Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Obama picks up the "it's not a coincidence" theme

From the Union's State:

Now, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science and act before it’s too late.
I continue to think the fact that science has a story that provides closure, while science denial relies on "it's all just coincidences, one after another!", is a key advantage in pulling the fence-sitters to our side, and one we need to push a lot harder.  The most scientifically-convincing evidence is about the non-coincidence between warmth and greenhouse gases, but the public can think about the climate weirding throughout the world as additional non-coincidences.

Something else that's more of a tea-reading exercise - here's more of his speech a few paragraphs later:
Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America. So let’s generate even more. Solar energy gets cheaper by the year. Let’s drive down costs even further. As long as countries like China keep going all-in on clean energy, so must we.

Now, in the meantime, the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. We need to encourage that. That’s why my administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits.
Sadly, I think I agree with Eli that Keystone pipeline to take out oil sands will get built, despite my hopes last year (maybe John Kerry demanded freedom on this issue, but I doubt it).  There is another hand though - I'll bet the administration, if it okays the pipeline, will balance its destructive action with something that helps humanity.  They'll marry the two issues just like Obama did in his speech, although they might not frame them the same way as I do.


UPDATE -  the substance of Senator Rubio's response to Obama on climate:
When we point out that no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can’t control the weather – he accuses us of wanting dirty water and dirty air.
Truth hurts sometimes.  More on Rubio soon.

UPDATE 2:  Just listened to David Sirota, who independently made the same prediction that Obama will balance Keystone approval with climate action.

134 comments:

David B. Benson said...

If the Keystone pipeline is nixed the railroads will chuckle all the way to the bank.

Cynthia said...

As I read your post, Eli, this thought comes to mind. Social status in the modern world is often determined by the amount of waste one produces. The more often you go through cars, dresses, cell phones etc, the more prestigious you are.

While there is a fixed minimum to the amount of physical wealth (food and energy) one requires in order to survive, there is no upper limit to the amount of waste that can be generated by those who deprive the producers of the fruits of their labor.

A good illustration of the relationship is China, where the majority of productive citizens live below poverty line, yet at the same time their government spends trillions on useless infrastructure projects. 60+ million RE units sit empty.

There is a lower limit to the amount of necessities needed per individual. There is no upper limit to wastefulness. Its destructive potential, like human stupidity, is infinite.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Cynthia, more concisely:

I pollute, therefore I am.

Anonymous said...

Like any good politician, Obama seems to know that CC is exaggerated :

"Now, it’s true that no single event makes a trend"

But also knows he has a 'base' to play to:

"Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science and act before it’s too late."


"Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, all are now more frequent and more intense"

This statement is false and misleading, of course. All are multi-factored dynamic events with irregular occurrences.

Heatwaves are not particularly well defined, but the cause of heatwaves, namely the pile up or stagnation
of polar air masses, would not have a logical association with global warming anyway. Given that most
high temperature records are set during heatwaves and that the five continental high temperature records
all occurred well in the past, indicates that the most intense heatwaves were also well in the past.

Droughts in the US, as measured by the PDSI, have actually decreased:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/images/news/2013/drought-trend_400.jpg
And globally, drought distribution runs COUNTER to what GCMs predict ( esp in poleward areas ).

Wildfires are, of course, multi factored. The aviation age corresponds to both an era when fires were
actually measured and actively fought. Decades of fighting fires has, of course, led to an increase
in the first necessary condition for fire, namely fuel. And while lightning fires accounted for the start
of the lifelong history of fires, the increase in fire starters ( humans ) is a factor in frequency.

Floods should have a stronger trend in association with global warming ( increased average precip
is a feature of almost all models ). It is difficult to normalize flood measures, but assuming floods are
increasing, even there we must recall 1.) that the increase is not from zero - floods have always occurred
and will continue to occur and 2.) a growing problem in the world is the exhaustion of 'fossil water' - it
is probably not possible to separate the benefit of increased surface water from the detriment of increased flooding.

"Superstorm Sandy" - did he mean unprecedented, mega-storm, category 6 Sandy?
Or did he mean the category 1 hurricane that had far worse precedents in the Long Island Express and a long history of New England Storms.
Attributing Sandy to global warming is really one of the worst examples of irrational hypothesis chasing.

"the most severe drought in decades" this is a good way of indicating that there were worse droughts in the past that had nothing to do with global warming making recent droughts LESS intense than normal droughts!

"act before it’s too late." ( Order before midnight tonight? )

Obama and our government may impose taxes and regulations,
but history is replete with governments doing stupid things at the behest of fearful populations.

Eunice.

dhogaza said...

Eunice:

"This statement is false and misleading, of course."

Yes, your statement is. Thanks for your honesty.

Anonymous said...

Oh no, I Pielke acolyte/obfuscator/spin doctor descends. Well, I guess one must be sympathetic, like the creationists, it is all they have at this point.

Albatross

J Bowers said...

"...but history is replete with governments doing stupid things at the behest of fearful populations."

Not when, out of 33,700 authors of peer-reviewed climate change papers, only 34 reject that it's caused by humans.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Eunice,
Your post is perfect. It is so extreme and illogical that it refutes itself and discredits your understanding of even elementary logic and English. Thanks. I mean, what is left for me to do but watch you melt into irrelevance?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I guess Brian believes that we can pass laws that control the weather. lol The Waterboy is just too much. He is like Ed Schultz on crack.

Russell Seitz said...

J Bowers said...


But for every one of those thirty thousand authors, there's an Oregon Petitioner who has refused , declined, or otherwise electively not authored a paper on climate change and over 34 of them are human, so there.

Anonymous said...

"...are multi-factored dynamic events with irregular occurrences"

Yes, Eunice, but they have at least one factor in common (temperature), and when they all start happening reasonably simultaneously, and when that common factor is increasing, you don't need Bayesian probabilities to tell you something is going on ....

Man with no Name

J Bowers said...

"and over 34 of them are human"

The dead ones, yes, but not the cast of M*A*S*H who are fictional.

J Bowers said...

Anon's back, Anon hasn't conceded he was wrong about VS. In Anon's words, Anon has no integrity.

dhogaza said...

"and over 34 of them are human"

J Bowers:

"The dead ones, yes, but not the cast of M*A*S*H who are fictional."

The denialists have zombies on their side, we're doomed!

Anonymous said...

Poor Brian has to suppress speech, speech that was profanity free. Brian can cast aspertions on any groups he wants, but when the "attacked" he cries to have the naughty words removed.

Rubbish Run


I wonder how many other comments are deleted here, probably a lot for poor injured Brian.

Anonymous said...

J Bowers,

Anon was not wrong about anything.


Anonymous said...

Anon seems to not realize that there is a difference between weather and climate. Rubio has plausible denialibity (he's stupid and gullible).

Rib smokin' bunny

Anonymous said...

Anonymous dhogaza said...

Eunice:

"This statement is false and misleading, of course."

Yes, your statement is. Thanks for your honesty.

You're a juvenile idiot

Anonymous said...

Rib smokin bunny also has "Sucker" on his forehead for his/her continued belief in everything Obama syas, which most of the time is quite different from what he does.

Perhaps RSM may have the misfortune, in the future, to be traveling abroad, mistakeningly identified as working with Al Qaeda, and a drone strike from Obama will take him out.

Perhaps you little bunnies should be more concerned with Obama is doing rather than what he is saying.



Brian are you still cryin'?

dhogaza said...

