We've got enough trouble with all that CO2 as it is. But, as I said, I shall henceforth use some permutation of the word misaffirmation in future posts as a substitute for the "D" word. I was actually considering misaffirmationista. Has a nice ring, wouldn't you say? ;)

>> misaffirmationista

perfect ring indeed - i love it

"I only go ad hominem in return to the same coming from others. I give as good as I get and will not be bullied by people who wish to smear and denigrate."

I guess that boils down to perception and, upon further consideration, I'll have to defer to your perception where the perceived slight involves you. We all have our patches of thin skin.

"I never intend to condescend and if anything I've said comes across that way, I apologise."

Quite possibly an example of my little patch of thin skin. No apology required, but the willingness to do so speaks volumes. :)

Tom says:
"That is risible. Obviously a couple of lunatics."

One of them, George Monbiot, is known as Moonbat in sceptical circles. :-)

"'ll have to defer to your perception where the perceived slight involves you. We all have our patches of thin skin."

I have pretty broad shoulders and an easygoing sense of fun and humour. I don't mind people taking the P as long as they don't get uppity when I return in kind. The 'D' word really gets up my nose though, not only because of the connotation (I despise racism in all its manifestations), but because it's the thin end of an ugly tendency to label and then ignore others. Another ugly aspect of it is that it implies an unbalanced mental state, as for example those in denial of the reality their terminal disease suffer. Another is that it falsely elevates the 'truth' of the thing being 'denied'. Maybe I seem oversensitive, but having done a course in the philosophy of language, I understand the power of naming and the strength of negative alliteration and association. These things work at the subconscious level, and shape perception and attitude without the user of the term realising it's happening.

"Misaffirmationista has a nice ring to it."

Heh. I coined 'warmista'. Just call us the 'coolista' :-)

Can we get back to our regularly scheduled program?



Looks like the earth is cooling off. Going to be nice here in summer in a few years. Last week it was hovering around 115F. 46.1C for my metric friends, and 319.3K for the rest.

Do I get a tax refund/credit for my tax contributions to climate change research?



:)

Nick, we are still right at the top of the curve. Global ocean surface temperature has dropped a bit less than a tenth of a degree centigrade (or Kelvin) over the last decade. The two heavy snow winters in both hemispheres we've had are due to the Arctic oscillation turning negative in the N.H. and the El nino evaporation being followed by a strong La Nina cooling in the S.H. This is weather, but it's also likely to be a general trend over the next couple of decades. More blocking Greenland highs in winter, bringing arctic air down over N.H. landmasses. Equatorwards movement of the jetstreams, bring cold air to southern Austalasia and Siberia/Canada.

I expect the decline in temperatures globally to gently accelerate from around 2014 for at least 15-18 years. Overall it will be a cooler century than the C20th. How much by I don't know, because I haven't found a way to predict how long the solar grand minima we are entering will last yet. At least two cycles or around twenty four years. Could be 70 years, no-one knows.

Edited by tallbloke on 06/30/2011 06:00:18 MDT.

"I think it (PETM) was a long time ago and the world was a very different place."

If you don't look at past global warming events you won't understand the current one.


"Believe nothing you hear about smears against scientists."

It seems like you're smearing climate scientists - like the so-called "climategate" scientists - sure they made a bunch of emails that may seem embarrasing but no one is questioning their research

brothers and sistahs
heed the coolista
it might get hot
or maybe not
beware of the herd
they aint the only word
so dont jailista
our favorite coolista

Jerry says:
"If you don't look at past global warming events you won't understand the current one."

Very true. We are more likely to work out what was going on 1910 to 1945 when the world warmed at a similar rate to 1976-2005 though. It is historically nearer, vegetation and marine biology was similar, and we know the sunspot numbers with reasonable accuracy.

We also know co2 rose from approx 280ppm to 315ppm as it followed that warming, whereas it rose from 315ppm to 390ppm lagging behind the similar magnitude and speed of warming in the late C20th. Same amount of warming over the same time periods, twice as much co2 increase second time round. The correlation seems to be not so good, and cause and effect is wrong...

"It seems like you're smearing climate scientists - like the so-called "climategate" scientists - sure they made a bunch of emails that may seem embarrasing but no one is questioning their research"

Lolz. Do some research Jerry. Try these google searches for starters

site:climateaudit.org Michael Mann hockeystick pca
site:climateaudit.org Keith Briffa Yamal
site:climateaudit.org Phil Jones UHI china

You have about 6 years of reading to catch up on.

See you in a week.

"You have about 6 years of reading to catch up on"

I just don't have time for that!
However, whilst browsing Dr Spencers site I came across a link to Ferdinand Engelbeen.
He calls himself a 'skeptic' and yet makes a good argument that the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last century is entirely due to fossil fuel burning:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html

Hi Stuart,
yes, Ferdi Engelbeen is a good guy, and a good researcher. he is convinced by the !3C 12C isotope ratio mentioned by Roy Spencer in the piece Jerry took the time to read. Roy's thoughts on the isotope argument are linked from that piece.

I'm inclined towards the view that we don't know enough about the carbon cycle to infer anything from small trends in isotope ratios, and find Roy Spencers best fit argument more compelling. You are of course free to make your own judgment about that.

Arapiles said:
So, on a day on which a group of 200 Australian climate scientists met with Parliament over their concerns about the death threats they've been getting I have posted my last on this thread.


CLAIMS prominent climate change scientists had recently received death threats have been revealed as an opportunistic ploy, with the Australian National University admitting that they occurred up to five years ago.

Only two of ANU's climate change scientists allegedly received death threats, the first in a letter posted in 2006-2007 and the other an offhand remark made in person 12 months ago.

Neither was officially reported to ACT Police or Australian Federal Police, despite such crimes carrying a 10-year prison sentence.

The outdated threats raised question marks over the timing of their release to the public, with claims they were aired last week to draw sympathy to scientists and their climate change cause.

The university denied it was creating a ruse, maintaining the initial report, in the Fairfax-owned Canberra Times last week, failed to indicate when the threats were made.Reports also suggested the threats had forced the ANU to lock away its climate change scientists and policy advisers in a high-security complex. The Daily Telegraph has discovered the nine scientists and staff in question were merely given keyless swipe cards - routine security measures taken last year.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/carbon-death-threats-go-cold/story-e6freuzr-1226071996499

More old news: Sceptic Dr Tim Ball get's five death threats:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031207.htm

What is it with skeptics named 'Ball'?
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/75298,people,news,greens-target-climate-change-denier-johnny-ball

great links! enjoyed them

Since then, he has become more vocal about his belief that climate change is "bad science", making colourful observations like his one in 2009 that spiders' farts are more harmful greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. That comment, at a lecture in London, led to him being booed off the stage.

...
Several films have been introduced into schools which imply that the earth may not be able to sustain human life in around 39 years' time