"You're a juvenile idiot"

Such a mature statement on your part ...

Exusian said...

Climate liar Eunice regurgitated the currently popular halfwit meme: "did he mean unprecedented, mega-storm, category 6 Sandy? Or did he mean the category 1 hurricane..."

Never mind Sandy's record size, and therefore record dissipated power. Never mind it's near record low pressure or storm surge height.

I dare Eunice to drop into a coffee shop in Rockaway, Staten Island, or Atlantic City and try to pawn th meme that Sandy was only a Cat 1 storm.

Go ahead Eunice, shows us all how big a pair you have by telling the residents of Breezy Point how easy they had it.

More like what a useless food tube you are.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.

@Exusian

yep, Hurricane Sandy really a vicious hurricane, wind speeds didn't even hit 100mph. So Exusian, since Sandy was not a cat 1, what was it?

Anonymous said...

@jbowers

haha. Nice try.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

J Bowers said...

Obama acting too slowly on climate change risks, government audit finds

"The US government is exposed to high risk from climate change, and Barack Obama has not moved fast enough to manage those new dangers, the government auditor said on Thursday.

The report from the Government Accountability Office said the government had "significant" financial exposure to climate change."

Anonymous said...

Listing of scientists who have published on the global warming topic who dispute the magic 300% positive feedback:

• Global Warming Skeptics Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A. William J. R. Alexander PrEng, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, Honorary Fellow, South African Institution of Civil Engineering, South Africa Don Aitken, Vice Chancellor, Univerisity of Canberra John W. Bales, BA, MA, PhD (Mathematics, Modeling), Professor, Tuskegee University, Waverly, Alabama, U.S.A. Timothy F. Ball, PhD, Chair, Natural Resources Stewardship Project, environmental consultant and former climatology professor , University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Alberta, Canada William M. Briggs, PhD., Statistical Consultant (specializing in accuracy of forecasts and climate variability ), U.S.A. Stephen Brown, PhD ( Environmental Science , State University of New York), Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, District Agriculture Agent Cooperative Extension Service, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Mat-Su District Office Palmer; Alaska Agriculture Extension Agent/Researcher, Alaska, U.S.A. Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory , James Cook University, Townsville, Australia Phil Chapman, Geophysicist, NASA Astronaut

Anonymous said...

more

• 29. Global Warming Skeptics, Page 2 Michael Coffman, PhD, (ecosysytems analysis and climate change), CEO of Sovereignty International, President of Environmental Perspectives , Inc., Bangor, Maine, U.S.A. John Coleman, Founder, The Weather Channel , Weather Anchor, KUSI-TV, San Diego, California, U.S.A. Piers Corbyn, ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, owner of Weather Action long range forecasters , degree in Physics (Imperial College London), England Richard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom Joseph D’Aleo, MS, BS (University of Wisconsin) Meteorologist and Climatologist (retired), Executive Director, ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A. David Douglass, PhD, Professor of Physics, University of Rochester, New York, U.S.A. Peter Friedman, PhD, Member, American Geophysical Union, Assistant professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Edgar Gärtner, Diplôme d'Etudes Approfondies (DEA, en Ecologie appliquée , Redaktionsbüro), Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Anonymous said...

Bowers, dark circus leader dhogaza and albatross all collectively just had their worldview shattered.

Maybe I will post some more names tomorrow!

• 32. Global Warming Skeptics, Page 5 Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California, U.S.A. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Environmental Sciences), University of Virginia, former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service , Science and Environmental Policy Project, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A. Douglas Southgate, PhD, Professor of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A. Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist , Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A. George H. Taylor, Certified Consulting Meteorologist , Former State Climatologist (Oregon), Past President, American Association of State Climatologists, Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A. Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Biologist (Polar Bear Specialist ), Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada Anthony Watts, ItWorks/IntelliWeather , Founder, surfacestation s.org, Chico, California, U.S.A. Gerd-Rainer Weber, PhD, Consulting Meteorologist , Essen, Germany Gregory J. Balle, B.E., MSc., PhD. (Joint Aerospace Engineering and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics ), Pukekohe, New Zealand Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist , State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Matthew Bastardi, BSc ( Meteorology , Texas A and M University), Florida, U.S.A.

Anonymous said...

This Anon likes the new Anon.

Stirring up the trash on Rubbish Run.



Today's song for Brian brought to you by Journey "Who's Cryin' Now?"


J Bowers said...

@ Anonymous

Meet The Denominator

"What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents. That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him."

Nice try. No prize, though.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

You should have put Joe Bastardi first - I wasted a few minutes of my life reading the others. If Bastardi came first, I would not have bothered.

Bastardi spent years on Accuweather predicting the imminent recovery of teh world's temperature "back to the level of the 1970s", and the imminent "recovery" of Arctic Sea Ice. Now he is gone to preach to the choir on Fox News, whose world of unreality demands regular lies and half-truths from the likes of Bastardi.

As for publications, you are confused or mistaken. The man has barely a publication worth mentioning. The others are a motley bunch, less than a few % of the world's climate scientists.

Man with no Name

Brian said...

No Name - I agree, esp. the idea that someone with a bachelor's in science constitutes all that much of a scientific authority. (Yes there probably are some amazing scientific authorities somewhere who never bothered with an advanced degree, but the signaling isn't derived from their undergrad diploma).

As for deleted comments, I share authority with Eli who I guess deleted the first comment. I didn't see it, but he has an even lighter hand than I do so I assume the deleting was fully deserved.

So far in the last nearly-two years I've deleted about five comments that weren't commercial spam, mostly for obscenities directed at fellow commenters. I think I took out one other that seemed like a physical threat. I hope people can bear up under this oppressive regime.

Anonymous said...

@jbowers

the whole denominator comment is clever but sheer volume of papers is not that important, especially when most of them are using faulty assumptions, similar to the mice sepsis research debacle.

secondly, of the 850,000 papers, what is the diversity of researches like? I have a feeling most of the papers are coming from realclimate or other team members, so your stat is misleading.

Anonymous said...

@j bowers

you would probably argue that Bush did worse for the economy and site polling data that most people believe it. However, its factually doomed. Go to the bureau of labor statistics, Obama raised the deficit by a larger amount in his first term than Bush did during his 2 full terms. The Obama recovery is worse than the Bush recession.

You may be able to get 10 people to agree that 2+2=5, doesn't make it right.

guthrie said...

Wait, why are we getting a plague of anonymous know nothings who are sto stupid, yes, stupid, that they can barely operate their computers?

The reason the deficit was getting worse under Obama has everything to do with Bush's unfunded tax cuts, wars and the american love of unfettered capitalism which caused a massive financial bubble and crash, and little to do with Obama as president spending.

As for the copypasted names of numpties, it's a waste of time and space doing so, and again, a few dozen names of people who might have published something somewhere on the topic related to global warming over the last 50 years is nothing compared to the thousands of active scientists looking into all parts of it today.

Anonymous needs to go and read some history of science.

Anonymous said...

@guthrie

that's a nice typical emotional liberal plea, but the data demolish your narrative.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

can you say, sha, sha, shazaam!

here are the averages Guthrie.

Clinton (January 1993 – December 2000)
Mean: 5.2
Median: 5.2
Mode: 5.6

Bush (January 2001 – December 2008)
Mean: 5.3
Median: 5.3
Mode: 5

Obama (January 2009 – July 2012)
Mean: 9.1
Median: 9.1
Mode: 9.5


Oh and while I am it, you may want to check out Clinton's deficits for 94' and 95'...bother higher than Bush's 2007 deficit. HA HA HA!

Anonymous said...

Total number of Senate votes on Obama's last proposed budget = 0

Obama has been in office four years and the latest GDP growth is negative.


This crazy distortion of facts from the Obama kneelers is quite disturbing.

Well in 2016 when we still have ~8% unemployment, struggling through the effects of another recession, gas prices at $5 a gallon and $22 trillion in debt I am sure Guthrie will still be claiming it is all the fault of Bush.


Talk about st st st stupid.


Oh and Brian, I do not believe you. Someone so bigoted against people because of their political affiliation just do not seem very honest to me. As in I am sure you would not claim an expense on a report for a meeting that corresponds with a date and time posting on a blog, right?

Exusian said...

"So Exusian, since Sandy was not a cat 1, what was it?"

It's the storm that has useless food tubes desperately scrambling to play down how large it was, how much total energy it dissipated, how low it's pressure went, how high it's storm surge was, how many subway lines it flooded, how many neighborhoods it destroyed, how many people it killed, how many people were left without power and for how long, and the total cost of the damage it caused.

Feel free to join Eunuch in that Rockaway coffee shop, sweetie.

J Bowers said...

"he did not, I repeat not suggest a random walk"

He did:

VS Says: March 4, 2010 at 13:54
"In other words, global temperature contains a stochastic rather than deterministic trend, and is statistically speaking, a random walk."

andrew adams said...

So the economy was just fine and dandy when Bush left office and Obama wrecked it? Seriously?

Jim Eager said...

Just a few of the illustrious "scientists" who have published on the global warming topic from PopTech's list:
Timothy Ball (who has never been a climatology professor), William Briggs, Robert Carter, Phil Chapman, John Coleman, Piers Corbyn, Richard Courtney, Joseph D’Aleo, David Douglass, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts (a college dropout), Joe Bastardi.....

What a hoot!

EliRabett said...

President Bush's last budget was for FY2009, and that included such goodies as the TARP. As to the rest of that cherry pick. US GDP peaked in June 2008 @ 13.31 trillion, by Dec 31 it was down to 12.88 trillion, and it bottomed out in March 2009 @ 12.71. Thank you President Bush. Since then GDP (real $) has gone up to 13.65 under Obama. There was a slight fallback in the fourth quarter of 2012 (0.1%).

"The decrease in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected negative contributions from private inventory investment, federal government spending, and exports that were partly offset by positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment, and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased."

The last may not be such bad news from a domestic POV.

The stuff about unemployment is also fantasy. Unemployment jumped from 5.8% in July 2008 to 7.8% in January 2009 (when Obama was sworn in) to 9% in April peaking at 10% in October. Since then there has been a steady decline to 7.8 % in December 2012.

Blather on fair anon.

dhogaza said...

PopTech! POPTECH!?!?!

No wonder our anon doesn't dare show even a nom de plume.

Anonymous said...

Tell us Eli what are the total number of Americans counted in the workforce today compared to January 2009. You may find a better answer as to why the rate has dropped to 7.9%.

Did Obama vote for TARP? (hint he even took the time to speak on the Senate floor in favor of it).


Obama's last budget went down in the Senate 99-0.


Blather on Eli.

EliRabett said...

The tell on that list is how few Eli did not recognize. That is a mighty thin bench. Well paid too

caveat emptor said...

"of the 850,000 papers, what is the diversity of researches like? I have a feeling most of the papers are coming from realclimate or other team members"

So true - I think Gavin Schmidt and Mike Mann have each published at least 425,000 papers

Gaz said...

Poptech: Don Aitken? HAHAHAHAHA

chek said...

Lumpus claimed:"yep, Hurricane Sandy really a vicious hurricane, wind speeds didn't even hit 100mph."

Which is funny because on the night I was watching the twitter feed announcements from the Mayor as the NYC bridges were closed one by one for safety as the winds continued to exceed 100mph.

guthrie said...

Wait, it's poptech? The fuckwit who wasted hours of peoples time by not understanding anything over at various blogs?

That explains why they don't understand cause and effect re. Obama and Bush.
Of course exactly how that is related to climate change is unclear. Maybe he thinks Obama is fat?

Anonymous said...

Guthrie proves Brian wrong on comment deletion policy at Rubbish Run, again.

Brian said...

I assume guthrie's referring to Poptech, and I have no idea whether that's the anon commenter here, who can't even bother with a nom de plume.

Still, people, is it really so hard to keep obscenities out of your comments? The Flying Spaghetti Monster invented the word "frack" for a reason.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Why are we bothering to respond to trolls so stupid that they refute themselves. I'm not even sure Poptart is not a bot. I'm even hoping he is, as I would hate to think a human could be that dumb. And our own Anon is not much better. They both make owl droppings look intelligent by comparison.

Anonymous said...

Yes other people are stupid according to someone who lives in a comic strip world.


Poor Brian trying to keep track of all these double standards. Very time consuming.


Anonymous said...

Republicans claim The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) crashed our economy and it’s the Liberals fault. It was not the CRA but a reckless president Bush, who in 2002 called on Fannie and Freddie Mac to buy up 3.4 million mortgages so he could put low income families into homes. It was part of his “Ownership society” program, the center piece of his 2004 campaign. He called on the private sector to “Be creative” and they did by inventing no down payment, subprime loans and teaser rates. The junk mortgages were sold to investors in a wild west, loosely regulated environment. Between 2004 and 2007 Republicans held both houses when Fannie and Freddie went from holding 48% of all mortgages to 24% because millions of bad private sector loans overtook them. Check it out here, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html CRA had nothing to do the subprime folly!

Democrats took back the House in 2007 and passed regulations which Mr. Bush signed reigning in Fannie and Freddie. Republicans who had done nothing in the 14 years they held congress saw the majority of them voting against the new regulations. FOX talking heads laughed over an impending housing bubble collapse. Couldn’t happen! Take a look, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

guthrie said...

Sometimes swear words are entirely justified.

Anonymous said...

Anon is a good half story teller.


See here:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2010/10/14/frank_haunted_by_stance_on_fannie_freddie/



Guthrie claims justification for his/her profanity. Usually the use of profanity says more about the person using it rather than emphasizing any particular point.


Russell Seitz said...

Meanwhile, back in Chelyabinsk, it's just a coincidence.

Good timing too- if this had happend on Brezhnev's watch, they might well have nuked New York just to be on the safe side of the Precautinary Principle.

dhogaza said...

You know, we might laugh, but I was wondering how many Russians first thought "missile attack!" ...

Probably fewer today than in the 60s, 70s or 80s but still ...

Exusian said...

"So Exusian, since Sandy was not a cat 1, what was it?"

Most of all, Sandy was the storm that reversed the downward trend in public interest in AGW, which is why the food tubes are fit to be tied as they desperately try to spin their lame "only a Cat 1" meme.

guthrie said...

Clearly anonymous hasn't been around many people, because profanity use varies per person and circumstances.
Or maybe they are telepathic and can tell exactly whether or not someone uses profanity in every sentence, or for emphasis, or out of sheer annoyance? Ultimately the use of profanity tells you that the person using it does so, unless you have a good idea as to context, which obviously you don't.
I note also that anon is so thick they don't even name themselves despite being asked to do so when they post their comment.

Anonymous said...

Guthrie I was specifically commenting on the way you use profanity.

You like to have name, place that person in a box and ignore anyhthing they say.


It makes me smile knowing that it bothers you so much to actually have to read and process a few sentences rather than running to the end of the post and say "Oh he is thick, he is stupid, she is a denier, so I am going to block my eyes and ears and then spew some hate from my mouth as I type."


You are so afraid of the words you'll do anything to suppress or ignore them, a common trait from the party of "tolerance".

J Bowers said...

Can we just dub Anonymous 'Tinkerbell' and be done with it?

kT said...

Guthrie claims justification for his/her profanity.

When all else fails, discuss the severe problem of global profanity, and it's dire effect on the environment. Horrible stuff, bad words. Worse than dioxin and PCBs. Almost but not quite as bad as speaking in a foreign language.

There outta be a law. I'm getting tired of the birds and mammals cussing me out all the time in their alien tongues that only they understand. They need some English.

Tracks said...

Who got money from the Donorztrust in 2011 (990 form):
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org//990_pdf_archive/522/522166327/522166327_201112_990.pdf

Andrew said...

"@J Bowers said...

Meet The Denominator

"What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents. That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him."

Nice try. No prize, though.
"

JBowers are you a computer illiterate as well?

Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science

In a desperate attempt to diminish the value of the list of peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic's arguments, Rob Honeycutt from Skeptical Science not only lies but puts on a surprising display of his Google Scholar Illiteracy. He fails to use quotes when searching for phrases, is unable to count past 1000 and fails to remove erroneous results such as, "Planet Mutonia and the Young Pop Star Wannabes" - believing it to be a peer-reviewed paper about global warming. It is clear that not only does he not understand how to properly use Google Scholar, he has no idea of the relevance of any of the results he gets.

Update: Rob was forced to concede I was correct (though never owns up to blatantly lying) and has desperately made a flawed updated "analysis". His original inaccurate number of 954,000 results went down to 189,553 results (which he fails to mention in his update) of which 160,130 (84%) CANNOT BE VERIFIED due to the 1000 result limit imposed by Google Scholar. The remaining results are irrefutably filled with erroneous nonsense that has to be individually removed before any sort of accurate count can be taken (see the updates for more information). None of which was done leaving his post to be worthless and those who cite it computer illiterate.


Oh man is that embarrassing, you cannot be that ignorant?

ligne said...

"Yes other people are stupid according to someone who lives in a comic strip world."

www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~zagerman/quantsym.pdf

HTH, HAND.

dhogaza said...

Given that a high percentage of the 850 papers poptech lists either 1) have nothing to do with climate change or 2) don't challenge consensus climate science then the numerator changes as well.

Whatever the real number, it's exceedingly hard to find papers by real climate scientists in real journals that dispute consensus climate science.

Yes, you have the occasional "violates 2nd law" or "temperature's a random walk" or "CO2 doesn't really absorb long-wave IR" paper showing up in obscure journals, but very few papers that stand up to even the most casual scrutiny.

0.1%, 0.2%, 0.01% ... who gives a shit?

Anonymous said...

Difficulty telling the difference between an "H" and a "D"?

http://www.dilbert.com/


Dilbert Space, not Hilbert Space.



Nice try though. Based on his comments and attitude Dilbert is definately the space he lives in, as he proclaims.

Andrew said...

"Jim Eager said...
Just a few of the illustrious "scientists" who have published on the global warming topic from PopTech's list:
Timothy Ball (who has never been a climatology professor), William Briggs, Robert Carter, Phil Chapman, John Coleman, Piers Corbyn, Richard Courtney, Joseph D’Aleo, David Douglass, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts (a college dropout), Joe Bastardi.....

What a hoot!

14/2/13 2:36 PM
"

Why are you lying? Phil Chapman, John Coleman, Piers Corbyn and Joe Bastardi are not on the list. Out of the rest you have many highly credentialed scientists.

Andrew said...

"dhogaza said...
Given that a high percentage of the 850 papers poptech lists either 1) have nothing to do with climate change or 2) don't challenge consensus climate science then the numerator changes as well.

Whatever the real number, it's exceedingly hard to find papers by real climate scientists in real journals that dispute consensus climate science.

0.1%, 0.2%, 0.01% ... who gives a shit?
"

It is not 850 but 1100+. All of the papers on the list support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm. ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic." So they all support skeptic arguments against your subjectively defined "consensus climate science".

Please provide the objective criteria for determining a "real climate scientist".

Please provide the objective criteria for determining a "real journal" as all of the over 300 journals of the list are peer-reviewed.

Just because you cannot support your meaningless statistics does not mean you should continue to demonstrate your computer illiteracy here.

Andrew said...

"guthrie said...
Wait, it's poptech? The ... who wasted hours of peoples time by not understanding anything over at various blogs?
'

What exactly did I not understand about the computer illiteracy of those at Skeptical Science? Ooops, looks like after I embarrassed them, they censored all my posts.

Skeptical Science: The Censorship of Poptech

dhogaza said...

" All of the papers on the list support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm. ACC/AGW Alarm"

Even when the authors of said papers have said explicitly that they do not.

PopTech, not only are you an idiot, but you are a boor. That's not a very likeable combination.

And of course you were banned at SkS, they have rules which you refused to follow.

dhogaza said...

This is entertaining, though, at first I thought we had a true anon who was dumb enough to cite PopTech as a source of meaningful information.

Given that AFAICT PopTech's ignored by the vast majority of the denialsphere, I was surprised.

So now we've learned it's PopTech himself posting here. Nice!

Glenn Tamblyn said...

Anonymous

WOW

"...secondly, of the 850,000 papers, what is the diversity of researches like? I have a feeling most of the papers are coming from realclimate or other team members, so your stat is misleading. ".

Do the math. Even if it is twenty years worth of science, lets say 20 RC guys, and they work 7days a week, 52 weeks of the year, that is nearly 6 papers a day. Impressive!

OR

The comment was just plain stupid.

Andrew said...

"dhogaza said...
" All of the papers on the list support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm. ACC/AGW Alarm"

Even when the authors of said papers have said explicitly that they do not.
"

So you are not going to defend your computer illiterate post from Skeptical Science? I was looking forward to further educating you on how Google Scholar actually works.

What author said their paper cannot, "support a skeptic argument against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm"?

Please make sure to name the author, quote where they made any such claim (making sure to doublecheck it is not a strawman argument for why it was actually listed) and then locate the paper on the list.

I hate to keep embarrassing you here like this but if you insist.

Glenn Tamblyn said...

So...

I go to poptech's site to have a look at his papers. Where to start? General is the first category so I might as well start there. And the first paper listed is ....(drum roll)

Has the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Changed Significantly Since the Beginning of the Twentieth Century? (PDF)

(Monthly Weather Review, Volume 83, Issue 10, pp. 225-231, 1955)
- Giles Slocum


Abstract

"The search for causes of the rising temperatures in some geographic areas during the twentieth century has directed interest toward the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). If the carbon dioxide added by the combustion of fossil fuels remains as a net increase, any temperature-changing effects of its presence as a minor constituent of the atmosphere should be cumulatively operative as the amount increases.

In this paper, the physical knowledge of atmospheric CO2 is examined and the available nineteenth and twentieth century observations of the atmospheric CO2 concentration are summarized to ascertain the extent to which they corroborate claims that the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased since the nineteenth century. In the light of the uncertainty of both physical knowledge and of statistical analysis, it is concluded that the question of a trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration remains an open subject."

So in 1955 Giles Slocum concluded that notenouigh was known about CO2levels. Which was exactly true, THEN!

Thats why Keeling began his studies just a few years later.

So the 1st paper on poptech's list can best be described as OBSOLETE AND OUTDATED.

nuff said.

Andrew said...

"dhogaza said...
This is entertaining, though, at first I thought we had a true anon who was dumb enough to cite PopTech as a source of meaningful information.

So now we've learned it's PopTech himself posting here. Nice!
"

Poor, dhogaza. I never post as anonymous and certainly don't waste my time reading this blog. I am only here to educate and embarrass you.

Andrew said...

"Glenn Tamblyn said...
So...

I go to poptech's site to have a look at his papers. Where to start? General is the first category so I might as well start there. And the first paper listed is ....(drum roll)

Has the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Changed Significantly Since the Beginning of the Twentieth Century? (PDF)

(Monthly Weather Review, Volume 83, Issue 10, pp. 225-231, 1955)
- Giles Slocum

So the 1st paper on poptech's list can best be described as OBSOLETE AND OUTDATED.
"

Poor Glenn and his SS "crusher crew" cannot read that the papers are listed chronologically and desperately cherry picks. Those papers were listed to show that skepticism is nothing new. I moved all the pre-1970 papers to the historical section at the bottom of the list.

Oh I do enjoy educating and embarrassing the computer illiterates from Skeptical Science.

Glenn Tamblyn said...

HA HA HA

I go back to have another look, and lo and behold, the Slocum paper is no longer in the General list. It suddenly vanished. After some searching I found it had moved to Historical, way down the list. All in just 15 minutes.

Andrew, YOU ARE PRICELESS!

Andrew said...

Poor Glenn, I have made various clarifications to the list to prevent your type of cherry picking and strawman arguments. Sadly you never learn.

Glenn Tamblyn said...

Andrew

Some interesting numbers. Your General category has 287 papers so around 1/4 of the total. Looking at all the authors names in the list, seeing how many distinct papers they are on, some interesting names top the list. Lots of very familiar faces who are often out on the denier circuit. And Sherwood Idso sure seems to like cherries:

227 separate authors.
41 of them appear 3 or more times.
And Sherwood Idso is on 33 of them.

Denial sure looks like a trade being plied by a few individuals doesn't it.

Sherwood B. Idso 33
David H. Douglass 15
Patrick J. Michaels 15
John R. Christy 12
Richard S. Lindzen 12
Willie Soon 11
Ross McKitrick 10
L. F. Khilyuk 8
Robert S. Knox 8
Sallie Baliunas 8
G. V. Chilingar 7
Jack Barrett 7
Robert C. Balling Jr. 7
S. Fred Singer 7
Paul C. Knappenberger 6
Craig Loehle 5
O. G. Sorokhtin 5
Olavi Karner 5
Robert E. Davis 5
Robert M. Carter 5
Roger A. Pielke Sr 5
Roy W. Spencer 5
K. Y. Kondratyev 5
Benjamin D. Pearson 4
C. R. de Freitas 4
Eric S. Posmentier 4
Wibjorn Karlen 4
William B. Norris 4
William D. Braswell 4
Arthur Rorsch 3
Dick Thoenes 3
Gerhard Kramm 3
Hugh W. Ellsaesser 3
John D. McLean 3
Lee C. Gerhard 3
Nicola Scafetta 3
Ralph Dlugi 3
Richard S. Courtney 3
Stephen E. Schwartz 3
Yong-Sang Choi 3
Zbigniew Jaworowski 3

ligne said...

"""
Difficulty telling the difference between an "H" and a "D"?

http://www.dilbert.com/

Dilbert Space, not Hilbert Space.
"""

i had noticed, but thanks anyway. to aid your understanding, you might find the following link helpful: http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199208272.001.0001/acref-9780199208272-e-942

please let me know if you'd like a more detailed explanation.

HTH, HAND.

Anonymous said...

I have restricted myself to categorizing those on PopTech's list whom I have actually me. One , Dick Lindzen is the contrarian real McCoy, the rest are as follows:

Sherwood B. Idso 33 Coal Carnie
David H. Douglass 15 Nonagenarian
Patrick J. Michaels 15 Political Hack
John R. Christy 12 Born Again Missionary
Willie Soon 11 Former Academic Hack
Ross McKitrick 10 Mining Economist
L. F. Khilyuk 8
Robert S. Knox 8
Sallie Baliunas 8 In Hiding
G. V. Chilingar 7 Antithermodynamics Activist
Jack Barrett 7
Robert C. Balling Jr. 7 Geography Teacher
S. Fred Singer 7 Professional Witness
Paul C. Knappenberger 6 Michael's Understudy
Craig Loehle 5
O. G. Sorokhtin 5
Olavi Karner 5
Robert E. Davis 5
Robert M. Carter 5 Crank
Roger A. Pielke Sr 5 Bore
Roy W. Spencer 5 Journeyman Crank
K. Y. Kondratyev 5 Apocalyptic Commisar
Benjamin D. Pearson 4
C. R. de Freitas 4 Antipodean Loon
Eric S. Posmentier 4
Wibjorn Karlen 4
William B. Norris 4
William D. Braswell 4
Arthur Rorsch 3
Dick Thoenes 3
Gerhard Kramm 3
Hugh W. Ellsaesser 3 Should have quit at 80
John D. McLean 3
Lee C. Gerhard 3
Nicola Scafetta 3
Ralph Dlugi 3
Richard S. Courtney 3 Nutcase & Lay Preacher
Stephen E. Schwartz 3
Yong-Sang Choi 3
Zbigniew Jaworowski 3 Dead Radiologist

Andrew said...

"Glenn Tamblyn said...

Some interesting numbers. Your General category has 287 papers so around 1/4 of the total. Looking at all the authors names in the list, seeing how many distinct papers they are on, some interesting names top the list. Lots of very familiar faces who are often out on the denier circuit. And Sherwood Idso sure seems to like cherries:

227 separate authors.
41 of them appear 3 or more times.
And Sherwood Idso is on 33 of them.
"

Your numbers are wrong. Poor Glenn can't count and can't read. Skeptical Science members demonstrating their mathematical illiteracy just like Rob, how embarrassing.

For instance Sherwood Idso is the author of only 31 counted papers and why wouldn't he be a prolific author since he is an ISI Highly Cited Researcher.

Nice strawman argument though as the list is not a list of authors but you would need to know how to read to understand this.

Andrew said...

They are highly credentialed scientists,

Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Cum Laude, University of Minnesota (1964); M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966); Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967); Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962); National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967); Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974); Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993); Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974); Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975); Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001); Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976); Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977); Secretary, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980); President, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982); Member, Task Force on "Alternative Crops", Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983); Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007); Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present); Member, Botanical Society of America; Member, American Geophysical Union; Member, American Society of Agronomy; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)

Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971); S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975); Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979); Research and Project Assistant, Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin (1976-1979); Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1980-1986); Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007); President, Central Virginia Chapter, American Meteorological Society (1986-1987); Executive Board, American Association of State Climatologists (1986-1989); Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995); President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988); Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society (1988-1999); Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute (1992-Present); Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute (1996-Present); Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Member, Association of American Geographers; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present); Contributor and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1995, 2001, 2007)

Andrew said...

John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, California State University (1973); M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984); Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001); Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002); Panel Member, Official Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003); Member, Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization, Space Studies Board (2003-2004); Member, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Research Council (2006); Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present); Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2000-Present); Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon, B.Sc. University of Southern California (1985), M.Sc. University of Southern California (1987), Ph.D. (Thesis: "Non-equilibrium kinetics in high-temperature gases"), University of Southern California (1991), Graduate Scholastic Award, IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society (1989), Rockwell Dennis Hunt Scholastic Award, University of Southern California (1991), Adjunct Professor, Department of Science and Environmental Studies, University of Putra, Malaysia; Member, American Astrophysical Society; Member, American Geophysical Union; Member, International Astronomical Union; Receiving Editor, New Astronomy Journal; Astronomer, Mount Wilson Observatory (1992-Present), Astrophysicist and Geoscientist, Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences (SSP) Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (1992-Present)

Ross McKitrick, B.A. (Hons) Economics, Queen's University (1988); M.A. Economics, University of British Columbia (1990); Ph.D. Environmental Economics (Thesis: "The econometric critique of applied General Equilibrium modeling: a comparative assessment with application to carbon taxes in Canada"), University of British Columbia (1996); Research Assistant, Industrial Relations Centre, Queen's University (1988-1989); Research Assistant, University of British Columbia (1989-1996); Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Guelph (1996-2001); Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph (2001-2008); Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph (2008-Present); Academic Advisory Board, John Deutsch Institute, Queen's University; Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute; Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2007)

Andrew said...

Robert C. Balling Jr., A.B. Geography, Wittenberg University (1974), M.A. Geography, Bowling Green State University (1975), Ph.D. Geography, University of Oklahoma (1979), Research Fellow, Center for Agricultural Meteorology and Climatology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (1979-1981), Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (1979-1984), Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Arizona State University (1985-1986), Research Associate, Laboratory of Climatology and Department of Geography, Arizona State University (1985-1987), Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, and Assistant Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University (1987-1988), Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, and Director, Laboratory of Climatology, Arizona State University (1988-1989), Associate Professor, Department of Geography, and Director, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University (1989-1998), Professor, Department of Geography, and Director, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University (1998-2004), Contributer, IPCC (1991-Present), Professor, School of Geographical Sciences, and Director and/or Associate Director, Masters of Advanced Study, Geographic Information Systems Program, Arizona State University (2004-Present)

Robert M. Carter, B.Sc. (Hons) Geology, University of Otago (1963), Ph.D. Palaeontology, University of Cambridge (1968), Assistant Lecturer, Department of Geology, University of Otago (1963), Senior Lecturer, Department of Geology, University of Otago (1968-1980), Hochstetter Lecturer, Geological Society of New Zealand (1975), Professor and Head, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University (1981-1999), Visiting Experts Program, Carrington Polytechnic Institute (1994), Honorary Fellow, Royal Society of New Zealand (1997), Special Investigator Research Award, Australian Research Council (1998-2002), Outstanding Research Career Award, Geological Society of New Zealand (2005), Adjunct Research Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University (1998-Present), Visiting Research Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide (2001-Present)

Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan (1978); M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1980); Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin (1982); Research Scientist, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984); Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA (1984-2001); MSFC Center Director's Commendation (1989); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); U.S. Team Leader, Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) Team, NASA (1992-Present); Team Leader, AMSR-E Science Team, NASA (1994-Present); American Meteorological Society's Special Award (1996); Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

My, Poptart, look at all the non-climate scientists you've found.

So, given your vast experience with the denialist literature, perhaps you would care to point me to the denialist alternative to the accepted standard theory of Earth's climate. You know. The one that doesn't require a long-lived, well mixed greenhouse gas for making sense of the planet's climate. 'Til you can point to that, you're just another denialist pudknocker.

KR said...

There's a fascinating article on Carbon Brief - which notes that 9 of the 10 top authors on PopTechs list (as of 4/2011) are linked to ExxonMobil funded organizations, and the tenth "...has co-authored several papers with Exxon-linked contributors".

I've always found it strange that, aside from the papers he's mislabeled, and the opinion pieces that were never peer-reviewed, his "climate skepticism" appears to be completely divorced from any skepticism whatsoever regarding his sources for the numerous dodgey, refuted, and lobbyist works.

And he still doesn't appear to have figured out basic fractions, particularly as regards the papers he's collected (numerator) against the full body of literature (denominator).

Andrew said...

"a_ray_in_dildo_space said...

My, Poptart, look at all the non-climate scientists you've found.
"

Mr. Dildo,

Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climate scientist".

This way we can make this determination.

Andrew said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrew said...

"KR said... There's a fascinating article on Carbon Brief - which notes that 9 of the 10 top authors on PopTechs list (as of 4/2011) are linked to ExxonMobil funded organizations"

Are you also illiterate and missed the detailed rebuttals on the list? No wonder you would fall for such nonsense, how embarrassing,

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?


"I've always found it strange that, aside from the papers he's mislabeled, and the opinion pieces that were never peer-reviewed"

Please name the paper that cannot, "support a skeptic argument against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm. ACC/AGW Alarm: (defined), "concern relating to a perceived negative environmental or socio-economic effect of ACC/AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."

Please name the "opinion piece that was never peer-reviewed".

Come on liar, don't fail like this in front of your incompetent friends.

"And he still doesn't appear to have figured out basic fractions, particularly as regards the papers he's collected (numerator) against the full body of literature (denominator)."

Full body of literature? Where is this imaginary list so it can be verified? Why is the data hidden? What a failure you are.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to humiliate so many of you at once, this is quite enjoyable.

KR said...

No, Andrew, I have not read all of your "detailed rebuttals" - I have far better things to do with my time.

Such as flossing my toes.

Note that I did not say 'funded' by Exxon or fossil fuel interests, although many of the top authors on your list are (I note your 'rebuttal' did not include any quotes from Michaels, for example). Perhaps you are not familiar with the Marshall Institute, the (now defunct) Annaopolis Center (Lindzen), or other right-wing think tanks funded in part by Exxon? With some 90% of environmental and climate 'skeptic' books funded by conservative think tanks?

I will grant that you have indeed cleaned up the list since the last time I looked at it, pulling out many opinion pieces, although I (personally) do not consider Energy and Environment a science journal, nor properly peer-reviewed - more of an opinion publication as regards climate. That's especially true with both Dr Benny Peiser and the non-PhD coal-linked Richard S. Courtney on the editorial advisory board. But I'll give you E&E for the sake of argument.

You are, however, still listing refuted papers such as Lohle 2007, true absurdities (also refuted) such as Gerlich and Tscheuschner 2009, dodgey papers such as Baliunas and Soon 2003, etc - demonstrating a clear preference on your part for quantity over quality. And continuing misrepresenting papers such as Meehl et al. 2009, drawing interpretations that the authors themselves would consider both unwarranted and ridiculous.

As to the full body of literature, I believe Oreskes 2004 is a more than sufficient response to your list. You ignore the numbers, ignore the consensus of evidence leading to a consensus of scientific opinion, and your logorrheic trumpeting of your list simply doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people who actually do science are in agreement.

Oh well. You're never going to be convinced, and tilting at your windmill just isn't worth the time. Have fun, and watch your blood pressure.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Hey Poptart, still waiting on that theory. That is a pretty good definition of a climate scientist--one who publishes with a coherent theory of his subject matter in mind. Let us know when you find one.

J Bowers said...

A Bellend -- "JBowers are you a computer illiterate as well?"

As well as what? Anyway, seen this?

Of 33,700 authors of peer-reviewed articles, just 34 say it is not caused by mankind.

J Bowers said...

Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climate scientist".

These papers have some tips.

Andrew said...

"KR said... Note that I did not say 'funded' by Exxon or fossil fuel interests, although many of the top authors on your list are... Perhaps you are not familiar with the Marshall Institute, the (now defunct) Annaopolis Center (Lindzen), or other right-wing think tanks funded in part by Exxon? With some 90% of environmental and climate 'skeptic' books funded by conservative think tanks?"

Your smears are obvious and thoroughly debunked. It really helps if you learn how to read,

Christy: "The connection between industrial interests and me is given by describing me as a "Marshall Institute expert". I spoke at a luncheon sponsored by the Marshall Institute, free of charge, to about 30 people. My remarks were incorporated into a booklet. That is the extent of my connection - hardly evidence to accuse one of being an industry spokesman."

Lindzen: "I have never received any compensation from the Annapolis Center. I briefly served on the board as a favor to Harrison Schmitt. Since they never asked me to do anything, I resigned."

Looks like the Carbon Brief lied.


"I will grant that you have indeed cleaned up the list since the last time I looked at it, pulling out many opinion pieces,"

Nice failure and your lie has been noted.


"although I (personally) do not consider Energy and Environment a science journal, nor properly peer-reviewed - more of an opinion publication as regards climate."

This is a nice fantasy debunked by reality,

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- Thompson Reuters (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment multiple times
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- "I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal." - Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
- "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement


"You are, however, still listing refuted papers such as... And continuing misrepresenting papers such as Meehl et al. 2009,"

The existence of a criticism does not make a paper "refuted". All published comments on any of those papers have been rebutted by the authors. These rebuttals are included on the list. Meehle's paper has been cited multiple times to support skeptic arguments (Scafetta 2010, Scafetta 2012).


"As to the full body of literature, I believe Oreskes 2004 is a more than sufficient response to your list. You ignore the numbers, ignore the consensus of evidence leading to a consensus of scientific opinion, and your logorrheic trumpeting of your list simply doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people who actually do science are in agreement."

Oreskes 2004 cherry picking exercise is hardly representative of anything let alone the full body of literature. I've ignored nothing as all "counter" numbers presented have been severely flawed. I haven't trumpeted my list, I am responding to lies, misinformation and strawman arguments posted here. Your continued declarations are not evidence of consensus.

Andrew said...

"a_ray_in_dildo_space said...

Hey Poptart, still waiting on that theory. That is a pretty good definition of a climate scientist--one who publishes with a coherent theory of his subject matter in mind. Let us know when you find one."


Dildo, the list is a resource not a theory, but keep fighting the strawman. Your subjective definition is noted. Now,

Please provide an objective criteria to determine who is a climate scientist.

Andrew said...

"J Bowers said...
A Bellend -- "JBowers are you a computer illiterate as well?"

As well as what? Anyway, seen this?

Of 33,700 authors of peer-reviewed articles, just 34 say it is not caused by mankind."


Your incompetent friends have already brought that nonsense up, please learn how to read.

Andrew said...

"J Bowers said...
Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climate scientist".

These papers have some tips."


Fail, how come you and your incompetent friends cannot perform simple requests? Better get these comments censored so your embarrassment does not live on for everyone to read.

Andrew said...

"KR said... With some 90% of environmental and climate 'skeptic' books funded by conservative think tanks?"

Epic fail, the authors confuse Libertarian organizations with Conservative ones. How did that pass peer-review? Talk about embarrassing.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Because Libertarians, being to the right of conservatives, aren't conservative at all? Being a holier than thou subset does not mean they are not a member of the superset.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Sorry, Poptart, what is it about having a self-consistent theory you don't understand. Is there someone intelligent there who can program you to understand?

Andrew said...

"Rattus Norvegicus said... Because Libertarians, being to the right of conservatives, aren't conservative at all?"

Oh no, don't tell me you are incompetent on political ideologies as well? Libertarian is neither left nor right.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Worlds-Smallest-Political-Quiz.PNG

This is worse than I thought.

Andrew said...

"a_ray_in_dildo_space said... Sorry, Poptart, what is it about having a self-consistent theory you don't understand."

Dildo, I am not here to discuss your strawman arguments nor am I here to argue any theories. Try to follow the conversation with your incompetent friends.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

So, Poptart, you aren't programmed to discuss theories? Then how is anything you are talking about related to science? Have you ever even known a real scientist, cupcake?

-n said...

Why this Andrew seems like a delightful fellow, scarcely at all resembling a simmering pot of delusional rage...

Andrew said...

Poor Dildo, still can't read.

FreewheelinFrank said...

"Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?"

"Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?"

Wrong question Andrew:

"Our current budget includes funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.

Heartland Institute Exposed: Internal Documents Unmask Heart of Climate Denial Machine"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/heartland-institute-expos_b_1277374.html

It's definitely the wrong question to ask those who are directly funded (for a different reason), and pointedly you didn't, or didn't print the answer: Soon and Michaels have taken money, Idso's think tank is Exxon funded.

Andrew said...

So Frank are you telling me Idso, Singer and Carter are funded by Microsoft and State Farm? You are not that bright. Heartland has not received a dime from Exxon since 2006,

http://blog.heartland.org/2012/12/washington-post-corrects-lies-about-heartland-institute-prints-rebuttal/

Alarmist Challenge,

1. Please provide actual documents irrefutably demonstrating energy company funding for any scientist.

2. Then provide actual documents showing what fraction of their overall funding this is.

3. Finally prove that the same scientist changed their scientific position regarding ACC/AGW due to this funding and did not hold a skeptical position prior to the funding.

If these requirements are not met then evidence of corruption cannot be demonstrated.

Looks like the Carbon Brief lied.

FreewheelinFrank said...

"Heartland has not received a dime from Exxon since 2006."

"Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?"

No.

Wrong question again.

"Have you ever received direct or indirect funding from ExxonMobil?"

Er... yes.

http://www.desmogblog.com/exxonmobil-gave-15m-climate-denier-groups-last-year-breaking-its-pledge-stop-funding-denial-machine

Andrew said...

It is not the wrong question as those scientists do not get any funding from ExxonMobil, direct or indirect no matter how desperate you are to smear them.

J Bowers said...

Poptech assumes that because a think tank declares itself libertarian, it actually is libertarian. Many an old-time libertarian has seen through that con. Many a self-described libertarian think tank campaigns for corporate rights, while paying meagre lip service to coercion of the individual.

guthrie said...

I would like to know what Brian thinks of my use of profanity after seeing poptech's vomit all over this blog.

Andrew said...

J Bowers, you do have to demonstrate to me you do not understand political ideologies as I am aware of this. You are of course free to list all the think tanks that call themselves libertarian and explain why they are not. Corporations are compatible with libertarian views and have nothing to do with coercion of the individual, regardless of your "feelings" on the issue.

Falsely labeling a libertarian think tank "conservative" is incompetent and never should have passed peer-review.

Brian said...

I guess a lot can happen while I'm away for the weekend.

guthrie - point taken, and PT is also pushing the obscenity line or has stepped over it with his own insults. Still, I'd like a comment thread that young adults could read.

PT - see the warning above. And your claim upthread that you weren't the anonymous one posting earlier seems hardly credible. The similarity in writing style is uncanny.

Andrew said...

Brian, I have NEVER posted here as anonymous as I do not even read this blog. You are of course free to prove me wrong and verify the IP something you will find does not match. There is no "similarity" in writing style. Where have I ever used a lowercase "h" for "HaHa" to precede a sentence, let alone use "HaHa" remotely frequently? You are apparently not a linguist.

Do you REALLY think I am afraid to post here as Poptech? Seriously?

Brian, either support your libelous claim or retract it.

Andrew said...

So Brian, you really think it would have taken me over two days to respond to refuted arguments that I have pre-written rebuttals to if I was reading this blog? Some how this magical time warp has never happened anywhere else I have commented. Do you also believe in Santa? You want to allow anon posters fine, just don't lie about what I post.

Anonymous said...

Brian, just dump this crap. poptart will flood with dozens of posts a day, as he did at SkS, and Digg. "Thread hijacking" doesn't come close to describing it.

We all know his crap is worthless. Science is not overcome by his smothering technique of hurling insults and the like.

He's emotionally a young teen, and a bully.

Really, either tank him or people will just stop posting on threads here.

When he first started on the internet, people tried to explain why his "list" was bogus, and his response was merely to flood with dozens of posts calling people idiots and the like.

It won't end. The Firefox people learned that. Other open-source people learned that.

If you ban him, of course he'll post on his website that he's won, just as he did with SkS.

But in reality, no serious "skeptic" pays attention to him. And he sockpuppets, lies, etc. He is Andrew kahn. Etc etc.


Andrew said...

I've posted in exactly two threads here, this one where my list was brought up and the other one specifically addressing me. I have no interest in posting in any other threads unless I or my work is mentioned. I also would never have posted here if nothing factually untrue was stated about myself or the list.

Screaming and yelling that the list is "bogus" while simultaneously being unable to refute any of my rebuttals is not an argument.

I don't "flood" anything but directly respond to and rebut each argument. If you have a problem with being unable to defend your strawman arguments don't make them.

I was censored from Skeptical Science after thoroughly embarrassing them by educating them on how Google Scholar really works and catching Rob lying (he quickly edited his post). You are free to read it above in the, "Skeptical Science: The Censorship of Poptech".

The silence in response to all my factual rebuttals speaks to anyone intellectually honest reading this.

J Bowers said...

"Corporations are compatible with libertarian views and have nothing to do with coercion of the individual,"

LOL. If you're a member of the right-allied "Libertarian" Party. Libertarian Marxists, libertarian socialists and the Libertarian Left would probably disagree.

* What is left libertarianism?
* How is the Libertarian Left different?

"By being both anti-authoritarian and anti-corporate monopoly, Left Libertarians present a clean break from right-wing coalition of neo-cons, the Religious Right, and Big Business. In opposing the war, in promoting local control (which many Greens do), in fighting state-sanctioned corporate privilege, and in fighting to protect our civil liberties, the Libertarian Left has far more in common with the Left than with the Right as it is presently identified."

Sorry if that makes your eyes water.

Andrew said...

J Bowers, I am well aware of the international distortions and other oxymoronic uses of the term. What I am specifically referring to in this exercise is the U.S. based think tank's use of the term. (Free market based think tanks that reside outside of the U.S. and call themselves "libertarian" use the term the same way)

None of which changes my argument that these libertarian think tanks are neither politically right or left. Libertarian political ideology is effectively "Socially Liberal" (liberty) and "Economically Conservative" (free markets),

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Worlds-Smallest-Political-Quiz.PNG

J Bowers said...

Emergence of libertarian communism

"Published in 27 issues from June 9, 1858 to February 4, 1861, Le Libertaire was the first anarcho-communist journal published in America. This was the first anarchist journal to use the term "libertarian""

As opposed to anarcho-capitalists, many of whom grace the membership of self-described libertarian party UKIP. They even have a prominent anarcho-capitalist working for them in Brussels.

At the end of the day, Poptech, you may be a member of the Judean People's Front, but there are also the People's Front of Judea and the Popular Front of Judea to consider (splitters).

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

I would tend to agree with Anon above. Poptart is incapable of adding anything substantive to any debate. He simply doesn't have the intellectual firepower to even understand the papers or arguments he posts. He is thus led to fanatical defense against even the tiniest criticism for fear of having to abandon ground.

Poptart needs meds, not criticism. That or a good 12-step program.

Andrew said...

J Bowers, anarcho-communists (nothing to do with the U.S. think tanks use of the word Libertarian) have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalists. You don't even know what you are talking about. Yes their are "anarchist" liberatarians in the U.S. and they are NOT socialists or communist leaning. Regardless, none of those think tanks are anarcho-capitalist libertarians. I've already stated I am well aware of the international distortions of the term but it has nothing to do with the use of it by these think tanks which are NOT politically left or right. What part of that don't you understand?

Andrew said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
J Bowers said...

"J Bowers, anarcho-communists (nothing to do with the U.S. think tanks use of the word Libertarian) have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalists. You don't even know what you are talking about."

Reg, you seem to have misunderstood. I did not say anarcho-communists have anything to do with anarcho-capitalists. There is no hard definition of 'libertarianism' except in your feverish imagination. However, the overriding ideal that they all mostly agree on is that the state should not coerce the individual.

"...international distortions of the term"

You'd better tell that to UKIP's ex-deputy leader, science policy 'expert' and now Scotland leader, Christopher Monckton, and also to UKIP's Energy Spokesman, Roger Helmer MEP.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Poptart, I provided a definition of a climate scientist. It is not a bad definition. After all, if one's empirical studies are not guided by theory, one isn't really doing science. But then, you wouldn't know about doing science, would you.

What's the matter, Poptart? Did I use too many big words?

Andrew said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Andrew said...

J Bowers,

1. Are we discussing mainly U.S. based think tanks (or similar international ones)?

2. Are we discussing "libertarianism" as it relates to these think tanks?

The rest of your argument is meaningless red herrings.

Brian said...

Andrew/PT, I warned you about being obscene, now those comments are gone.

Anon and a-ray-in-DILBERT-space: if Andrew did this hijacking everywhere at RR then I'd ban him or talk to Eli about it. If he's really just doing it here and at one other thread then I'm not ready to do it (not sure if I believe him, but the other anon isn't totally hijacking threads).

Andrew said...

Brian, resorting to censoring my comments now like SS? Can't the big boy defend himself? I hope I did not make him cry.


Dil@o, you failed to provide objective criteria, "climate scientist - one who publishes with a coherent theory of his subject matter in mind."

Your inability to recognize when you are making a subjective statement is rather embarrassing.

Andrew said...

Brian, please explain how I am "hijacking this thread". So if ten people respond to one person and that person responds back it becomes "Hijacking"? Fascinating.

J Bowers said...

90% of Enviro Skeptic Books Have Think Tank Roots

"Following on earlier work by co-author Riley Dunlap and colleagues..."

Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement’s Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy. McCright & Dunlap.

"6. While there are various strands of contemporary conservatism (see, e.g., Lipset and Raab 1978), the term “ conservative movement” is typically used by social scientist — and the actors being studied — to represent the elite-driven network of private foundations, policy-planning think tanks, and individual intellectuals and activists that directly or indirectly attempt to advance social traditionalism and economic libertarianism on a national level (Diamond 1995; Himmelstein 1990). Thus, we follow the precedent of scholars in this area (e.g., Allen 1992; Gottfried 1993; Saloma 1984) by treating this conglomeration of actors and organizations as a singular movement."